HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 06/04/2012 .0„
"ehlt4
south urm ton
VERMONT
AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
City Hall
575 Dorset Street
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Executive & Continued Deliberated Session 4pm Monday, June 4, 2012
Consider entering executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations and litigation
and continue deliberated session on Interim Zoning applications.
Regular Session 6:00pm Monday, June 4, 2012
1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items.
2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda.
3. Announcements and City Manager's Report.
4. Consent Agenda:
a. ***Approve Minutes from April 30, May 14, 15, &21, 2012
b. ### Sign Disbursements.
c. *** Consider approval of Resolution Establishing the Pricing Structure for Recreation
Programs and Parks Facilities
d. *** Consider approval of Resolution to Transfer Appropriations.
5. *** Continue hearing on Interim Zoning application#IZ-12-01 of New England Federal Credit
Union for a planned unit development to: 1) raze an existing office building, and 2) construct a
3,920 sq. ft. drive-in-bank facility, 1000 Shelburne Road.
6. *** Continue hearing on Interim Zoning Application#IZ-12-02 of University Mall, LLC, to 1) raze
an existing commercial building, and 2) construct a 6,000 sq. ft. building to be used for shopping
center use, 205 Dorset Street.
7. *** Presentation and Council approval of the Chittenden Solid Waste District Proposed FY 2013
Budget(Paul Stabler, South Burlington CSWD Representative).
8. *** Interviews with candidates for appointments to boards, committees & commissions.
9. *** Consider a request to approve an Amendment to the South Burlington New Town Center
Boundary (Ilona Blanchard, Project Director).
10. *** Review Draft Letter Regarding City Council's Disapproval of F-35 Beddown at BIA
(Councilors)
11. Discussion of possible Steering Committee meeting for June 20th at 6:00pm at the Frederick H.
Tuttle Middle School (Councilors).
12. Other Business
a. Any items held from the Consent Agenda
b. Any items Council wishes to place on a future agenda
c. Other?
13. Consider entering executive session for discussion of personnel matters, litigation and real
property matters.
Respectfully 71:
Bob Rusten, Deputy City Manager
*** Attachments Included
### Attachments Sent Separately or Previously
South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines
The City Council Chair is presenting these guidelines for public participation and attendance at City Council meetings
in an effort to insure that everyone has a chance to be heard and meetings function as smoothly as possible.
1. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak. The Chair will make every effort to recognize the public in the
order in which hands are raised.
2. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to Council.
3. If the Council has suggested time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in
making sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Council to conduct business items.
4. In order for City Councilors and other members of the audience to hear speakers' remarks, side conversations
between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the Community Room
is available should people wish to chat more fully.
5. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do
not interrupt others when they are speaking.
6. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others.
7. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before
speakers address the Council for a second time.
8. Council desires to be as open and informal as possible within the construct that the Council meeting is an
opportunity for Councilors to discuss, debate and decide upon policy matters. Council meetings are not"town
meetings". To this end,after the public has had the opportunity to make comments,the Chair may ask that
discussion be among Councilors.
L
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRICING STRUCTURE
FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS AND PARKS FACILITIES
WHEREAS, it is the Mission of the Recreation & Parks Department to enhance the quality of
life of all citizens of our community by providing meaningful and fulfilling leisure time activities
and opportunities; and,
WHEREAS, a specific amount of money is budgeted annually for the provision of recreation
programs and parks facilities to meet the general needs of the community; and,
WHEREAS, basic services and facilities shall continue to be offered to City residents without
additional fees; and,
WHEREAS, due to the demand for services, operating and capital cost, and the amount of
available tax revenues, meeting the level of Recreation and Parks Services requested by citizens
is a continuing challenge; and,
WHEREAS, participation in most activities, and the use of facilities by groups, places an
additional financial burden on providing these programs and services; and,
WHEREAS, the Pricing Structure for Recreation Programs and Parks Facilities are established to
support the programs and services of the department, and provide additional maintenance of
facilities from the specific user(s); and,
WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt an official pricing structure to establish a set of fees for
charges that are fair and equitable for the use of facilities and equipment and the participation in
programs sponsored by the Recreation and Parks Department; and,
WHEREAS, the fee charged for use of public recreation programs and facilities shall be
comparable to the market rates and current fees being charged for like services in the local area;
and,
WHEREAS, non-residents shall pay an additional non-resident fee for participating in programs
and the reservation of facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to establish fees and charges to defray costs of operations
and maintenance within various departments; and,
WHEREAS, these fees and charges are presented to the City Council on an annual basis during
budget presentation by the Recreation &Parks Department; and,
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2013 voter-approved budget for Recreation &Parks is based on the
Pricing Structure for Recreation Programs and Parks Facilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the South Burlington City Council establishes the
fees and charges set forth in the attached Fiscal Year 2013 Pricing Structure for Recreation
Programs and Parks Facilities.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, the terms of this Resolution shall be effective July 1, 2012.
APPROVED this day of June, 2012.
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
Rosanne Greco, Chair Pam Mackenzie, Clerk
Helen Riehle, Vice Chair Sandra Dooley
Paul Engels
Fiscal year 2013 Pricing Structure for
Recreation & Parks Programs
Recreation Programs
Over 400 programs are conducted on a year-round basis. Many of these programs are run by
department staff, and all are supervised under the direction of department staff. Programs such as
youth soccer and basketball require the assistance of volunteer coaches. Other programs are provided
under a contract agreement with a third party, examples of these programs include Jazzercise,Zumba
Fitness, and Swim Lessons. The pricing structure varies depending on which of the above methods
pertains to a particular program or activity. Fees are evaluated on an annual basis and priced
competitively based on comparisons for other public programs in the surrounding area.
Programs offered and conducted by the department are calculated on a base fee of$5.00 per hour, per
session. Examples of these types of programs include Youth Gymnastics, Indoor Soccer, Adult Kayak
Clinic, and similar programs. All entrance fees, additional costs, and materials are factored into the
registration fee, or added separately to pay for these costs.
Selective youth programs such as Youth Basketball or Soccer range from $5-$8.00 per week. Factors
include the number of participants, duration, and frequency of program.
All program fees for non-residents are set at 20% higher than resident fees for all programs.
In regarded to contracted programs, a fee of$10.00 is added to the final cost after calculating the
instructor's pay or the organization's fees. Examples of these programs include Yoga Class, Youth Art
Classes, Dance Programs, etc. The fee is either based on a flat rate on a per person, per hour, per
session basis, or a %of program fee ranging from 10-25% based on the amount of indirect costs to our
department. All material fees are added into the cost, or charged separately.
There is no increase in recreation program fees from FY12 to FY13.
Camp Programs — Fiscal Year 2013 Recreation Budget Based on This Fee Increase
There is roughly a $3.00 a week increase for all Camp Programs from FY12 to FY13. For example, day
camp registration fees are increasing from $2.50/hr. to $2.55/hr. beginning with FY13 camp programs.
Non-resident fees are set at 20% higher than resident fees.
Camp Programs are largely grouped into four basic categories- Day &Adventure Camps, Sports Camps,
Computer Camps, and Specialty Camps.
Pricing structure for camps includes all camp fees, materials, and entrance fees for field trip programs.
Camp Pricing Structure:
•
Day& Adventure Camps FY12 FY13
Rec. Camp $2.50/hr $2.55/hr
Little Explorer $3.50/hr $3.55/hr
Adventure Camps $4.50/hr $4.55/hr
Sports Camps
Contracted Director receives$50 pp, Recreation Dept. receives$25 pp
Fee is approximately$5.00/hr. FY 2012 $22 pp FY 2013 $25pp
Computer Camps
Same as fee for Sports Camps, added charge for use of computers ($1.80/hr.) . FY 2012 $22pp
FY 2013 $25pp
Specialty Camps
This fee is based on instructor's fee to run the camp and provide materials/equipment. . FY
2012$22ppFY 2013 $25pp Recreation adds$25 to final cost.
FIELD USE FEES
There is no fee increase in field use fees from FY12 to FY13.
There are no charges for school district teams or South Burlington youth organizations.
Baseball/Softball Fields $15/hr for LL & Softball
$20/hr for Babe Ruth Field
Soccer/Lacrosse Fields $40 hr. practice - $60/game
Football/Rugby Field $40/hr. practice - $60/game
Use of Field Lights $35per use
Tournaments $125 Fee + $30 per team fee
Field use fee TBD
Maintenance worker and/or police officer salaries if
required
Camps $125 Fee + $3pp resident, $5pp non-resident charge for
use of field areas TBD
OTHER (NON-ATHLETIC EVENTS)
FIELDS & OPEN SPACE AREAS
Non-profit organizations holding events in Parks $125 Registration Fee for Event
$1 per person in attendance at
Event Maintenance and/or security
salaries-actual cost
Use of fields & other requirements
TBD
Certificate of Insurance
Use of power/electricity (see below)
Portable toilets for 300+
Garbage removal cost TBD
Tents/lnflatables or other cost TBD
Off-site parking required for 400+ at
Dorset Park
For-Profit organizations holding events in Parks Not allowed unless special approval
from Director of Recreation & Parks
Vendors receiving permit for food/service $50 fee + 20% of sales
Proposed schedule/use based on
signed contract
Charge for use of power is additional Minimum $20,1/2 day $40,full day $60
Misc. Use Granted at the discretion of the
Recreation Dir., fees assigned as
appropriate.
BUILDING USE-Rental
O'Brien Civic Center $30 for 2 hrs. minimum, $10/hr. each
additional hr.
CITY COUNCIL 30 APRIL 2012
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 30 April
2012, at 5:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St.
Members Present: R. Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, P. Engels, P. Mackenzie, H. Riehle
Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; S. Dopp, B.
Goldberg, J. Olesky, S. Brennan, S. McIntyre, R. Hughes
1. Agenda Review:
No changes or additions were made.
2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to agenda items:
Ms. Dopp asked if there has been any progress in contacting land trusts, etc, regarding
overseeing the Wheeler Nature Park. Mr. Miller said that Paul Conner has contacted
two trusts. One is interested in talking with the city, and one hasn't responded. He
suggested Ms. Dopp talk with Mr. Conner for more details.
3. Announcements & City Manager's Report:
Mr. Miller: Served as convener for the ECOS Steering Committee. A lot was
accomplished.
Was contacted by Ms. Dooley regarding a visit from officials of the Republic of
Georgia. They will be in the city on Thursday.
Ms. Mackenzie: Attended the Champlain Housing Trust breakfast last week.
There is a conference on 8 May regarding broadband availability and its
contributions to economic development.
Ms. Riehle: Met with Ms. Greco and the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning
Commission and had a good discussion with them.
Went to the VLCT training on Saturday at Lake Morey. She suggested that in
the future the City Council meet with councils and select boards of similar sized
communities.
Ms. Dooley: Attended the legislative forum.
Will be attending the DARE graduation tomorrow.
CITY COUNCIL
30 APRIL 2012
PAGE 2
Ms. Greco: Went to ECOS with Mr. Miller.
On Friday, walked some of the parcel east of the Wheeler Natural Park. There is
a group interested in possible agricultural use.
Will attend the Police Recognition Dinner on Friday.
Spoke with Jim Knapp regarding affordable housing. He will provide Mr. Miller
with information and should have something within the next few weeks.
Mr. Engels: The training regarding hearing IZ applications with Cathy LaRose was very
helpful.
All members attended a dinner together.
Ms. Dopp reminded members and others that Saturday is Green-Up Day.
4. Consent Agenda:
There were no items on the Consent Agenda.
5. Training on Criteria and Site Plan Review for IZ Applications:
Ms. LaRose said staff did its best to draft comments that will put the criteria in front of
the Council.
Mr. Conner gave members copies of a site plan (from an already closed application).
Ms. LaRose reviewed the site elements including wetland buffers, property lines, roads,
etc. Mr. Miller noted that if roads are built to city standards; the city will accept them; if
they are not, the city won't.
Ms. LaRose said there are 3 actions the Council can take:
1- close the hearing
2. Continue the hearing to another date
3. Make a decision.
She noted that when a hearing is closed, no more testimony can be taken. That also
starts the clock, and a decision must be made within 45 days. A hearing may be
continued to get ore information or to review options. If a hearing is continued, a date
must be set for the continued hearing. As long as testimony is still being taken, the clock
does not start.
CITY COUNCIL
30 APRIL 2012
PAGE 3
Ms. Dopp asked if deliberative sessions are open to the public. Ms. LaRose said they are
private.
Ms. Greco asked if there is anything the Council can't ask. Ms. LaRose said they are
limited in scope to the criteria that are laid out. Ms. Greco asked if they can ask about
the cost of housing. Mr. Conner said it must relate to current criteria. He recommended
they first ask how an applicant is meeting affordable housing criteria. They should stick •
to "affordable rather than a price point."
Ms. Riehle asked if all designs use the same kind of legend. Ms. LaRose said most of
them do, but they can be different.
6. Discuss when to meet in Deliberative Session regarding the U.S. 2
Widening/Sheraton 3rd Lane Project Necessity Hearing that was held on 16 April
2012:
Members agreed to hold this session on a regular meeting night.
7. Discuss the procedure for reviewing minutes prior to Council meetings:
This discussion was postponed.
8. Discuss when to schedule the Steering Committee meeting in May:
Mr. Miller noted the School Board recommends against a 5 p.m. start and would like to
meet on a night other than when a Council or School Board meeting is scheduled.
Members agreed on Tuesday 22 May at 5:30 or 6 p.m. Mr. Miller will check with the
School Board to see if this is OK with them.
Mr. Conner suggested following that meeting with a joint City Council/Planning
Commission meeting.
Items 9 and 10 were postponed to allow the public hearings to begin as scheduled.
11. Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-01 of New England Federal Credit
Union for a Planned Unit Development to: 1) raze an existing office building, and 2)
construct a 3,920 sq. ft. drive-in bank facility, 1000 Shelburne Road:
Ms. Greco reviewed the criteria for an "interested party."
CITY COUNCIL
30 APRIL 2012
PAGE 4
Mr. Olesky said the property is located on the corner of Laurel Hill Drive. It is now a
shared facility with lease space to tenants. It currently has 2 curb cuts and a third access
through a connection with the lot to the south (via informal agreements).
The intent of the project is to update the site. They will decrease the size of the building
to 4850 sq. ft.. They currently don't meet the front yard setback. They will retain that
non-conformance in order to separate the commercial use from the residential use. They
will eliminate the western curb cut and widen the eastern curb cut. They will also create
a drive-up to the ATM which currently doesn't exist.
Mr. Olesky indicated the parking lot and spaces for employees. There will be a new
concrete sidewalk, and the sidewalk on the south side of Laurel Hill Drive will be
extended to the property line. There will also be a pedestrian path from Laurel Hill
Drive. The main entrance to the building will be on the east side of the building.
Parking lot drainage will be upgraded.
Mr. Olesky showed the location of a screened dumpster and 6 light poles. He noted
there will be a lot of landscaping along the property line abutting the residential lot. The
existing fence will be maintained there as will the mature trees.
The final plat has been approved by the DRB.
Ms. Dooley questioned the adequacy of the turning radius. Mr. Olesky said it has been
run through a program and has been found to be adequate.
Ms. Greco noted an increase of 36 peak hour trip ends. Mr. Olesky explained that the
calculation comes from the ITE manual which gives more numbers to drive-ins. He
didn't feel there will be any increase in the customer base, and there will be 8 or 9 fewer
staff people with the elimination of the tenant. Mr. Olesky also noted that the property
falls in the traffic overlay zone now, but with the reduction of the curb cut and pulling the
building away from Shelburne Road, it will no longer fall under the overlay.
Ms. Dooley questioned the bike rack in the back of the building. Mr. Olesky said that
has been relocated to the Shelburne Rd. side.
Mr. Brennan then showed the floor plan with the entries meeting in a lobby area. The
portion of the building along Shelburne Rd. is 2 stories. It then"steps down"to one.
He also showed elevations and said the building will have a"heavier" look to the bottom
and a use of"lighter"materials to the top. It will be a LEAD certified building. There
will be windows for everyone.
CITY COUNCIL
30 APRIL 2012 •
PAGE 5
Regarding landscaping, Mr. Brennan noted that plantings will delineate between this
property and the hotel property. The "glass corner"will really show up with
landscaping. There will also be landscaping between the driveway and the parking area.
A lot of landscaping money has been used for the buffer between this property and the
adjacent residential property.
Mr. Young asked the height of the building. Mr. Brennan said it will be no taller than
the existing building.
Ms. Dooley asked if any neighbors came to the DRB hearing. Ms. LaRose said there
were some questions from the hotel property people to the south.
No other issues were raised.
Ms. Mackenzie then moved to hold a deliberative session following the open session.
Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Dooley moved to continue the hearing until 21 May 2012. Ms. Riehle seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
12. Application #IZ-12-02 of University Mall, LLC, to 1) raze an existing
commercial building, and 2) construct a 6,000 sq. ft. building to be used for
shopping center use, 205 Dorset Street:
Mr. Conner noted that the applicant is no longer including a drive-in bank. It is now 2
retail stores with no bank.
Ms. McIntyre said the property is at the southern entrance to the Mall and is a separate
parcel which is accessed through the Mall property. The plan is to demolish the existing
building and relocate the existing ATM. They will then build a new retail building.
They will change as little as possible of the entrance drives, Dorset Street, parking, etc.
They would reduce some pavement and add more green space to be more pedestrian
friendly.
Ms. McIntyre said they are asking for a waiver to move the building to 15 feet from the
property line so it is more accessible to the sidewalk.
Three new sidewalks are proposed: one on the southern entrance drive, one to the north
side of the proposed building (which will serve the handicapped access), and one in the
area where the ATM will be relocated. There will be a 15-foot landscape buffer on
Dorset Street.
CITY COUNCIL
30 APRIL 2012
PAGE 6
Ms. McIntyre noted that the DRB supports the parking waiver.
This lot will be added to the PUD which will increase lot coverage from 31.2% to 31.4%.
They are anticipating two 3,000 sq. ft. retail spaces. There will be 2 entrances off Dorset
St. and 2 off the rear of the building. The building would be twice the distance back
from Dorset St. as it is now. The retaining wall will be gone, and there will be
landscaping to make it more attractive.
Ms. Riehle asked if one retail store could take the whole building. Mall representatives
said they are trying for as much flexibility as possible. They currently have interest for
half the building.
Ms. Dooley said she was concerned if this non-conforming lot were to be taken out of the
PUD. Ms. LaRose said if that were to happen, it would have to become a conforming
use and lot.
Ms. Greco stressed that this is at the entrance to the City Center. Ms. McIntyre said that
is the reason to take the old building down.
Mr. Young asked about the flat roof. The Mall representative said they like the look of a
pitched room, but the question is how to screen the HVAC equipment, etc.
Mr. Stuono noted this application has not yet been to the DRB in this form. Ms. LaRose
said the identical application must go to both boards at some time.
Ms. McIntyre asked when they will know that they satisfy the standards. She cited the
expense of moving forward. Ms. Greco said the Council will not drag anything out.
Ms. Dooley moved to enter deliberative session. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Ms. Dooley moved to continue IZ application#IZ-12-02 until 21 May 2012. Mr. Engels
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Greco said the Council will deliberate between now and 21 May and will let staff
know if they have any questions.
Other Business:
Ms. Dooley thanked Ms. Greco for sharing the affordable housing report. She said the
question in her mind is whether what Jim Knapp plans encompasses regulatory changes.
CITY COUNCIL
30 APRIL 2012
PAGE 7
She suggested putting this on the next agenda for discussion. Ms. Mackenzie suggested
asking Mr. Knapp.
Ms. Dooley moved to put the question of Mr. Knapp's affordable housing plans on the
next agenda. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed 3-2 with Mr. Greco and Ms.
Mackenzie voting against.
13. Consider entering executive session for discussion of personnel matters,
litigation and real property matters.
Ms. Greco moved to executive session to discuss personnel matters, litigation and real
property matters. Ms. Riehle second.
14. Regular Session:
The Council returned to regular session. Ms. Greco moved adjournment. Ms. Riehle
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The council adjourned.
Clerk
CITY COUNCIL 14 MAY 2012
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 14 May
2012, at 3:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St.
Members Present: R. Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, P. Engels, P. Mackenzie, H. Riehle
Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager;. P. Conner,
Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, Planning Department; I. Blanchard, City
Staff; B. Stuono, R. Provost, A. &A. Irish, L. Williams, R. Myers
1. Agenda Review:
No changes were made.
2. Consent Agenda:
A. Consider approval of waivers regarding litigation and authorize
Chair to execute, with:
1. McNeil, Leddy & Sheahan
2. RHR Smith & Associates
3. Kittell, Branagan & Sargent
Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
3. Discuss Procedure for Developing Possible Public Position for City Council
re: the F-35 DEIS:
Mr. Miller said the question is whether there is time for the Council to draft a position
within the response timeline. The Council could ask staff to develop a position or could
hold a special meeting. Mr. Miller also noted that because of a hearing to take place in
Maine, there may be an extension to the response time until mid-June. This would give
the Council more time since there is another Council meeting in between.
Ms. Dooley said she got a call from Ed Garvey who noted there is money available for
noise-proofing and insulation in affected homes. Ms. Dooley said she told him the
money in the noise program can be used for insulation. She then reviewed the history of
the switch from the 70 to 65 DNL line. The Airport went to the homeowners first, which
put the city in a difficult position. Ms. Dooley added that it looks like even without the
F-35s, the F-16s are producing a larger noise area than previously thought.
Ms. Dooley said that she didn't feel the Council had to take a position; they could just say
that if the F-35s are based here, there should be resources provided for noise mitigation.
Mr. Miller said they could say "whether or not the F-35s are based here."
CITY COUNCIL
14 MAY 2012
PAGE 2
Ms. Riehle said she felt the city should take a position. She would also want to know if
noise mitigation money is available for schools as Chamberlin School would be involved.
Mr. Engels said he didn't feel the Council should take a position as it is a"politically
loaded situation."
Ms. Greco felt it was the Council's responsibility to take a position because of the
neighborhoods involved.
Ms. Mackenzie agreed with Mr. Engels.
Ms. Dooley agreed with Ms. Greco and Ms. Riehle.
Mr. Stuono said the Council should go through the EIS as "the devil is in the details."
He also felt a lot of information is lacking. He suggested the Planning Commission also
look into this and that they be directed to read the document.
4. Consider dates for iPod Training and iPad set up:
Ms. Blanchard said the training would take about 2 hours and would involved working
with a trainer from Verizon. This will cover all the software for a"paperless"meeting.
Members agreed to hold the training on 22 May, 5 p.m. at Verizon with a backup date of
23 May at 5 p.m.
5. Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-03 of Robert L. Provost to subdivide a
0.57 acre lot developed with two single family dwellings into two lots, 27 Birch
Street:
Mr. Provost said he bought a double lot about 7 years ago and got a PUD approval for his
home with an accessory apartment. He is proposing to subdivide the rear lot as the bank
says this is the best way to get financing.
Mr. Engels asked why Mr. Provost got a PUD. Mr. Provost said he thought it made
sense at the time. He wanted to have his daughters come home and have a place to live.
They now live out of state, and his thought is to either subdivide and develop it or to sell
and move on. He said he should just have subdivided it in the first place.
Ms. Dooley asked how it became one lot. Mr. Provost said the PUD process required
that. Ms. Dooley asked if Mr. Provost built the garage. He said he did not. Ms
Dooley asked if the structure meets all setbacks/coverages. Mr. Provost said it does.
CITY COUNCIL
14 MAY 2012
PAGE 3
Ms. Riehle asked about the mobile home on the property. Mr. Provost said that is gone
now. Ms. Riehle asked if the rear property could be a single residence. Mr. Provost
said it is now. Ms. Riehle asked if it could be expanded. Mr. Provost said now that the
mobile home is gone and there is less lot coverage, it could be expanded in the future.
Ms. LaRose noted that in the original application it was 2 lots. At the time of the PUD,
it was one lot in city records. Staff will need to re-evaluate this because of the removal
of the mobile home. Ms. LaRose said she was not sure this application will create 2
conforming lots. Mr. Provost had that information and provided it to the Council. Ms.
LaRose stressed that each lot has to conform. Mr. Provost said setbacks and coverages
will meet the criteria.
Ms. Irish, a neighbor, noted there is a bathroom in the rear of the garage.
Ms. Dooley asked if an accessory apartment can be a separate structure. Ms. LaRose
said it can be.
Ms. Mackenzie then moved to deliberate on IZ application IZ-13-03 on 4 June 2012, at 4
p.m. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Mackenzie then moved to continue IZ-13-03 until 18 June 2012. Ms. Riehle
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
6. Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-04 of Larry & Leslie Williams to
amend a planned unit development consisting of a six lots into 10 lots for a total of
11 units, 1630 Dorset Street:
Mr. Williams reviewed the history of the proposed project. He noted that in 2007 he got
subdivision approval for 6 lots (their existing home plus 5 additional lots). They then
went to Act 250 for approval. Then the market"softened" and they waited until last
summer to look at this again. The recommendation of the builders at that time was to
avoid multi-family buildings. They then met with the DRB which didn't like the lot in
the corner. They are now proposing 11 units on 10 lots with a duplex unit in front of the
corner lot, leaving that open.
Mr. Conner noted that the DRB has seen a sketch plan of this proposal. He noted that
any approval by the Council or DRB would have to be mirrored by the other body. Mr.
Miller said that if the Council approves and the DRB makes a change, it would have to
come back to the Council.
CITY COUNCIL
14 MAY 2012
PAGE 4
Ms. Dooley asked the relationship to the Highlands area. Mr. Conner said he didn't
think there was any connection. They are both in a north/south orientation, but this is
quite a bit west of Highlands.
Mr. Williams said they would connect to municipal sewer and the mound system septic
would go. The street would be a public street.
Ms. Greco asked if there is an expiration to the prior approval. Mr. Conner said there is
not.
Mr. Engels asked what the homes might look like. Mr. Williams said they are thinking
of a"farm style."
Ms Greco asked if they had considered something other than building because of the
prime ag soils. Mr. Williams said the State did not consider they needed any mitigation
because the prime ag soils are so fragmented on the site.
Ms. Greco asked what the"tipping point"is for water, sewer, schools, etc. Mr. Conner
said there is already an approval so there is no increase.
Ms. Dooley questioned the wetland buffer where it is only 25 feet. Mr. Williams said
this is a class 2 wetland.
Mr. Engels suggested a community garden on the open land.
A neighbor was concerned that this would bring development closer to them and damage
what they've done for their home. The were concerned with storm water runoff into
their gardens. Mr. Williams said the slope drains away from that property, and there is a
substantial hedge and tree line between the properties. The neighbor said you can see
through the chain link fence.
Ms. Greco suggested combining agriculture and affordable housing with the project as
that is what Interim Zoning is about.
Ms. Dooley then moved to deliberate on 4 June 2012. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
Ms. Dooley moved to continue the application until 18 June 2012. Ms. Riehle seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL
14 MAY 2012
PAGE 5
7. Other Business:
No issues were raised.
8. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to Agenda Items:
No issues were raised.
9. Executive Session:
Ms. Mackenzie moved that the Council meet in executive session to discuss personnel
and real estate transactions and to resume regular session only for the purpose of
adjournment. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Regular Session:
The Council returned to regular session. Ms. Greco moved adjournment. Ms. Reihle
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The council adjourned.
Clerk
CITY COUNCIL 15 MAY 2012
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 May
2012, at 4:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St.
Members Present: R. Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, P. Engels, P. Mackenzie, H. Riehle
Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Assistant City Manager; P. Conner,
Director of Planning & Zoning; I. Blanchard, City Staff; A. Lafferty, City Attorney
1. Agenda Review:
Mr. Miller noted receipt of a communication from the City Attorney. He suggested the
Council go on to items 3 and 4 until the City Attorney can be present.
3. What information does the City Council need in preparation for their
discussion on 21 May regarding the airport and F35 Draft EIS?:
Ms. Greco said a resident raised a question about the matrix used in making decisions and
wanted information about other matrixes.
Mr. Engels asked what jurisdiction the city has with regard to the EIS. Mr. Miller said
the city can provide comments just as any citizen can.
Mr. Miller also noted that there is a question of Channel 17 taping the 21 May meeting as
they will be doing the DRB meeting which follows the Council meeting, and there isn't
time in the schedule for another South Burlington meeting. Members agreed to put this
issue on another agenda.
Ms. Dooley noted that in 2012, the City Council took a negative position on the Airport
Strategic Plan based on there being nothing in the plan regarding noise mitigation. The
Council opposed any expansion that did not provide for noise mitigation. Ms. Dooley
noted that in the paper today, the EIS has a totally different baseline from what the
Airport is using. She said she would be interested in knowing what the Airport has to
say about that.
Mr. Miller said the meeting on the 21st is for the Council to develop a position. He
stressed that this would not be a public hearing, though the Council can entertain public
comment.
4. Comments & Questions from the audience, not related to Agenda items:
No issues were raised.
CITY COUNCIL
15 MAY 2012
PAGE 2
5. Interim Zoning and Related Administrative and Structural Issues:
A. Economic Analyses:
1. Review of responses to the economic analyses' RFP
2. Does Council wish to formalize a structure or committee for
the economic analyses studies and related tasks? If so, how should this be done?
B. SusAg, Affordable Housing and Form Based Codes:
1. Status of RFPs for SusAg,Affordable Housing and possibly,
Form Based Codes
2. Does Council wish to formalize a structure for Sustainable
Agriculture and Affordable Housing Committees? If so, how should this be done?
C. Discussion about affordable housing regulatory approaches:
Mr. Miller said staff has reviewed the responses to the RFP for economic analyses and
has found that none of the applicants were acceptable. He felt there may have been a
lack of clarity in the RFP. He suggested taking a time out on this so staff can
concentrate on the RFPs for Affordable Housing, SusAg, and possibly Form Based
Codes. When the new person is on board, they can then come up with some ideas on the
economic analysis RFPs. At present, there are not the staff resources to do more.
Members were OK with this.
With regard to the SusAg committee, Ms. Greco reported they had held their
organizational meeting last week with 29 people attending. They agreed to form a
process committee to deteiiiiine how to conduct future meetings.
Ms. Dooley said that she sees Interim Zoning as a time to deal with Comprehensive Plan
goals and LDR tools. She felt a lot of the energy and knowledge of the people in the
SusAg committee will be to "take the goals and run."
Ms. Riehle asked the time-frame to get a regulation into place. Mr. Conner explained
the process, including vetting by the Planning Commission and 2 City Council public
hearings. He estimated a 3-month time period from the time a regulation is first
presented to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Miller noted that Ms. Greco has circulated a vision, etc., for SusAs and this has never
been adopted by the Council. He asked if the Council wants to adopt that. He also
noted that any committee or sub-committee formed by the City Council has to follow the
open meeting laws.
Ms. Dooley said she felt there should be a clear message regarding possible changes to
CITY COUNCIL
15 MAY 2012
PAGE 3
the Comprehensive Plan and time frames. She felt a message is needed that the first
priority is how to change the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs.
Mr. Engels asked if the Council can only make changes to the Comprehensive Plan and
LDR's that relate to the interim zoning goals. Mr. Miller said they can consider other
changes,but not in the realm of interim zoning.
Mr. Miller stressed that there will have to be formal studies as well as the committee
work. He asked Council to let staff know anything more they will need as soon as
possible.
Ms. Riehle said what would be helpful for the RFP would be for the Council to review
revisions, priorities, etc., and adopt them and structure what they want outcomes to be.
She said she would like specific recommendations of changes to the Comprehensive Plan
and LDRs that would make those outcomes happen. She felt the committees could do
research and then task the consultants. Mr. Miller said he wasn't sure what the task
forces (committees) and consultants will be doing because the Council hasn't charged
them with anything specific. He added that if the Council will charge the committee, it
would help staff to draft an RFP. Mr. Rusten added that there are different levels of
agriculture, for example (e.g., farming, vegetables, etc.). It would help to tell the
committee what level the Council is interested in.
Regarding affordable housing, Ms. Mackenzie noted she had spoken with Mr. Knapp. All
but three of the participants have been identified and include: Champlain Housing Trust,
banking, real estate, economic development, rural development, etc. The next steps will
be to finalize the last 3 slots for participants.
Mr. Engels said he felt affordable housing was not working well with Mr. Knapp not
being at the Council meetings. He said there are obvious people for the committee who
are not on the list and said someone from the Council should be overseeing this. Ms.
Dooley volunteered to do this.
Mr. Miller said it needs to be clear if the Council wants to approve membership on the
committees. He recommended they do this.
Ms. Dooley suggested people like Deb Ingram, the Affordable Housing Coalition, and
Champlain Valley OEO. She said the committee needs advocates and developers who
have done affordable housing.
Ms. Mackenzie said people who have ideas
CITY COUNCIL
15 MAY 2012
PAGE 4
Ms. Riehle moved to appoint Ms. Dooley as chair of the Affordable Housing Committee.
Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. .Engels felt there should be discussion on form based codes and how that will evolve.
Mr. Miller said there should be an agenda item to present options on how to proceed with
form based codes and how to pay for it. Mr. Conner said there are 2 parts to the
question: 1) completing the process underway now, and 2) expanding the study of form
based codes to other parts of the city. Mr. Miller asked if the Council wants to expand
the study, do they want staff to negotiate with the current consultant.
Mr. Conner noted that with regard to the current form based codes project, the Planning
Commission felt it got a lot of good information from the community and suggested a
committee with residents, Council, landowners, Commission members as a
sub-committee of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Engels said he was willing to take responsibility for form based codes.
Ms. Dooley moved to appoint Mr. Engels as chair of the form based codes study. Ms.
Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Conner added that the Planning Commission felt it might be appropriate for a single
consultant to work on other parts of the city as well as City Center, but to do it in
segments.
6. Other Business:
Ms. Dooley offered members excerpts from prior Council meetings regarding the
National Gardening Association.
7. Deliberative Session:
Ms. Riehle moved that the Council meet in deliberative session with the City Attorney to
discuss applications under Interim Zoning, and to resume regular session only for the
purpose of adjournment. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Regular Session:
The Council returned to regular session. Ms. Greco moved adjournment. Ms. Riehle
seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The council adjourned.
Clerk
CITY COUNCIL 21 MAY 2012
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 21 May
2012, at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St.
Members Present: R. Greco, Chair; S. Dooley, P. Engels, P. Mackenzie, H. Riehle
Also Present: S. Miller, City Manager; R. Rusten, Deputy City Manager; D. Kinville,
City Clerk; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Rabidoux, Public Works
Director; J. Ladd, City Manager's Staff;Col. Joel Clark, Lt. Col. C. Cudo, Lt. Col D.
Finnegan,A Wright, G. Richards, R. McEwing, B. StuonoJ. Buck, D. Deslauriers, G.
Maille, P. &R. Nowak, J. Schwartz, J. Randazzso, L. Leavens, E. Mench, J. Floyd, L.
Ventris, P. Taylor, S. Howe, R. Reno J. Nicholson, S. Trono, M. Young, M. Emery, S.
Quest, W. Finard, S. McIntyre
1. Agenda Review:
No changes or additions were made.
2. Comments & Questions from the Audience not related to agenda items:
Mr. Maille: Noted that on 20 April 2009, the City Council passed a motion to allow 20
more homes to be purchased by the Airport(vote of 3-1) along with a sound monitoring
plan which would require research to be done to find an appropriate sound monitoring
company. He asked the Council to identify when that will be done.
Mr. Deslauriers: Regarding a letter from the FAA regarding questions of the guidelines
for addressing - the Airport's response for reducing noise can include design, noise
abatement, and airport use.
3. Announcements & City Manager's Report:
Mr. Miller: The City has hired Kimberly Murray as Planning Coordinator.
The Legislature has removed the requirement for local governments to deal with
animals that attack other animals, etc. Legislation has also removed the requirement for
the state to bury those who die indigent.
Ms. Dooley: Attended the Regional Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday. The
RPC's plan for the year was approved. One citizen was opposed to the Regional Plan's
promotion of bicycle usage.
4. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of 23 April 2012
B. Sign Disbursements
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 2
C. Consider adopting agreed upon procedures for Councilors
D. Consider approval of Council priorities from Council workshop
E. Consider approval of an entertainment permit for: Go America Go
Beverages at Sheraton Hotel, 23 May, 5-7 p.m.
Ms. Dooley asked that the City Council procedures be removed from the Consent
Agenda.
Ms. Dooley then moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented with the removal of
item#C. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
5. Council Discussion Regarding Possible Position on the F-35 Draft EIS
Report and Proposed Beddown Program:
Ms. Greco thanked members of the Air National Guard the Airport officials fro accepting
an invitation to attend this meeting. She noted this meeting is the Council's opportunity
to discuss this issue and is not a public hearing. There will be an opportunity for public
input for any new information.
Ms. Dooley asked for confirmation of the deadline for filing comments on the EIS. Mr.
Wright said comments must be postmarked by 20 June 2012. Ms. Dooley questioned
why comments would not be received via e-mail. Mr. Wright said the act says "written
comment," and he felt this is only because the Air Force hasn't caught up with
technology as yet.
Ms. Dooley commented that in terms of developing the EIS, it doesn't seem that what has
been learned from other parts of the country regarding noise in relation to residential
areas and schools has been taken into account. An Air Guard member said this is not
something they have taken a lot of time to look at. They could possibly do some
research or work with representatives of communities regarding what they can control
(e.g., number of days they fly, times they fly, etc.). Ms. Dooley asked how long that
might take. The response was they could possibly have something in a week.
Mr. Miller noted that at the previous meeting there was a question about posting a map of
the affected areas. He said he asked the EIS consultant, Nick Germanos, for data maps
and this request was refused, so the city can't provide it to the public. Ms. Greco asked
if the Guard could help the city get that map. Mr. Wright said he would talk to Mr.
Germanos.
Ms. Greco noted she had talked to Mr. Germanos regarding the scoring matrix by which
South Burlington was chosen. Mr. Germanos said he didn't have it and said the city,
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 3
should ask the State's Senators for this.
A Guard officer said there is a way to ask for that through the Public Affairs Office. He
noted that in 2009 the Department of Defense looked at all military installations in terms
of:
A. Mission(air space, training space,weather, etc.)
B. Costs (to improve facilities, etc.)
C. capacity
D. Military considerations
E. Environmental issues
He then showed a map of the country with air space boundaries for military aircraft. He
noted that air space in the Burlington area does not have much commercial traffic to
impede military training. He also indicated other areas that fall into this category.
Burlington facilities are also very well maintained and do not require high costs. The
proximity of the base to the air space is also a positive factor for this area.
Ms. Dooley noted that on page 70 of the executive summary the indication is that the
affected residential area would increase by 62% to 80%. Locations such as Hill,
Jacksonville, McIntyre, Mountain Home, and Shaw would all show a decrease in affected
residential areas. Ms. Dooley said that in terms of human impact, more information is
needed since the impact is so much greater here than elsewhere.
Guard officers responded that the 7 "noise receptors" (Chamberlin School, Community
Lutheran Church and residences on Shunpike Rd., Patchen Road, Airport area, Valley
Ridge and Shamrock Rd.) would all show a decrease under both scenarios 1 and 2, with
the exception of Valley Ridge which would increase by 1 dbl under scenario one and 2
dbl under scenario 2 and Shamrock Road which would increase by 1 dbl under scenario
2.
Ms. Dooley noted that the baseline was entirely new and was not the same as the FAA
system for determining a baseline. Guard officers explained the change of engine to a
more powerful engine which was used in the 2005 study. He added that the forecast
noise based on take-offs. Ms. Greco noted that the Air Force provided the FAA an
estimate of what the noise level would be based on the configuration of the.F-16 with one
outside fuel tank. That estimate was used to draw the 65 db line. What happened in
reality is that there had to be 2 external fuel tanks. That is the difference between the
2006 noise estimate and what is actually happening today. Ms. Greco added that the
FAA has to do its own study based on what the Air Force has told them regarding noise.
Mr. McEwing said they are updating the noise exposure maps using the FAA
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 4
methodology. There will be noise exposure maps for that in about 6-9 months.
Ms. Dooley then read from the School Board letter of response to the EIS. Mr.
McEwing responded that the Airport has no intention of changing the noise compatibility
program and will not change the boundary.
Ms. Greco noted that in an appendix to the EIS report where they talk about the impact
on homes, it says that property within a noise zone (65 dbl)may be affected by the
availability of federal loans. According to HUD, the FHA, etc., these sites will not be
acceptable for insurance, subsidies, etc. The recommendation is for sound attenuation
and written disclosure of the 65 dbl locations.
Mr. McEwing said the contours haven't changes and people have been selling their
homes. Ms. Greco responded that the rules have changed.
Ms. Riehle noted that Winooski and Williston are also affected by this, and there is an
•
issue in Maine and New York state where these planes will fly for training. She asked
how this is all "packaged"together. Mr. Wright said this is all taken into account and
combined with public comment. He stressed that getting written comment in is
important.
Ms. Riehle asked what plans there are for mitigation of noise beyond what is done now.
A Guard officer responded that they have noise abatement procedures but also have to
take into consideration safety concerns. With the F-16's they have to use the afterburner
for take-offs. They have adjusted landings and recovery options (6-7 miles off the
runways; keeping power back as long as possible, etc.). They don't fly on Mondays, and
they land before 10 p.m. and don't take off before 7 a.m. They also don't fly on
Sundays, or if they have to, it is after noon.
Ms. Riehle asked about new noise mitigation by the Airport. They say they won't
change the lines, but in fact, the lines would change. Mr. McEwing said they would like
to see a 25-30 food mound planed with evergreens, etc., for noise mitigation. He felt
that would take care of ground noise from generators, planes that taxi, etc.
Mr. Richards, Chair of the Airport Commission, said they are very committed to opening
a dialogue. They need to get back to practical things to give people relief. He noted a
meeting that occurred last week with Mr. Miller and Ms. Greco, and the hope is to
improve relations with South Burlington and "do what we have to do." He felt what is
needed is a"compromise we can all live with." He stressed that the Commission is
committed to listening to South Burlington concerns.
CITY COUNCIL
21 May 2012
PAGE 5
Mr. Engels asked to be "walked through"the affected neighborhoods. Ms. Buck said the
neighborhoods include all of the Chamberlin School neighborhood, 20% of Mayfair Park,
and a corner of Williston. She noted this involves 1000 to 1300 more homes than what
the airport had previously indicated.
Mr. Engels asked if the Guard does "touch and go" exercises here. The response was no.
The can do low approaches but don't plan to do this with F-35's.
Mr. Engels asked if South Burlington, Winooski, Williston and Burlington were all to
vote against the F-35s would this have more impact. Mr. Wright said comments need to
be in writing to the decision makers.
Mr. Wright commented on the need for better communication. He said there are things
the Guard can do with regard to how they fly and noise mitigation. He also noted that
because this is a"civilian airport," Congress doesn't provide money to do anything, but
there may be other ways to get funding off the base. He stressed that comments should
stress the need for noise mitigation.
Council members asked if it really makes a difference what the communities say. Guard
members said they couldn't answer that as it was beyond their control. They
recommended asking Mr. Germanos and those at the Secretary of the Air Force level.
Ms. Greco noted the EIS contains a statement that homes within the 65 dbl zone a"not
compatible with living."
Ms. Riehle asked if Guard members wear hearing protection. The response was that
anyone on the flight lines does, and pilots wear double protection. Those in the offices
do not.
Mr. Engels then raised the issue of F-22 pilots who are refusing to fly those planes
because of safety concerns. The Guard acknowledged that is a concern and procedures
are being tried to determine what is wrong with the aircraft. They don't know if there
would be a similar concern with the F-35s.
Ms. Mackenzie said it is unfortunate that there have been underlying concerns regarding
airport operation and the "line has gotten blurred." She felt this shouldn't be as they are
co-located.
Ms. Greco urged people to read the EIS document. She said it raised more issues than
she had ever thought about, including both the objective and subjective affects of noise
(inability to sell or rent homes, sleep disruption for those who sleep during the day,
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 6
effects on climate, etc.). According to the EIS, safety standards are not based on F35s
because that aircraft is not yet deployed. They are based on the F22s, and these are the
planes pilots are refusing to fly because of safety issues. Ms. Greco noted that new
aircraft has a higher accident level than other planes. She asked how long the F-16s had
been deployed before getting to the Vermont Guard.
A Guard member said this is the first time he knew of that a new aircraft was being based
at a National Guard base. He said they are proud to be on that list and noted he has 2600
flight hours experience.
Ms. Greco said she is not concerned with the ability of the pilots; she is concerned with
the aircraft. Planes crash more when they are new, and when you put a new aircraft in
an area such as this, it scares her almost to the point of"trumping"the noise issue. She
didn't want "trouble at the end of the runway in South Burlington." She also noted that
the F35s will carry 18,500 pounds of fuel. The Fl6s carry 7000. She asked where fuel
would be jettisoned. A Guard member said they jettison fuel over Four Brothers Island
in Lake Champlain. Ms. Greco said that has a potential for getting into the area's water
supply. Mr. Wright said that would be rare, but he acknowledged the potential is there.
He felt it wouldn't be detected in drinking water, but could impact wildlife.
Ms. Greco also raised other ecological issues such as the potential to run out of fossil
fuels and water. She also noted the potential for a change in the mission once the
aircraft is located here. This could change the impact on the environment. She cited a
statement in the EIS that the Air Force will be making changes to the aircraft, and that
troubles her as well since the impact of those changes is not known.
The Council then accepted public opinion restricted to new information. The following
comments were solicited:
Ms. Mench: Mayfair Park resident who noted their area is eligible for historic designation
and questioned the devaluation of property. She said she spoke with an attorney who
felt the city's comments won't have an impact on the decision to deploy the aircraft here.
She felt the city should hire an attorney.
Mr. Leavens: Chamberlin District resident was concerned because at the EIS hearing may
people didn't get a chance to speak because the Air Force "front-loaded" all the speaking
opportunity. He read from the rule as to how those hearings should be held, and said this
hearing violated the rules. He also noted that Table 6.7 indicates that the F35s would be
3 to 4 times louder than the Fl6s and also cited the effect of low-frequency noise.
Mr. Randazzo: Said he has seen the Fl6s doing "touch and go"operations. He said
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 7
asking the Air Force to "study itself is like asking Ford to say whether it is better than
Chevy."
Ms. Schwartz: Asked the Council not to "yield to the hype." Felt the people are just
lines on a map to them, not faces. Questioned whether people will continue to maintain
their homes if they can't sell them.
Mr. Nicholson: Read the EIS and thought it is a good idea. Felt the airport is part of why
this is a desirable place to live. Felt there should be follow-up with noise mitigation
strategies.
Mr. Taylor: Felt the airport will grow, and it is the city's job to help mitigate the noise.
Ms. Howe: Cited the economic impact and the potential effect on the Grand List and less
revenue for the city. She asked if homeowners would be compensated for reduced home
values.
Ms. Reno: Noted this would impact Burlington and areas of Williston, overall an impact
on a large part of Chittenden County. There are over 100,000 people here during a
working day. Felt it was shameful and a stupid lack of foresight to approve something
that has never been demonstrated. There are too many unknowns.
Ms. Ventriss: Existing noise patterns haven't affected their lives. Was concerned with
"fear mongering".
Ms. Nowak: Has an office in the flight path in Williston with no issues. Asked if
commercial planes would be subject to the same testing standards.
Mr. Floyd: Mayfair Park resident. Cited the number of jobs that could be lost if the F35s
come since people won't want to open businesses here. Asked if the city would
welcome a private business with so much noise and air pollution.
Mr. Trono: Said Mr. Germanos told him he can't figure out why Vermont was chosen.
Also said Air Force lawyers told them not to consider loss of property values, etc.,
because they could be sued. Couldn't understand why Congressional leaders, the
Governor, etc., don't consider measures to unite communities,not divide them.
Ms. Quest: Noted that the EIS said the fewer flights of the F35s would be offset because
they are much louder. Also noted that residents of Country Club Estates feel they are in
a `cancer belt' which they think is from air pollution out there.
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 8
Ms. Emery: Noted that nothing in the way of noise mitigation other than buying out
homes has been done. Was concerned for the City Center which will be dependent on
people getting there. Was also concerned with the effect on schoolchildren: learning is
affected by noise, and when several planes take off at once or consecutively, stress
hormones go up. Felt the Air Force has options, and this is not the only choice.
Mr. Young: The cost of aircraft is mindboggling. Felt they should build more F16s.
Also noted that the airport can find the money to build parking garages but not sound
barriers.
In a show of hands the following audience survey results emerged:
Those who support the coming of F35s:
Total: 11 Live in the city: 8 Live in an affected area: 2
Those who oppose the coming of F35s:
Total: 28 Live in the city: 28 Live in an affected area: 24
There were no "undecided"votes.
Mr. Engels asked if it is possible to state the city's concerns without taking a position.
Ms. Riehle said there should be an agreement to work with the airport on issues and a
statement to the Air Force regarding the unmet need for noise mitigation.
Ms. Mackenzie agreed with both Mr. Engels and Ms. Riehle.
Ms. Dooley: Felt the F35s were not compatible without commitments to address noise
and environmental issues. Felt the laws are not well matched to our times (I.e., the
aircraft using so much fuel).
Ms. Greco: The Environmental Impact Study says it is a bad idea.
Ms. Dooley then moved that the City Council take a position in opposition to the basing
of F35s in South Burlington, such position to include a partial list of mitigating
commitments should the decision be to base the F35s here and also strong support for our
Green Mountain Boys. Ms. Riehle seconded. The motion passed 4-1 with Ms.
Mackenzie opposing.
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 9
6. Continue Hearings on Interim Zoning Applications:
a. Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-01 of New England Federal
Credit Union for a planned unit development to: 1) raze an existing office building,
and 2) construct a 3,920 sq. ft. drive-in bank facility, 1000 Shelburne Road:
Mr. Miller noted that a continuation is recommended.
Ms. Riehle moved to continue IZ-12-01 of New England Federal Credit Union until 4
June 2012, to include possible entry into deliberative session. Ms. Mackenzie seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
b. Interim Zoning Application #IZ-12-02 of University Mall,LLC,to
1) raze an existing commercial building, and 2) construct a 6,000 sq. ft. building to
be used for shopping center use, 205 Dorset Street:
Ms. McIntyre reviewed the previous presentation and noted that they found out on Friday
that there was a new process which requires them to meet a presumptive test regarding
sustainable agriculture, affordable housing, open space, and form based codes. She then
addressed these issues as follows:
Sustainable agriculture: There is no agriculture on the Umall site. 89% is
covered with impervious surface. There is no adverse impact to agriculture in the area.
Open Space: There is no open space on the site and none planned for the site.
This is a redevelopment of a commercial site with a commercial building.
Affordable housing: There is no affordable housing on the site or on this lot.
There will be no impact on housing of any sort.
Form Based Codes: Retail is a permitted use under form based codes; form based
codes call for 4 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft., and this application asks for a waiver
closer to that than the 5.1 existing spaces per 1000 sq. ft; 127 ft. wide lot - this lot is
pre-existing; lot coverage under form based codes is a maximum of 70%, this is 74.9%
and is being reduced under this application; form based codes call for a front setback
between 6-18 feet, and this is 15 feet; form based codes call for 0 side setback and a
minimum of 3 foot rear setback, and this is 5 feet on the side and 24 feet in the rear.
Form based codes call for 2-story buildings, and this proposal is for a one-story building,
closer to the sidewalk with landscaping to give it more of a presence and a dominant
entry-way. The building will be accessible from all sides. Ms. McIntyre noted that
tenants in the Mall have 50-year leases which include a prohibition against 2-story
buildings in front of the Mall.
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 10
Mr, Engels noted that City Center will be across the street, and this is an important
corner. He felt it was incumbent on applicants to show how this will be compatible. He
also appreciated the limitation of the 50-year leases.
Ms. Riehle felt the renderings show a building that is much more attractive than what is
there now.
Ms. Greco stressed that the plan presented to the DRB must be identical to the one the
City Council approves.
Ms. Mclntrye said it is important to know if they meet the first part of the test as it
doesn't make sense to proceed if they don't.
Ms. Mackenzie then moved to continue IZ-12-02 until 4 June 2012, with a deliberative
session possible. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Continue Discussion on the NGA Permit Request for Catered Event
August 22, 2012, from 5-9 p.m., on City Property, for ticketed fundraiser for up to
175 people. Beer and wine are expected to be served:
Mr. Fargo said the ten will hold 175 people, but he didn't think it would necessarily be
full.
Mr. Miller said they could have 175 people if they got that many requests. He noted the
city has never issued a penult such as this for alcohol/beer, and he would say "no." The
applicant does not have sufficient parking, according to the DRB, to handle 175 people,
and noted the NGA has requested to use 38 city parking spaces. Mr. Fargo said the
NGA has 32 spaces on their site.
Mr. Miller noted this is a permit request under the Parks Ordinance, not a regular
entertainment permit.
Ms. Riehle noted the tent will be up all summer and asked how many events there would
be. Mr. Fargo said 2 to 4 from 11 August through October. They hoped all events
would need extra parking and all would require alcohol/beer. Ms. Riehle asked what
else the tent might be used for. Mr. Fargo said it could be used for programming.
Mr. Miller noted that the City Attorney has said this would not be a precedent setting
situation. The City Attorney also suggests the city be named as additional insured on the
NGA liability policy. Mr. Fargo said there is no problem with this.
CITY COUNCIL
• 21 MAY 2012
PAGE 11
Ms. Dooley said she is comfortable with 2 to 4 events.
Mr. Riehle moved to approve the NGA request with correction on the permit (name and
number of people for each event). Further, that there be a modest fee of$50.00 per
event. Certificates of insurance with the city names as additional insured shall be
provided to the city, and the NGA will be responsible for any damage to the grounds.
Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Consider and Approve a Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year 2013 Water
and Sewer Rates and Sewer Connection Fee:
Mr. Miller said this is consistent with the adopted budget.
Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year 2013 Water and
Sewer Rates and Sewer Connection Fee as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
9. Consider and Approve a Resolution to Create A Fueling Station Reserve
Fund:
Mr. Miller noted that a 10 cent per gallon surcharge has been collected in the past,but the
money was going into the general fund. Money has been budgeted in FY12 and 12 to
catch up. This will not be an additional fee; it will just segregate this money.
Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Resolution to Create a Fueling Station Reserve Fund
as presented. Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
10. Consider and Approve a Resolution to Create an Emergency
Management Training-Paramedic Reserve Fund:
Mr. Rusten noted that if someone who has been trained at South Burlington expense
leaves his/her position, the cost of training must be repaid to the city's reserve fund.
That fund presently doesn't exist, and this resolution will create that fund. Money could
only be removed from that fund by the Council.
Ms. Riehle moved to approve the Resolution Creating an Emergency Management
Training-Paramedic Reserve Fund as presented. Ms. Dooley seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
11. Consider Approval of a Resolution to Document Fringe Benefits for
Certain Employees:
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 12
Mr. Miller explained that the documentation of the Council approving these benefits
cannot be found. The suggestion is that all of these employees get $300 a year in lieu of
these benefits. In Public Works, field people would get an additional $300 for clothing
at the discretion of the Director. The total cost would be the same as it has been, about
$6000 a year. The City Manager, Deputy.City Manager, and Public Works Director are
excluded from this benefit.
Ms. Dooley felt it was important to show appreciation for non-represented staff.
Ms. Dooley moved to approve the fringe benefits for certain employees as presented.
Ms. Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
12. Discussion and possible appointment of City Treasurer:
Ms. Kinville said she recognizes the authority of the Council over the appointment of a
Treasurer. She asked to have the Treasurer be able to speak out if there is something he
or she disagrees with without fear of repercussion. She noted this had been a problem in
the past.
Ms. Greco asked if Ms. Kinville will continue to collect taxes. Ms. Kinville said she has
no authority to do so but can do it and has no problem continuing to do it. She said she
would be acceptable to a memorandum of agreement to do that. She noted that most
people think the City Clerk collects taxes, but it is actually the City Treasurer.
Ms. Kinville also said they still need to maintain a separation of the two positions so
there is no influence over the elected position.
Ms. Riehle then moved to appoint Bob Rusten as Treasurer, effective 1 July 2012.
There will be no change in Mr. Rusten of Ms. Kinville's salaries in FY'13. Mr. Engels
seconded.
Ms. Kinville said there should be a deputy or assistant Treasurer who can sign checks,
transfer funds, etc. Mr. Miller said that will be the responsibility of the Treasurer, and
the plan is to have 4 to 6 people involved (e.g., investments, transfers, etc.). He added
that if Mr. Rusten saw something of concern, it would be his obligation to come to the
Council.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 13
13. Discuss CCTV Recording of Meetings & Priorities:
Ms. Mackenzie said she will be talking with Lauren-Glen and will report back.
14. Discussion and Possible Approval of the Pension Advisory Committee
Investment Policy Statement:
Mr. Engels said the committee has done a great job on this and on resolving prior pension
problems. The statement focuses on the fund manager, which is now Prudential. The
will be an RFP for fund manager in the future; however, Mr. Engels felt it would be good
to approve this plan with Prudential at this time.
Mr. Rusten said the City Attorney's concerns have been satisfied.
Ms. Dooley moved to approve the Pension Advisory Committee Investment Policy
Statement dated 21 May 2012 as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
15. Review and Confirm Calendar Dates for Upcoming Meetings:
No issues were raised.
16. Liquor Control Board:
Ms. Riehle moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Ms.
Mackenzie seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Miller presented Liquor License requests from Chipotle Mexican Grill and Cupola
Golf, Inc.
Ms. Dooley recused herself as an abutter to Cupola Golf.
Ms. Mackenzie moved to approve the Liquor License requests from Chipotle Mexican
Grill and Cupola Golf, Inc., as presented. Mr. Engels seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Riehle moved to exit Liquor Control Board and resume regular session. Mr. Engels
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
17. Other Business:
Corrections were made to the Procedures for Councilors including the addition of
CITY COUNCIL
21 MAY 2012
PAGE 14
"forwarding constituent correspondence to the City Manager." Also, during "other
business," Councilors may request agenda items for subsequent agendas.
Ms. Riehle moved to approve Procedures for Councilors as amended. Ms. Dooley
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
As there was no further business to come before the Council, by motion made and duly
seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Clerk
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER APPROPRIATIONS
WHEREAS, Section 13-1307 of the Charter of the City of South Burlington states, "At the
request of the manager or school superintendent and within the last three months of the budget
year, the council and board of school directors, respectively,may by resolution transfer any
unencumbered appropriation balance or portion thereof within the budgets from one department,
office or agency under their jurisdiction, to another."; and,
WHEREAS, there is currently within the FY 2012 budget over$40,000 in the"Contingency"
line in the General Fund Budget not yet appropriated; and,
WHEREAS, it had been the intent of the City to spend $40,000 of the Contingency line in the
budget to help pay for the unanticipated replacement of the Fire Station 1/City Hall HVAC
system; and,
WHEREAS, the remaining cost for the replacement of the HVCA system will be paid out of a
grant and Fiscal Year 2013 budgeted appropriation; and,
WHEREAS, the city does not expect that the actual expenditure of funds for the replacement of
the HVAC will occur prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2012; and,
WHEREAS, the City Manager requests the transfer of$40,000 from budget line "Contingency
Fund"in Section 100-1- 3202 ("Administrative Services") of the Fiscal Year 2012 General Fund
Budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the South Burlington City Council approves the
transfer of$40,000 from the Fiscal Year 2012 Budgeted General Fund Contingency Line and
transfers that amount to Fund 315 the Fire Department Building Improvement Special Fund; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council formally identifies Fund 315 as the Fire
Department Building Improvement Special Fund; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the $40,000 Council approves being transferred to Fund
315 shall not be spent for any purpose other than the replacement of the Fire Station 1/City Hall
HVAC without approval of the City Council; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, the transfer of funds shall occur prior to June 30, 2012.
APPROVED this day of June, 2012.
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
Rosanne Greco, Chair Pam Mackenzie, Clerk
Helen Riehle, Vice Chair Sandra Dooley
Paul Engels
u
0404
southburling,tcyn
PLANNING & ZONING
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council & City Manager
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
SUBJECT: Continued IZ Application #IZ-12.01 NEFCU
DATE: June 4, 2012 City Council IZ Hearing
Last month the City Council voted to continue the Interim Zoning application from the New
England Federal Credit Union to June 4th, to give all parties time to absorb the additional
guidance provided by the City Attorney.
Per the Council's request, we have contacted the applicant and discussed the updated review
criteria. The applicant has prepared a letter for the Council's consideration. It is enclosed with
this letter.
The applicant has also submitted revised plans for the property in accordance with the Council's
request that the bicycle rack be moved to match the plans submitted to and approved by the
DRB.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
I I
1
•
1 fff
LEGEND /
C g��,
]]e—PRaPoaD CWIELN \ 7 ————a— —a——' — `mow` -—-I 3'SM 1 -- I r -- -- ar..rs.+aswe.
—--—APPROXIMATE PRCPDDT LK I / \ .,,,.s.-
-.—.—.—APPROXIMATE SETBACK UN I I a„ 11 ,m,-;,
o IRON PM MONO I I——_x_————_ — LAUREL HILL—DRIVE—— —p—`a� r—
E CCNOlE1E MONUMENT POUND 5 i ST-- I 0�— — — —es-
-"w Z." a:` —4—_ ere, . _�..
——ss—GRANT'.SEWER UNE I S _ _— ——_ _ �� ` --—. r•�V`Ys
——FM—FORCE MAN p-PF—— —
erica. re� h..a
d w a.
cm.
-BB
-—W—WATERLINE / — g ————— d-- TF- —�-. agW _ Y.R!�Ta.w�yw ;.J.r/ __ rWmnLane
tic
——OE—OVERHEAD ELECTRIC Q I •vu v 1 'v.. r w_v err,.. ®ar�w .,O s ii,IN II _ r10cn.e..naln..,MP.mm
e
- LIE—UNDERGROUND ELEDTwc QO I �• a mow. qIlIl „� ramO1�...
a1
- T wiEPNohc ENE w 1I� d ,� 1 ,. ,-4 /` _..ET S F°-,:.--„„„-,,Ater„ mN,I.S
- G—DAB LNE - _ w,w.
—ST—STORM MANAGE LINE y.� Itlm� 'A��: .. -i, Or �f
cc
la
p + q \d
——FD—FgNUATEN ORM Lint 1 •� IR " l ( Wti I 1 1,0 {�r�
r
—— —MOO phew ura m 1 f ..? ,e , -,, o a' O ,, �;,.�, w ; .;
IID pp _MANHOLE i II ���s RIIII NES ESN 4
® STEM MAXIMS W II ,: ,� au w 1 iu..Pin r I I #�}"w'
Si( HYDRANT II Iri
I 1 _: '"��.R>\ 9G Y I O O ��� 7 NEFcu
O CATCH BASIN D tit.T — —'�—
iga
as upHT POLE l O ce — — r'9'"' . m _._ A_...............m1.. —:M .Ir 4 '
981I —°'--- gal*
L� Ems. ---
e.
• DECWIXIB TREE UI ....r rr...rw "n (,�", ..v r� ""se ®�+ ie $ t
• CONIFEROUS m¢ i ..�,� i..,h 4.7. m" =z.tr.".o I
EDGE Cr BRUSH/MOODS :4 1 1 . ... o I E
—� OWN� OWN 9396 FENCE w^-r• r R
—. STOCKADE FENCE f (E
--...—.-.— DRAINAGE SWALE
1
1
1000
HELLBURNE ROAD
ZONING REQUIREMENTS PARKING CALCULATIONS DESIGN FLOW CALCULATIONS A1133
Zanlnp Dleldct-Commeldal 1-Residential 15 Use-DM Through Bok Use-Booking Focally N„nmh i'.M
DvrlaY DMWeIs-TraMo Rpuked Spaces- Water Oe.yh Flow- m^.+n. SAW
w .,,e0 Ed.U6B Ecouga d S.B epam 1,000 DFA 15 ppd/workr O 10 workers-150 god Mwad9p <
Lot SW(SF) 20,000 330.056 .30,058 Pr •""O"
\\''' ,,,,,,...sour..scoosesos,
Maximum Lot Coverage(5) 70 .61.2 .61.9 3.900 al of(iA Low Co.fixture credit(101L)--15 god
Maximum Balding Coverage(%) 40 *17.7 .15.2 5.0 O 3,500/1,000-22.6-23 appose Total Water Design Flow-135 pad
Front Yvd Cowa9e(10 3/5.5 3]I.6• Proposed Spam- Wastwatr D.e4 r Flws- e1Yn-tie F'owaem
Laurel HRI Dr. 30
shabuma Rd. 30 .24.1 .20.0 21 standard pause Proposed 15 god/worker 0 10 worker.-150 gpd
Front Yard Selback(LF) 1 handicap some proposed Municipal connection credit(20R)--30 gad
Laurel OR Dr. 30 .25 330 22 total spaces proposed Total Wastewater Design Dos-120 gpd
Shelburne Rd. 10 3 5 .10
e Rpuset 1 N.(4.1L])wins
Side Yard Setback(LF)
Rear Yard Setback(LF) 65(Abuts Res.) STAB 3159 `"'�„
.an;Pros�y�oW.mne kn rgYwhpt.ao not mess Larrel HR Dr.grant ram EoYrag. PROPOSED
kprovement.,or at w no shove.over existing condition. repr.epl UTILITIES
GRAPHIC SCALE SITE PLAN
:2 A.t
I ca wC1e1
Cl /!I l!iEE iMG Ass CIAtES, !l lC.
itit '`f., ,
_�,,,f� ���„ 10 Mansfield View Lane Phone: 802-864-2323
` � South Burlington,VT 05403 Fax 802-864-2271
r 1r
-/ fri E-Mail: mail@cea-vt.com
May 23`d, 2012
Paul Conner
Director of Planning and Zoning
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset St.
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Supplemental Information
Interim Zoning Conditional Use Application#ZP-12-01
New England Federal Credit Union
1000 Shelburne Rd.
South Burlington,VT 05403
Dear Paul,
In conjunction with the recently revised Interim Zoning Development Review Process,this letter
serves as a narrative to address the submission requirements of Interim Zoning Conditional Use
applications for the proposed banking facility reconstruction project proposed by New England
Federal Credit Union(NEFCU) to be located at 1000 Shelburne Rd., in South Burlington, VT.
Specifically it explains why the proposed development will not result in an undue adverse effect
on the six criteria listed in Section VI of the Interim Bylaw. Furthermore, it details how the
proposed development will not be in conflict to any amendments to the Land Development
Regulations that the City ultimately adopts that implement the five goals outlined in the Interim
Zoning submission requirements.
Interim Zoning Bylaw Review—
Section VI(a)—The proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
the capacity of the existing or planned community facilities,services or lands.
This project involves the reconstruction of an existing banking facility by reducing the existing
building footprint and total building square footage, as well as reduce the number of employees.
Each of the community provided facilities and services are listed below, along with a brief
summary of the potential impact this project will have on them:
o Schools&Education—The proposed development will not have an impact on the
number of students in the South Burlington school system as no additional homes or jobs
are being created in conjunction with this project.
® Highway Capacity& Maintenance—NEFCU will be reducing the building size and the
number of number of employees working at this facility. The new facility will include
drive-thru capabilities that does not currently exist(single lane teller and single lane drive
up ATM). According to the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (which the
City uses as a basis for trip generation)the addition of the drive-up will theoretically
generate approximately 36.6 additional peak afternoon peak hour vehicle trips. Even
though NEFCU's actual trip count at similar locations is lower than the ITE Manual
describes, there are several factors that mitigate the potential increase in visits,
including:
o The project reduces one of the two existing curb cuts on Laurel Hill Drive and
moves the cut to the east(further away from RT 7) than the existing westerly
most cut,providing greater room for queuing on Laurel Hill Drive and easier road
maintenance.
o The reduction in staff working in the building will make parking on site more
readily available and reduce the potential for overflow parking or staging on
Laurel Hill Drive.
o Despite what the manual indicates,NEFCU does not anticipate a significant
increase in members or trip ends based on the proposed renovations. Much of the
drive up traffic is synonomous with the current ATM activity to the site and is
well distributed to non-peak hours.
o The Director of Public Works has reviewed the proposed plans and feels that the
project will not have an adverse effect upon the highway capacity or maintenance.
• City Hall & Services—The proposed development will not have an impact to the
demands on City Hall or its related services as no additional homes or jobs are being
created in conjunction with this project.
• Fire/EMS Facilities& Services—The proposed development will not have a significant
impact on the demands of the City Fire and EMS services as the proposed facility is
smaller and has fewer employees than the existing facility. The Fire Chief has reviewed
the proposed plans and feels that the project will not have an adverse effect upon the
Fire/EMS facilities or services.
• Police Facilities & Services—The proposed development will not have a significant
impact on the police facilities and services as the proposed facility is smaller and has
fewer employees than the existing facility. The Police Chief has reviewed the proposed
plans and feels that the project will not have an adverse effect upon the Fire/EMS
facilities or services.
• Water& Sewer Facilities—As the proposed facility is smaller and has fewer employees
than the existing facility, there will be a decrease in water demand and sewer flow. A
State of Vermont Wastewater Disposal System& Potable Water Supply Permit has been
obtained for this project.
• Stormwater Facilities—The proposed project involves the construction of shallow grass
lined swales to promote ground water infiltration, as well as stormwater catch basins to
manage rain event discharges from the site. The proposed amount of impervious area is
similar to the existing amount of impervious area and given the proposed stormwater
treatment techniques being implemented,should lead to a decreased peak discharge
during rain events. As the property and amount of impervious area associated with this
project are both less than an acre,no State Stormwater operational or construction permit
is required for this project. However an Erosion Prevention& Sediment Control plan has
been created for this project to manage construction runoff and decrease the potential for
sediment discharges.
• Library Facilities & Services—The proposed development will not have a significant
impact to the demands on the library or its related services as no additional homes or jobs
are being created in conjunction with this project.
• Recreational Facilities & Services—The proposed development will not have a
significant impact to the demands of the City's recreational facilities or services as no
additional homes or jobs are being created in conjunction with this project.
• Housing &Affordable Housing—This property is currently utilized and zoned as a
commercial lot. The proposed project looks to retain a similar commercial use that is
consistent with the corridor along this section of Shelburne Rd. Although the property
does allow for residential uses,it is not located in an ideal location for residential use and
is of a size and shape that would not lend itself well to residential development.
• Community Lands—There are four primary items to address with regards to community
lands:
o Open Space—As the existing property is only approximately 0.69 acres in size,
and contains about 61%lot coverage in the way of the existing building and
parking lot,there is very little existing open space associated with the parcel.The
proposed project will not significantly alter those amounts. However,by reducing
the size of the existing building and providing additional landscaping along the
properties east property line to further screen the commercial use from the
residential abutting property, the project will create a better balance of open areas
on site.
o Prime Agricultural Soils—As this property lies within an existing developed
urban area, is substantially developed and is of a very small size,this property is
no longer considered for prime agricultural soils as defined by the Farmland
Classification Systems for Vermont Soils produced by the USDA&NRCS.
o Form Based Codes—As this property does not lie within the Williston
Road/Dorset Street/City Center areas,no form based codes are under
consideration for this parcel.
o Travel Corridors—The property lies within the Shelburne Rd./Rt. 7 corridor and a
portion of the property falls within the traffic overlay district. However, because
there is no existing or proposed curb cut on Shelburne Rd. and the proposed curb
cut on Laurel Hill Dr. is greater than 200 ft from the Shelburne Rd. ROW,this
parcel is not subject to the traffic overlay district requirements.Nonetheless,this
project will benefit the Shelburne Rd. travel corridor by eliminating an existing
curb cut and moving the proposed curb cut away from the Shelburne Rd. ROW.
This will allow for additional queuing to take place at the signalized intersection
of Laurel Hill Dr. and Shelburne Rd. Furthermore, as part of this project there are
several pedestrian sidewalk improvements that will benefit pedestrian access
within the project site, along Shelburne Rd. and Laurel Hill Dr.,as well as
between the properties to the north and south by way of the on site sidewalk
located along the entrance. Additionally this project will extend the pedestrian
sidewalk within the Laurel Hill Dr. ROW to the most eastern portion of the
project property as a capitol improvement.
Section VI (b)—The proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
the existing patterns and uses of development in the area.
This lot is located at the southeast corner of the Shelburne Rd. and Laurel Hill Dr. intersection.
The existing use of the property is as a mixed use commercial facility.A portion of the existing
building is used by NEFCU as one of its walk-in branch office banking facilities. The remaining
portion of the existing building is leased by NEFCU as office space. The proposed development
eliminates the leased office component of the property, with the proposed use being solely as a
drive-thru and walk-in branch office banking facility for NEFCU.
Adjacent land uses are mainly consistent with this section of the Shelburne Rd. corridor.
Immediately to the south is an existing hotel. Across Shelburne Rd.to the west is People's
a 1
United Bank. Across Laurel Hill Dr. to the north is the Burlington Bagel Factory. Additional
commercial and retail uses are predominantly found along this section of Shelburne Rd. To the
east is a residential neighborhood accessed by Laurel Hill Dr.
The intent of the project is improve banking services to existing members at this location by
making a smaller building more accessible and retail oriented in a one versus two story structure.
. At the same time,the intent of the layout and orientation of the proposed reconstructed building
is to retain the separation between itself, as a commercial use, and the neighboring residential
lots to the east. The existing building has a non-conforming Shelburne Rd. setback of 34 ft
(current zoning standards require 50 ft). During the Development Review Board review it was
agreed that retaining that non-conforming front yard setback from Shelburne Rd.was in the best
interest of the project,as it provides the maximum separation from the proposed commercial
banking facility and the residential lots to the east. This also allows for a greater area to be
dedicated to parking,while moving the access to the property further away from the Shelburne
Rd. intersection. To further separate the commercial use from the residential lots to the east, an
extensive landscape plan is proposed to provide ample screening of the property from the
residential lots to the east.
Regarding the scale of the development,the proposed 4,850 sf building(which includes the
canopy)footprint is significantly smaller than the existing 5,200 sf building. Additionally the
existing building has two stories, while the proposed building has only one. The proposed
parking area and overall impervious area is similar in nature to the existing facility and is also
consistent with the neighboring commercial lots to the north, west and south.
Section VI (c)—The proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
As outlined in Seciton VI (a), Highway Capacity&Maintenance, even though the building
footprint and number of employees will be reduced in conjunction with this project,there is a
theoretical anticipated increase in vehicle trips (approximately 36.6 afternoon peak hour
according to the ITE Trip Generation Manual)because the reconstructed banking facility will
have drive thru capabilities(which the existing facility does not). The Manual serves as the
design basis for the City of South Burlington with regards to proposed trip generation.
However,there are a number of mitigating factors that will benefit the adjacent roads and help
offset the theoretical increase in afternoon peak hour vehicle trips.
First,the intent of this project is to provide a better quality of service to the existing NEFCU
members.NEFCU does not anticipate a significant increase in members or trip ends based on the
proposed renovations. With the facility decreasing in size and no predictable reason for an
increase in membership, simply adding drive thru capabilities to this site will not significantly
increase membership, especially because most all other banking facilities in this area all ready
have drive thru lanes.
A second mitigating factor is that this project eliminates one of the two existing curb cuts along
Laurel Hill Dr., allowing for easier maintenance and better queuing ability along Laurel Hill Dr.
Third, it relocates the existing curb cut approximately 50 ft to the east, further away from
Shelburne Rd,thereby decreasing congestion at the Shelburne Rd./Laurel Hill Dr. intersection by
allowing more queuing area on Laurel Hill Dr.
The Director of Public Works has reviewed the proposed plans and feels that the project will not
have an adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the area.
Section VI(d)—The proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and
sites.
The property is a relatively small (+/-0.69 acres)urban lot with little undeveloped area. The site
does not appear to contain any water courses,wetlands, wildlife corridors, rare vegetation or
other viable environmental limitations or natural resources.
Section VI(e)—The proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
utilization of renewable energy resources.
The proposed development does not include any type of renewable energy production on site. As
the proposed building represents a reduction in size,is a single story structure and located within
the existing building envelope,it does not preclude, or have an adverse effect on,the ability of
adjacent properties to use renewable energy.
It should be noted that the proposed building and site are being designed as a LEED certified
facility. The level of LEED certification has yet to be determined.
Section VI (f)—The proposed development shall not result in an undue adverse effect on
municipal plans and other municipal bylaws, ordinances or regulations in effect.
The City of South Burlington's Comprehensive Plan goals were most recently adopted on March
9, 2011. Within this comprehensive plan are several goals related to the well being of the City,
region, environment and community. Each of the general plan goals are listed below,along with
a brief summary of the potential impact this project will have on them:
e Regional Cooperation—The existing development is located within a built up urban
area and is consistent with the community development. The proposed development does
not significantly alter this position and the proposed project will not inhibit any regional
planning coordination.
® City Identity& City Center—The proposed development is not within the designated
City Center area.
® Population & Balanced Rate of Growth-As the proposed development represents a
decrease in building size and employees, and is simply a reconstruction of an existing
commercial use; it will not significantly effect the population growth.
o Quality Environment—The proposed development is a redevelopment of an existing
commercial site and represents a decrease in building size and increase in open space. An
extensive landscaping plan will create a better aesthetic to the property, while also
increasing the buffer between the existing commercial and neighboring residential uses
by providing vegetative screening. There are no water courses, wetlands, wildlife
corridors, rare vegetation or other viable potential natural resources to be impacted by
this project.
• Land Use Distribution—The proposed development is located along the existing
developed Shelburne Rd. corridor, which, although not in the designated City Center, is
within a developed corridor that is encouraged to promote further development and
growth. Additionally, the project attempts to further separate the existing commercial use
from the neighboring residential properties to the east to maintain an appropriate balance
between the two zoning districts by keeping the commercial building as far west as
possible and installing extensive vegetative screening from the neighboring residential
properties.
• Open Space Planning—The property is a relatively small(+/- 0.69 acres)urban lot with
little undeveloped area. The proposed development is located within an existing
developed area and is a redevelopment of an existing commercial use. The site does not
contain any existing open spaces and there are no designated open spaces adjacent to the
project that will be impacted.
• Housing—The proposed redevelopment does not include any housing components and is
simply a redevelopment of the existing commercial use. The property is adjacent to an
existing residential neighborhood and the project attempts to further separate the existing
commercial use from the neighboring residential properties to the east to maintain an
appropriate balance between the two zoning districts by keeping the commercial building
as far west as possible and installing extensive vegetative screening.
• Schools—As the proposed development represents a decrease in building size and
employees, and is simply a reconstruction of an existing commercial use;it will not
significantly affect the public school system or educational programs.
• Recreation—The proposed development does not include any specific recreational
facilities. However, the proposed project includes significant upgrades to the sidewalk
systems along Shelburne Rd. and Laurel Hill Dr. to benefit the community.
• Economic Development—The proposed development is a redevelopment of an existing
commercial site and will result in a smaller building and fewer employees. The project
will not have a significant impact to the economic development of the area.
• Transportation—The proposed development is located on Shelburne Rd. and is served
by public transit. The proposed project includes significant upgrades to the sidewalk
systems along Shelburne Rd. and Laurel Hill Dr. to benefit the community, as well as
eliminates an exiting curb cut to provide easier maintenance and more queuing capacity
on Laurel Hill Dr. The project also includes adding drive-thru capabilities to the existing
facility to better serve the community.
• Public Utilities & Services—As the proposed development represents a decrease in
building size and employees, and is simply a reconstruction of an existing commercial
use; it will not significantly affect the public utilities and services. Furthermore,the
proposed building is being designed to be LEED certified which should increase utility
efficiency and decrease environmental impacts.
• Land Use Through Zoning—The existing property is located within the Commercial 1
—Residential 15 zoning district,with no applicable overlay zoning districts. The proposed
banking facility represents an approved use for this property and is consistent with the
other commercial uses in this area. It should also be noted that this project has all ready
been reviewed by the City of South Burlington's Development Review Board and been
granted final approval.
City Goal Review—
• Form Based Code.--As it is our understanding that form based code is only being
considered for portions of Williston Rd.,Dorset St. and the City Center,this property
would not be subject to form based code regulations.
• Sustainable Agriculture—The site does not have the potential for significant
agricultural use. The property is a relatively small (+/- 0.69 acres)urban lot with little
undeveloped area. The proposed development is located within an existing developed
area and is a redevelopment of an existing commercial use.
• Conservation of Open Space—The site does not contain any existing open spaces and
there are no designated open spaces adjacent to the project that will be impacted. The
property is a relatively small(+/- 0.69 acres)urban lot with little undeveloped area. The
proposed development is located within an existing developed area and is a
redevelopment of an existing commercial use.
• Equitable Housing—The proposed redevelopment does not include any housing
components;it is simply a redevelopment of the existing commercial use. The property is
adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood and the project attempts to further
separate the existing commercial use from the neighboring residential properties to the
east to maintain an appropriate balance between the two zoning districts by keeping the
commercial building as far west as possible and installing extensive vegetative screening.
• Purpose Statement—The proposed development represents a redevelopment of a small
existing commercial property for a similar banking use in an effort to better serve the
community and provide a more environmentally sensitive, efficient and aesthetically
appealing facility.
In summary, we strongly believe that this project will greatly benefit the community without
inflicting any undue adverse effects to the surrounding area,public utilities and facilities or
regional development plan. Furthermore,this project appears to be in compliance with the
requirements as set forth by the interim zoning bylaws and municipal plan.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this supplemental memo, or the previously
submitted Interim Zoning Conditional Use application and associated plans,please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
•
•
Jeffrey Oesky, P.E.
Cc: CEA File #11196.01
Shawn Brennan,Freeman French Freeman(via email)
Tom Richards,NEFCU(via email)
Bill Smith, NEFCU (via email)
t r
13 'a - ..
Engineers + Surveyors + Planners + Landscape Architects
May 21,2012
South Burlington City Council
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington,VT 05403
RE: Interim Zoning for the University Mall PUD
Dear Council Members:
When we met on April 30, 2012, the City Council continued consideration of this application to
today in order to deliberate as to any additional requirements that the Staff communicate to us.
As we understand it,there were no requests from the Council for the Applicant to supply any
additional information or exhibits.
We were, however, notified on Friday May 18, 2012 that the City Attorney had added an
additional step to the review process,which would have/should have taken place prior to last
months hearing. At this time, we would like to provide testimony on the new additional step in
the review process dealing with"the presumption under interim zoning that [this development] is
prohibited until we demonstrate that the project overcomes the presumption that this project will
or could be contrary to the permanent bylaws that the City ultimately adopts."
Per the Purpose section of the Interim Zoning, these issues are highlighted as:
1) Sustainable agriculture—there is currently no sustainable agricultural practices on the
site, nor are any proposed. The project will not cause any adverse impact on agricultural
practices on or near the site. The project is a redevelopment of an existing commercial
space. As such,there is no opportunity to add agriculture to the Land Use. Thus the
proposed site improvements are not contrary to the potential goals of the City to support
agriculture, nor will it impede the City's future efforts to support agriculture.
2) Conservation of Open Space—There is currently no Open Space on the site and none is
proposed. It is a commercially developed shopping district and no Open Space will be
impacted, nor will the proposed commercial space have any negative influence on any
existing or planned Open Spaces. The redevelopment of an existing commercial space in
an existing Commercial Center will not negatively impact Open Space, nor will it impede
the City's potential effort to conserve Open Space in the future; and
1233 Shelburne Rd., C-2, South Burlington, VT 05403
Business (802) 658-5588 Fax (802) 658-3629
City Council
5/21/12
Page 2
3) Affordable Housing—there is no housing on the University Mall site,nor is any
proposed. The reconstruction of a commercial building in an existing Commercial
Center will not adversely impact any existing housing nor create any barriers to housing
development in the future. Thus the proposed project is not contrary to the City's
potential goal to promote housing for people of all incomes and stages of life.
I believe last month we addressed how the development complies with the existing by-laws of
the City and the six criteria of the Interim Zoning regulations. In addition to the existing adopted
rules and regulations, we understand that the City is asking us to also evaluate how this project
will not be"contrary"to future regulations that may he adopted at some future point in time. At
this time,without specific written standards to address, we looked towards the first draft of the
From Based Code that has not been adopted but has been provided by the City in a first draft
format as one example of a potential bylaw that the City might ultimately adopt.
In that draft F.BC, the following goals are outlined for future development:
Proposed Under
Existing Code (+/-) DRAFT FBC
•
Permitted Use Shopping Center Retail/Personal Services
Parking Shopping Center 5.1/1000 sf Retail 4.0/1000 sf
•
Lot Width 127 ft &> 2,000 ft(pre-existing) 18—96 ft
Lot Coverage 75% 70%
Front Setback 15 ft 6 — 18 ft
Side Setback 5 ft(for 205 Dorset) 0 ft min.
Rear Setback 24ft (for 205 Dorset) 3 ft min.
Stories 2* 2-4
*(In commercial spaces, a story that exceed 14 ft is counted as 2 stories. 19 ft parapet is proposed
--See Table 1.5 A of the l.)raft Form Based Code)
City Council
5/21/12
Page 3
In both documents,the proposed use is a permitted use. This is not contrary to the proposed
Draft Form Based Code.
No new parking is being proposed. A wavier has been sought to reduce parking numbers below
that which is prescribed under existing regulations. This reduction in parking ratios furthers the
goals of the Draft Form Based Code and will not be contrary to potential future regulations that
aim to reduce parking ratios.
Lot coverage is currently non-conforming and will be decreased from 75%to 74.9%for the
overall PUD. On the 205 Dorset parcel specifically, existing lot coverage is 89% and the
proposed lot coverage will be 74%. This lot, however,will be incorporated into the overall Mall
PUD where there will still be a reduction in lot coverage as a result of this proposed project.
Regarding the number of stories, this commercial space has a first floor greater than 14 ft and
thus by definition will be treated by the Code as a two-story building. To further the goals of the
Code,the Applicant will consider design elements that support the goals of the draft Code as
demonstrated in the architectural elevations presented. These include building mass, materials,
entryway features,pedestrian access, and location on the lot to promote the ideals that have been
discussed for the future City Center. In this regard,the proposed project is not contrary to the
Draft Form Based Code. •
•
In addition to these specific standards, it is the stated purpose of the Draft Form Based Code to
"promote health, safety and general welfare of the City and its citizens, including protection of
the environment, conservation of land,energy and natural resources, reduction in vehicular
traffic congestion, more efficient-use of public funds, health benefits of a pedestrian
environment,historic preservation, education and recreation, reduction in sprawl development,
and improvement of the built environment"(see section 1.1.3).
As noted in previous testimony,this project includes improvements to an existing built
environment which reduces sprawl and protects the environment including conservation of land.
It also provides a more pedestrian oriented development which in turn reduces traffic and
economizes on public investments. The project is not contrary to the stated purpose of this draft
Code, and it is not contradictory to the promotion of health, safety or general welfare of the
public.
In summary, we feel that this proposed project will not be contrary to the permanent bylaws that
the City may adopt including those that are currently available in the form of a draft Form Based
Code. Thank you for considering our testimony on this new step in the Interim Zoning Review
Process. If you should need additional information, please do not hesitate to let me know. We
City Council
5/21/12
Page 4
are interested in moving this project forward as expeditiously and economically as possible while
ensuring compliance with the City's regulations.
Respectfully submitted,
Cam,
Sheila McIntyre
Environmental Planner
FY 2013 BUDGET
PROPOSAL
TO VIEW BUDGET DETAIL GO TO
FTP://MAIL.CSWD.NET
CSW
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
1021 REDMOND ROAD
WILLISTON, VT 05495
802-872-8100
www.cswd.net
Printed on recycled paper
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
Fiscal Year 2013 Proposed Budget
ASSUMPTIONS AND HIGHLIGHTS
GENERAL FUND BUDGET
FY12 FY13
APPROVED PROPOSED Difference
BUDGET BUDGET $ cyo
Operating Expenditures $9,005,680 $8,980,061 ($ 25,619) -0.3 %
Operating Revenues $8,788,912 $8,728,340 ($ 60,572) -0.7 %
Net Revenue (Expenditures) ($216,768) ($251,721)
Transfers To Reserves ($315,012) ($348,062)
Transfers From Reserves $625,224 $228,723
Net Amount, Increase ($371,060)
(Decrease) In Beginning Fund $93,444 [see Highlight#1,
Balance next page]
Major Assumptions— Revenues:
1. Solid Waste Management Fee revenue (SWMF) increases by $88,240. The $22.06 per-ton
rate remains unchanged, but the estimated 120,000 total tons for FY13 is higher than the FY12
estimate of 116,000 tons, based on historical data and management's best projections for the
near future.
2. Tipping fees have a net reduction of$87,422. Programs with significant reductions are at the
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) where we are budgeting at ($5) per ton (i.e., a rebate) for In-
District (ID) materials and in the Biosolids program where we anticipate lower fees for South
Burlington class A material and a slight decrease for other material going to a new beneficial
reuse facility. These reductions are partially offset by an increase in our DOC tip fees due to
more tonnage being brought to these facilities.
3. Sale of Material revenue is projected to decrease by $96,746. This is due mainly to the
compost program where we will have less material to sell; an estimated 9,746 cubic yards in
FY13 versus 13,582 cubic yards projected in FY12. The reasons are a 5-month lapse in
production moving the facility from Burlington to Williston as well as less product yield from the
new facility. The compost sale of material reduction is partially offset by an 8% increase in the
average market value for recyclables processed from the MRF ($99.80/ton in FY13 versus
$92.46 per ton budgeted in FY12).
4. Scrap metal revenues increased $46,177 for FY 13 due to its higher market value and a lower
handling cost.
5. No changes in Drop-Off Center fee rates are anticipated in the FY13 budget.
Major Assumptions—Expenditures:
1. Personnel costs include 43.40 Full Time Equivalent positions, up by 3.74 FTE from FY12.
Included in the FY13 proposed budget are 2.50 FTEs budgeted in the Prospective Unusual
Developments (PUD) budget; these are unspecified positions that potentially will be identified as
particular needs as the District completes an ongoing assessment and reworking of its
organizational structure.
2. Existing pay grades will be adjusted upward by a Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) of
3.50% effective with the start of the FY13 year.
3. Employees will contribute approximately 11 percent of the overall total health insurance
premium costs, using a percentage-of-base-salary method for individual employee
contributions.
4/26/2012 SECTION 1—A;Page 1
Highlights:
1. While the FY13 budget calls for the use of $371,060 of fund balance carried forward from prior
years in order to fully fund the year's net general fund outlays, $241,060 of this is allocated in
the Prospective and Unusual Developments (PUD) program, which means that these amounts
may not be expended without further review and approval by the Board. Additionally, of the
$371,060 earmarked as potential draw-down of fund balance, $190,000 is for one-time costs for
studies and other non-recurring events.
2. Salaries and personnel benefits costs are budgeted higher by about 15%, or about $400,000, as
compared to FY12. Approximately one-half of this amount is associated with potential new
positions which may be identified as needed as the District completes the management study
which was begun in FY12. The remaining $200,000 of the increase is related to (a) the 3.5%
COLA and 1.25% step increases for existing staff, plus (b) increased part-time staffing for
Compost, Marketing, and DOCs.
3. Expenditure budgets in the "Other Services" category decrease by $90,400 in FY13 as
compared to the prior year, most significantly due to the biosolids management costs decrease.
The three areas for biosolids cost decrease are:
a. South Burlington invested in new technology that will produce a `class A "biosolids
product that will have a - 61% cost savings (2nd half of year).
b. Fifty percent of the remaining biosolids being sent to a new alkaline stabilization facility
with a 4% cost savings (2nd half of year).
4. Debt service expenditures decrease to zero in FY13, down from $363,075 in FY12, because the
final payment on outstanding bonds was made in FY12.
5. In addition to the routine services that CSWD provides, there are some special studies that will
continue in FY13:
a. An analysis of alternatives to process wastewater biosolids in the future, funded from a
reserve account ($100,000).
b. Completion of a conceptual design of a regional landfill ($75,000), which will be paid
from beginning fund balances carried forward into FY13.
c. A Residential Organics Collection Study that will assess the practicality of collecting food
scraps from residential units - $40,000 funded from SWMF.
d. Potential further work on a Consolidated Collection System Design - $30,000 from
beginning fund balances.
6. Diesel Fuel expense budget for FY13 is up $40,878 due both to an anticipated increase in cost
($0.25/gallon) and to higher usage in the compost and drop-off center programs.
4/26/2012 SECTION 1—A;Page 2
HIGHLIGHTS
FY13 CAPITAL PROGRAM BUDGET
A. CSWD FY13 Capital Budget increases from $2,317,886 to $3,119,586.
B. $1.5 million of the FY13 proposed capital budget is for new equipment and
refurbishing of existing equipment and facilities at the Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF).
C. Approximately $420,000 will be expended for facility improvements and
new equipment for Drop-Off Centers.
D. Land for Future Projects (Landfill) will be acquired for $600,000 requiring a
county-wide bond vote to purchase.
E. A Mobile Drop-off Center (MODOC), to be used to serve member
communities that do not have a permanent DOC facility, will be designed
and deployed for a cost of $180,900.
F. Numerous minor upgrades at CSWD facilities to increase efficiency of
operations, improve the level of service to facility users, or extend the
useful life of CSWD's capital infrastructure will be completed.
4/26/2012 SECTION 1—A;Page 3
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
Tons Disposed By Fiscal Year 2001-2011 .
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D)
160,000
150,000 145,906
142,913 144,618
140,350 135,147 135,606
140,000 134,826
132,091 131,839 ■ 124,947
130,000
■ ■ ■ ■ 29.2% 28.7%■ 123,503
28.6% 28
120,000 .5°/
25.7%
27.9% 29.2% 26.6% � ■ ■ 25.8/0 31.1
110,000 - °
25.0%
100,000 -
■ ■ ■ ■
90,000
80,000
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
70,000
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
60,000
■ ■ ■ ■
50,000
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
40,000
■ ■ S ■ ■ ■ ■
30,000
■ ■ ■ ■
20,000
■ ■ ■ ■
10,000
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
0
FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11
❑C&D 36,834 39,391 35,017 40,894 42,667 41,495 40,005 34,719 32,186 30,852 42,108
■MSW 95,257 95,435 96,822 102,019 103,239 103,123 100,345 100,428 92,761 92,651 93,498
F:\BUDGETS\BUDGET 2013\sectionl intro\MSWCDDisposed1993-2012 4/23/2012 3:59 PM
CMITENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRMT
scion & GoaAs
Nesoon:
Assuring the efficient, effective, economical and environmentally sound
management of solid waste generated within its member municipalities.
G sal #1:
To operate as the authority responsible for oversight and control of solid waste.
Goal #2:
To base a solid waste management system on the following hierarchical
priorities:
1. reduction of toxicity and volume of the waste stream
2. reuse
3. recycling and composting
4. disposal
Goal #3:
To ensure that the cost of the solid waste system will be paid for by the users of
the solid waste system.
Goal #4:
To educate the public about the District's solid waste management goals and the
means for achieving them throughout all sectors of the public.
Goal #5:
To encourage a solid waste management system which consists of an
appropriate combination of public, private, and public/private programs which best
serves the members of the District and promotes the public good.
Goal #6:
To promote a flexible and dynamic solid waste management process capable of
responding to technological advancement and changes in local conditions.
F:\BUDGETS\BUDGET 2013\section1 intro\1 B mission.doc SECTION 1 - B
CSWD BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
TOWN NAME ADDRESS HOME# WORK# E-MAIL
Bolton-Rep. Vacant
Bolton-Alt. Vacant
Burlington-Rep. Steve Goodkind .Burl Public Works, 645 Pine St., Suite A, Burl.05401 • 862-2731 863-9094 sgoodkind@ci.burlington.vt.us
Burlington-Alt Nicole Losch Burl Public Works, 645 Pine St., Suite A, Burl.05401 862-5621 865-5833 nlosch@ci.burlington.vt.us
Charlotte-Rep. Stephen Brooks PO Box 60, Charlotte VT 05445 425-3738 373-3947 scbAbriarburlinq.com
Charlotte-Alt. Vacant
Colchester-Rep. Dirk Reith 97 Fox Run Rd, Colchester VT 05446 879-6547 527-1296 dreithaol.com
Colchester-Alt. Nadine Scibek 248 Crossfield Drive, Colchester VT 05446 860-6225 na'dinescibek(a�myfairpoint.net
Essex-Rep. Alan Nye 25 Stannard Drive, Essex Jct.VT 05452 879-7442 872-4165 alan.nye@dhs.gov
Essex-Alt. Max Levy 8 Bashaw Drive, Essex Jct.VT 05452 878-5267 769-9575 maxqlevyinessex@aol.com
Essex Jct.-Rep John Lajza 14 South Hill Drive, Essex Jct.VT 05452 316-4327 878-2678 vze39ncx a(�myfairpoint.net
Essex Jct.-Alt. George Tyler 8 Acorn Circle, Essex Jct.,VT 05452 878-7785 310-8215 ga55tyler@msn.com
Hinesburg-Rep. Lynn Gardner PO Box 150, Hinesburg VT 05461 482-2579 482-2325 cliffordlumber@gmavt.net
Hinesburg-Alt. Doug Taff PO Box 585, Hinesburg VT 05461 482-3066 rozisdad(a�gmavt.net
Huntington-Rep. Vacant
Huntington-Alt. Vacant
Jericho-Rep. Albert Lindholm PO Box 1054, 33 Bolger Hill Rd.Jericho VT 05465 899-3879 bertlindhm@aol.com
Jericho-Alt. Leslie Nulty PO Box 1121,Jericho Ctr.VT 05465 899-4582 lenulty84gmail.com
Milton-Rep. Roger Hunt PO Box 191, Milton VT 05468 893-9862 893-6030 rogeratmiltonwwtf@comcast.net
Milton-Alt. Vacant
Richmond-Rep. Adam Sherman 158 Church Street, Richmond VT 05477- 595-3538 223-7770x128 adamshermanvt@yahoo.com
Richmond-Alt. Vacant
St. George-Rep. Carol Blakely 491 Forest Road, St. George VT 05495 482-3615 cbla(@,gmavt.net
St. George-Alt. Vacant
Shelburne-Rep. Timothy Loucks 1141 Falls Road, Shelburne VT 05482 985-2236 825-8872 tploucks(cr�gmail.com
Shelburne-Alt. Paul Bohne, Ill Town of Shelburne, PO Box 88 Shelburne VT 05482 985-5110 pbohne@shelburnevt.org
So. Burlington-Rep. Paul Stabler 75 Butler Dr., So. Burlington VT 05403 862-9283 769-6974 stabler@us.ibm.com
So. Burlington-Alt. Mark Boucher 20 Knoll Circle, South Burlington VT 05403 863-2588 363-0768 marklboucher@comcast.net
Underhill-Rep. Dan Steinbauer P.O. Box 51, Underhill Ctr.VT 05490 899-3525 dsteinbauer@comcast.net
Underhill-Alt. Mike Weisel P.O. Box 71, Underhill Ctr.VT 05490 899-3343 324-1441 mweisel5@gmail.com
Westford-Rep. Michelle DaVia 71 North Road, Westford VT 05494 893-3879 922-2537 mdavia1@hotmail.com
Westford-Alt. Jed Emerson 12C Hillside Lane, Westford VT 05494 734-7972 jedemerson@yahoo.com
Williston- Rep. Craig Abrahams 855 Ledgewood Drive, Williston VT 05495 578-3677 cabraharns@comcast.bet
Williston-Alt. Tracey Tsugawa 225 Chamberlain Lane, Williston VT 05495 872-0494 828-2493 nozomi vt(@comcast.net
Winooski-Rep. James Ticehurst 11 Cedar St., Winooski VT 05404 655-3718 jticehurst@myfairpoint.net
Winooski-Alt. Vacant
•
4/17/2012
SECTION 1-C
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
FY 2013 BUDGET TIMELINE
DATE ACTION BY WHOM ACTION TAKEN
December 21, 2011 Board of Commissioners Passed Preliminary Budget
&Approve Dissemination
January 25, 2012 Board of Commissioners Preliminary Budget Hearing Held
Feb-April 2012 Finance Committee & CSWD Staff Revise Preliminary Budget
May 2, 2012 Board of Commissioners Budget Approved For Adoption
May 3, 2012 CSWD Staff Notify Members of Budget Approval
& Establish Presentation Schedule
Thru June 18, 2012 Finance Committee & Staff Budget Presentations to Member
Municipalities
Thru June 18, 2012 Community Governments Budget Adoption
June 27, 2012 Board of Commissioners Approve Budget Implementation
July 1, 2012 CSWD Staff Implement Budget
F:\BUDGETS\BUDGET 2013\sectionlintro\1 E TIMELINE13.DOC SECTION 1 - E
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
Budgeted Expenses versus Actual Expenses
FY02 to FY11 - General Fund
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000 -
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
0Budget $6,001,589 $6,030,225 $6,490,626 $6,318,004 $6,969,025 $7,171,931 $7,557,132 $9,215,766 $9,211,884 $9,154,332
Actual $5,480,928 $5,926,456 $6,116,383 $6,224,441 $6,841,115 $6,952,301 $7,263,071 $8,135,065 $8,851,690 $8,660,052
4/18/2012 10:34 AM F:\BUDGETS\BUDGET 2013\sectionl intro\1 J Revenues&Expenses vs.budgeted Graph-Budget v Actual.Expenses
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
Budgeted Revenues versus Actual Revenues
FY02 to FY1' m General Fund
$12,000,000
$10,000,000 — ---
1
$8,000,000 ---- _ —
a
1.
i 1.i ,,
$6,000,000 " �
$4,000,000 — — —
; --
1.(,
$2,000,000 — 144 rs —
$ FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
0Budget $6,276,816 $6,242,573 $6,680,548 $6,771,005 $7,525,942 $7,612,157 $7,589,152 $8,551,064 $8,836,517 $9,068,342
oActual $6,143,497 $6,727,009 $6,765,615 $7,320,727 $7,936,506 $8,234,566 $8,291,880 $8,319,740 $9,788,078 $10,326,387
4/18/2012 10:41 AM F:\BUDGETS\BUDGET 2013\sectionl intro\1 J Revenues&Expenses vs.budgeted Graph-Budget v Actual Revenues
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
Actual Net Revenues Over Expenses
Before Transfers To/From Reserves
$1,800,000 - • FY02 to FY11 - General Fund
$1,600,000 -
$1,400,000 -
$1,200,000 -
$1,000,000 -
$800,000 -
$600,000
• $400,000
$200,000
$ FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
oNet Surplus Before Tfrs $662,569 $800,553 $649,232 $1,096,286 $1,095,391 $984,205 $1,028,809 $184,675 , $936,388 $1,666,335
4/18/2012 10:35 AM F:\BUDGETS\BUDGET 2013\sectionl intro\1 J Revenues&Expenses vs. budgeted/Graph-Net Rev v Exp
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
Total Net Assets
Based on Audited Balance Sheets
as of June 30 - Years 2006 Through 2011
$18,000,000 -
$16,000,000 -
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$ 6/30/06 6/30/07 6/30/08 6/30/09 0/30/10 6130/11
El Total Net Assets $12,997,589 $13,943,370 $14,587,485 $14,705,621 $15,418,172 $16,891,653
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
SUMMARY OF ALL FUNDS
FY 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] II] _
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET FY2013 VS FY2012
TOTAL GENERAL CAPITAL OTHER
SUMMARY ACCOUNT LINE ADOPTED PROPOSED OPERATING PROJECTS DESIGNATED PERCENT DOLLAR
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET PROGRAMS FUNDS FUNDS CHANGE CHANGE
EXPENDITURES
1 Salaries &Wages $ 1,856,392 $ 1,858,199 $ 1,988,621 $ 2,278,140 $ 2,278,140 $ - $ - 15% $ 289,519 1
2 Personnel Benefits 662,338 702,253 760,854 866,264 866,264 - - 14% 105,410 2
3 Education &Training 57,230 56,975 87,293 93,428 93,428 - - 7% 6,135 3
4 Professional Services 440,549 553,761 609,124 645,965 645,965 6% 36,841 4
5 Other Services 4,319,643 4,132,925 4,102,4'15 4,012,015 4,012,015 - - -2% (90,400) 5
6 Insurance 68,519 74,600 71,579 80,901 80,901 13% 9,322 6
7 Printing &Advertising 132,704 123,474 252,620 206,180 206,180 - - -18% (46,440) 7
8 Utilities 73,420 83,355 87,171 99,773 99,773 14% 12,602 8
9 Computer Equipment, Systems 33,762 40,217 40,331 59,968 59,968 - - 49% 19,637 9
10 Office Supplies/Equipment 34,179 19,134 41,795 29,069 29,069 - - -30% (12,726) 10
11 General Supplies 395,567 294,007 370,438 383,714 383,714 - - 4% 13,276 11
12 Interdepartmental - - - - 0% 12
13 Other Charges 359,470 314,036 230,364 224,643 224,643 - - -2% (5,721) 13
14 Debt Service 404,940 407,116 363,075 - - - - -100% (363,075) 14
15 Programs - - - 0% - 15
16 SUBTOTAL -OPERATING EXPENDITURES 8,838,713 8,660,052 9,005,680 8,980,061 8,980,061 - - 0% (25,619) 16
17
17
18 Capital and Other Expenditures 324,487 1,983,867 2,332,886 3,157,366 - 3,119,586 37,780 35% 824,480 18
19
19
20 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 9,163,200 10,643,919 11,338,566 12,137,427 8,980,061 3,119,586 37,780 7% 798,861 20
21
21
22 TOTAL REVENUES 9,946,820 10,377,712 9,570,867 9,439,424 8,728,340 695,248 15,836 -1% (131,443) 22
23 -
23
NET OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER)
24 EXPENDITURES 783,620 (266,207) (1,767,699) (2,698,003) (251,721) (2,424,338) (21,944) 53% (930,304) 24
25
25
26 Transfers Out To Other Funds (1,910,284) (1,811,513) (577,161) (576,785) (348,062) (146,500) (82,223) 0% 376 26
27 Transfers In From Other Funds 1,910,284 1,811,513 577,161 576,785 228,723 279,062 69,000 0% (376) 27
28 Transfer from Restricted Debt Service Reserve - - 363,075 - - - - 0% (363,075) 28
29
29
30 Draws From (Increases Into) Residual Fund Equity (783,620) 266,207 1,404,624 2,698,003 371,060 2,291,776 35,167 92% 1,293,379 30
31
31
32 NET AMOUNT $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - 32
PROPOSE[) BUDGET
4/23/2012 10:52 AM
BUDGET SUMMARY-ALL FDS-OVERVIEW Page A- 1
•
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
FY 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
CAPITAL AND OTHER DESIGNATED FUNDS-PROJECTION OF CURRENT AND FUTURE YEARS FUND EQUITY
««««< FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT RESERVES»»»»»»»»> <<««OTHER DESIGNATED FUNDS»»»
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0
SPECIAL DROP HAZARDOUS PROP MGMT, SUBTOTAL PHASE III LANDFILL FACILITIES COMMUNITY MANAGERS' UNDESIG. ' TOTAL
MRF WASTE OFF WASTE BIOSOLIDS COMPOST ADMIN & FAC. IMPR. POST CLOSURE RESERVES CLOSURE CLEANUP DEFERRED FUND ALL
PROGRAM CENTERS PROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRAM FUT PROJ RESERVES 0-30 yrs >30 yrs RESERVE FUND COMP BALANCE RESERVES
1 RESERVES--BALANCES as of 6/30/11 $3,877,493 $422,637 $637,702 $261,829 $231,734 ($1,787,196) $375,278 $4,019,477 $1,095,923 $13,230 $274,410 $41,989 $52,700 $1,111,274 $6,609,003 1
2
2
3 REVENUES FY2012:
4 Interest Revenue earned through 2/29/12 $7,111 $775 $1,169 $480 $425 $0 $688 $10,649 $0 $9,111 $2,041 $0 $0 $0 $21,801 4
5 Other income recognized through 2/29/12 $1,000 $2,000 $141,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 5
6
6
7 Additional expected revenues FY2012 $2,671 $291 $439 $180 $65,160 $238,642 $259 $307,642 $0 $4,500 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 313,142 7
8
8
9 Subtotal-Projected revenues for FY2012 $10,782 $3,066 $142,609 $661 $65,585 $238,642 $947 $462,291 _ $0 $13,611_ $3,041 $0 $0 0 478,943 9
' 10
10 11
11 EXPENDITURES FY2012:
12 Expenditures YTD recognized through 2/29/12 $25,155 $147,051 $229,375 $0 $0 $667,640 $32,292 $1,101,513 $0 $0 $0 $2,520 $0 $0 $1,104,033 12
13
13
14 Additional expected expenditures FY2012 $80,000 $65,000 $162,200 $7,500 $65,000 $140,000 $10,500 $530,200 $0 $0 $0 $7,500 $33,750 0 571,450 14
15
15
16 Subtotal-Expenditures FY2012 $105,155 $212,051 $391,575 $7,500 $65,000 $807,640 $42,792 $1,631,713 $0 $0 $0 $10,020 $33,750 $0 $1,675,483 16
17
17
18 Expected Balance 6/30/12 Prior to Transfers $3,783,120 $213,652 $388,736 $254,990 $232,319 ($2,36,194) $333,433 $2,850,055 $1,095,923 $26,841 $277,451 $31,969 $18,950 $1,111,274 $5,412,463 18
19
19
20 BUDGETED TRANSFERS FY2012: 20
21 Transfer In From Gen Fd-FY2012 Budget $241,943 $0 $35,022 $0 $0 $0 $19,047 $296,012 $0 $0 $0 $19,000 $0 $93,444 $408,456 21
22 Transfers Out To Gen Fd-FY2012 Budget ($46,500) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($46,500) $0 ($78,649) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($125,149) 22
23 ANTICIPATED UNBUDGETED TRANSFERS FY2012: 23
24 Transfers into Reserves in FY2012(GF Operating Surplus) $700,000 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $275,000 $1,325,000 24
25 Transfers out of Reserves in FY2012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 25
26 Annual Reduction, LFPC 30-YR Obligation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($78,649) $78,649 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 26
27 Board-authorized Intra-FIR Borrowing(Compost Facility) ($2,356,194) $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,356,194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 27
28
28
28
28 _PROJECTED RESERVE BALANCE at 6/30/12 $2,322,369 $213,652 $473,758 $254,990 $232,319 - $0 $352,480 $3,849,567 $1,017,274 $126,841 $477,451 $50,969 $18,950 $1,479,718 7,020,770
-
29
29 30
30 FY 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
31
31 PROPOSED REVENUES:
32 Interest revenue $11,612 $1,068 $2,369 $1,275 $1,162 $0 $1,762 $19,248 $0 $11,092 $4,744 $0 $0 $0 $35,084 32
33 Other revenues(borrowing,grants,equipmt tradein) $0 $0 $76,000 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $676,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $676,000 33
34
34
35 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES-FY2013 ($1,549,400) ($38,600) ($605,996) ($26,265) $0 ($153,985) ($745,340) ($3,119,586) $0 ($11,330) $0 ($15,000) ($11,450) $0 ( 3,157,366) 35
36
36
37 _ BALANCE 6/30/13 Prior to Transfers $784,581 $176,120 ($53,869) $230,000 $233,481 ($153,985) $208,902 $1,425,229 $1,017,274 $126,603 $482,195 $35,969 $7,500 1,479,718 4,574,488 37
38
38
39
39 BUDGETED TRANSFERS
40 Transfers to Reserves FY2013 Budget $197,870 $0 $75,007 $0 $0 $0 $6,185 $279,062 $0 $50,000 $0 $19,000 $0 $0 $348,062 40
41 Transfers from Reserves FY2013 Budget ($46,500) $0 $0 $0 ($100,000) $0 $0 ($146,500) $0 ($82,223) $0 $0 $0 ($371,060) ($599,783) 41
42 Annual Reduction, LFPC 30-YR Obligation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($75,412) $75,412 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 42
43 Board-authorized Intra-FIR Borrowing(Compost Facility) ($153,985) $0 $0 $0 $0 $153,985 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 43
44
44
45 PROJECTED RESERVE BALANCE at 6/30/13 $781,966 $176,120 $21,138 $230,000 $133,481 $0 $215,087 $1,557,791 $941,862 $169,792 $482,195 $54,969 $7,500 $1,108,658 $4,322,767 45
4/23/2012 10:52 AM PROPOSED BUDGET Projection of Fund Equity Page B 1
F:\BUDGETS\BUDGET 2013\Programs\BUDGETSUMMARY FY13
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
FY 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Actual and Projected Unrestricted Fund Equity
6/30/10 6/30/11 6/30/12 6/30/13
ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTION PROJECTED
PER AUDIT PER AUDIT as of 4/1/12 BALANCES
Designated for Capital Improvements:
Facilities Improvement Reserves
MRF $ 2,640,352 $ 3,877,493 $2,322,369 $ 781,966
Special Waste 454,810 422,637 213,652 176,120
DOC 546,502 637,702 473,758 21,138
Unregulated Hazardous Waste 261,148 261,829 254,990 230,000
Biosolids Program 227,864 231,734 232,319 133,481
Compost Program 27,281 (1,787,196) - -
Property Management&Admin 364,631 375,278 352,480 215,087
Subtotal--Facilities Improvement Reserves 4,522,588 4,019,477 3,849,567 1,557,791
Future Development Reserves 85,087 - - -
Total Funds Designated For Capital $ 4,607,675 $ 4,019,477 $ 3,849,567 $ 1,557,791
Other Designated Funds:
Post Closure Reserves(In Excess of 30-yr Obligation) $ 2,406 $ 13,230 $ 126,841 $ 169,792
Facilities Closure Reserves 273,830 274,410 477,451 482,195
Community Cleanup Fund 26,503 41,989 50,969 54,969
Managers'Deferred Compensation Reserve - 52,700 18,950 7,500
Total Funds Designated For Other Purposes 302,739 382,329 674,211 714,456
Total-All Designated Funds $ 4,910,414 $ 4,401,806 $4,523,778 $ 2,272,247
Undesignated Fund Equity,end of fiscal year
Undesignated Fund Equity 674,514 1,111,274 1,479,718 1,108,658
Total Unrestricted Fund .
Equity-Designated&Undesignated $ 5,584,928 $ 5,513,080 $6,003,496 $ 3,380,905
4/23/2012 PROPOSED BUDGET Actual and Projected Fund Equity Page C-1
•
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FY2013 BUDGET
GENERAL OPERATING PROGRAMS
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 PROGRAM BUDGETS
LINE ITEM ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROPOSED Waste Special Drop-off Hazardous Safety GM Special Future Property PERCENT DOLLAR
A/C# ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET MSW MRF Reduction Waste Centers Waste QA Biosolids Compost Projects Projects Managemt Finance Admin Marketing Enforcemt PUD CHANGE CHANGE
1 OPERATING EXPENSES
TOTAL 5100-SALARIES&WAGES $1,856,392 $ 1,858,199 $ 1,988,621 $ 2,278,140 $ 7,998 $ 65,496 $ 145,118 $ 82,081 $ 669,082 $ 266,245 $ 9,655 $ 6,178 $270,352 $ 56,222 5,819 $ - $ 165,586 $ 250,634 $ 94,662 $ 34,900 148,112 15% $ 289,519 1
TOTAL 5200-PERSONNEL BENEFITS 662,338 702,253 760,854 866,264 2,940 18,244 61,881 33,808 304,095 109,540 3,602 2,504 100,205 13,712 1,906 0 53,947 75,156 25,324 3,879 55,522 14% 105,410 2
3
5320 STAFF TRAINING 11,619 10,876 23,292 31,109 0 1,500 4,000 1,900 2,600 4,170 2,100 0 3,700 2,622 0 0 2,700 2,352 3,265 200 0 34% 7,817 4
5325 TEAM MOTIVATION 1,022 2,099 8,725 9,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,200 0 0 0 5% 475 5
5340 TRAVEL&MEALS 24,619 26,613 38,900 31,599 41 2,928 3,478 916 2,886 4,058 984 3,000 405 5,137 0 0 153 4,805 1,217 1,591 0 -19% (7,301) 6
5360 SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,083 1,306 1,934 2,212 0 110 55 0 0 0 84 0 203 190 0 0 0 1,440 130 0 0 14% 278 7
5365 MEMBERSHIP DUES 17,887 16,081 14,442 19,309 0 750 0 0 0 1,175 75 860 1,235 0 0 0 405 14,809 0 0 0 34% 4,867 8
TOTAL 5300-Education&Training 57,230 56,975 87,293 93,428 41 5,288 7,533 2,816 5,486 9,403 3,243 3,860 5,543 7,949 0 0 3,258 32,606 4,612 1,791 0 7% 6,135 9
10
5410 MEDICAL EXAMS 1,476 1,313 1,642 1,693 0 0 0 0 550 1,143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3% 51 11
5425 LEGAL FEES 104,315 156,139 34,230 37,350 0 5,400 0 0 0 0 0 4,440 2,880 8,800 5,000 250 2,000 7,500 0 1,080 0 9% 3,120 12
5448 BANK FEES 7,358 6,372 7,655 5,655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,500 0 0 0 155 0 0 0 0 -26% (2,000) 16
5450 AUDIT FEES 12,100 12,100 12,700 16,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,300 0 0 0 3,500 32% 4,100 17
5465 SCALE MAINTENANCE/CERTIFICATION 450 523 1,410 660 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -53% (750) 18
5492 OTHER TESTING 24,100 26,500 10,610 23,880 7,000 0 0 0 0 1,800 0 1,500 13,580 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125% 13,270 19
5495 GROUND WATER TESTING 46,775 35,335 39,062 39,259 24,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,859 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% 197 20
5499 OTHER SERVICES 243,975 315,479 501,815 520,668 9,450 25,000 3,800 74,537 5,850 9,665 0 100,000 59,278 63,000 75,000 3,338 0 500 5,680 570 85,000 4% 18,853 21
TOTAL 5400-Professional Services 440,549 553,761 609,124 645,965 40,850 30,710 3,800 74,537 6,400 12,608 0 105,940 96,447 71,800 80,000 3,588 15,455 8,000 5,680 1,650 88,500 6% 36,841 22
23
5505 BUILDING/LAND LEASE 55,984 59,988 18,938 19,871 0 0 0 0 1,006 18,865 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5% 933 24
5510 EQUIPMENT LEASES 173,503 136,047 175,975 151,520 0 0 90 44,100 43,731 0 0 13,361 49,058 0 0 0 0 1,180 0 0 0 -14% (24,455) 25
5515 EQUIPMENT SERVICE CONTRACTS 5,682 6,240 7,176 7,776 0 0 0 0 3,916 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 3,060 0 0 0 8% 600 26
5525 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 1,733,986 1,542,772 1,589,000 1,624,448 0 1,624,448 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% 35,448 27
5545 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL 114,626 107,971 127,675 126,945 0 0 0 6,075 0 120,870 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1% (730) 28
5546 LEACHATE TREATMENT 17,969 26,103 11,507 2,590 1,228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -77% (8,917) 29
5547 LEACHATE TESTING 3,430 3,198 5,008 4,254 3,950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -15% (754) 30
5548 LEACHATE HAULING 20,949 46,952 19,552 15,160 10,240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,920 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -22% (4,392) 31
5550 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 13,713 15,831 11,334 9,791 0 0 0 0 0 6,999 0 0 2,792 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -14% (1,543) 32
5552 TIRES DISPOSAL 77,183 71,986 73,000 71,200 0 0 0 37,200 34,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2% (1,800) 34
5556 MSW DISPOSAL 565,540 570,379 569,254 593,945 0 0 0 0 593,695 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 4% 24,691 37
5557 RECYCLING @ CSWD 27,623 11,599 0 (16,215) 0 0 0 0 (16,215) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEW (16,215) 38
5559 REFRIGERANT REMOVAL 21,224 20,688 23,304 22,848 0 0 0 0 22,848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2% (456) 39
5560 ELECTRONICS MANAGEMENT 93,507 95,798 10,800 21,627 0 0 0 0 19,527 2,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 10,827 40
5561 FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT 8,519 11,709 14,430 15,652 0 0 0 0 15,652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8% 1,222 41
5562 FLUORESCENT LAMPS 25,216 31,181 38,304 25,770 0 0 0 0 0 25,770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -33% (12,534) 42
5577 SLUDGE MANAGEMENT 1,172,162 1,166,368 1,225,044 1,115,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,115,105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -9% (109,939) 45
5580 TRUCKING SERVICES 8,041 24,986 0 5,025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,025 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 NEW 5,025 46
5584 SNOW PLOWING 22,955 23,780 26,900 26,900 0 0 0 0 21,500 3,900 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 47
5587 BUILDING&GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 56,880 33,991 46,824 43,564 1,000 0 0 0 10,550 2,088 0 0 7,700 0 0 13,500 0 8,726 0 0 0 -7% (3,260) 48
5592 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 93,464 118205 98,850 114,900 0 7,500 0 12,100 21,350 3,100 0 30,000 40,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16% 16,050 49
5594 TIRE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT 6,689 6,626 9,540 9,340 0 0 0 1,700 7,640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2% (200) 50
TOTAL 5500-Other Services 4,319,643 4,132,925 4,102,415 4,012,015 16,418 1,631,948 90 101,175 779,200 183,692 0 1,163,491 107,786 0 0 15,000 0 13,216 0 0 0 -2% (90,400) 52
53
5620 COMMERCIAL INSURANCE 68,169 70,473 69,579 78,401 1,922 16,962 0 4,348 14,112 14,177 0 0 9,983 0 0 6,809 2,451 7,637 0 0 0 13% 8,822 54
5685 INSURANCE RESERVES 350 4,127 2,000 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 0 0 0 25% 500 56
TOTAL 5600-Insurance 68,519 74,600 71,579 80,901 1,922 16,962 0 4,348 14,112 14,177 0 0 9,983 0 0 6,809 2,451 10,137 0 0 0 13% 9,322 57
5710 LEGAL NOTICES/CLASSIFIED ADS 1,730 1,383 4,350 4,350 0 0 0 0 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,000 150 0 0 0% 0 558
9
5720 PRINTING 27,146 12,296 60,640 40,140 0 0 240 0 0 3,600 0 0 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 28,850 450 0 -34% (20,500) 60
5750 WORKSHOPS&PRESENTATIONS 3,797 3,152 615 615 0 0 615 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 61
5755 PROMOTION&EDUCATION 100,031 106,643 187,015 161,075 0 1,525 200 0 4,550 12,000 0 0 51,700 0 0 0 0 0 91,100 0 0 -14% (25,940) 62
TOTAL 5700-Printing&Advertising 132,704 123,474 252,620 206,180 0 1,525 1,055 0 5,750 15,600 0 0 58,700 0 0 0 0 3,000 120,100 450 0 -18% (46,440) 63
64
5810 TELEPHONE 28,035 28,416 31,023 34,251 0 960 720 960 12,690 2,944 0 0 3,240 0 0 0 0 10,721 1,776 240 0 10% 3,228 65
5820 WATER/SEWER 9,901 11,607 4,428 7,435 0 0 0 0 5,650 1,085 0 0 0 0 0 700 0 0 0 0 0 68% 3,007 66
5830 ELECTRICITY 25,295 27,181 34,792 40,063 240 0 0 357 12,470 10,010 0 0 11,100 0 0 600 0 3,686 0 0 1,600 15% 5,271 67
5855 HEATING FUEL 10,189 16,151 16,928 18,024 0 0 0 0 5,044 814 0 0 3,000 0 0 600 0 3,563 0 0 5,004 6% 1,096 69
TOTAL 5800-Utilities 73,420 83,355 87,171 99,773 240 960 720 1,317 35,854 14,852 0 0 17,340 0 0 1,900 0 17,969 1,776 240 6,604 14% 12,602 71
72
5950 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT/SYSTEMS UPGRADE 6,646 18,326 11,450 18,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 9,000 0 0 9,000 59% 6,750 73
5970 COMPUTER SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE 27,116 21,891 28,881 41,768 0 0 0 0 1,200 0 0 0 680 0 0 0 14,731 25,157 0 0 0 45% 12,887 74
TOTAL 5900-Computer Equip,Systems 33,762 40,217 40,331 59,968 0 0 0 0 1,200 0 0 0 880 0 0 0 14,731 34,157 0 0 9,000 49% 19,637 75
76
6010 OFFICE SUPPLIES 15,028 10,677 16,885 16,156 0 0 0 0 2,789 794 0 0 2,750 0 0 0 3,094 5,625 1,104 0 0 -4% (730) 77
6020 PERMITS 2,123 2,221 2,545 2,355 990 0 0 0 265 540 0 0 560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7% (190) 78
6040 POSTAGE 16,572 5,927 21,365 9,058 0 0 97 0 104 120 0 0 1,250 47 0 0 2,370 1,200 3,735 135 0 -58% (12,307) 79
6050 OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIP 456 309 1,000 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 50% 500 80
TOTAL 6000-Office Supplies/Equip 34,179 19,134 41,795 29,069 990 0 97 0 3,158 1,454 0 0 4,560 47 0 0 5,464 8,325 4,839 135 0 -30% (12,726) 81
82
6110 GENERAL MATERIALS 28,192 25,376 32,656 33,765 0 3,200 1,060 2,670 9,350 13,875 100 0 3,000 80 0 0 0 350 0 80 0 3% 1,109 83
6111 COST OF GOODS SOLD-COMPOST 36,555 34,127 44,600 41,631 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41,631 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7% (2,969) 84
6112 COST OF GOODS SOLD-TOPSOIL 73,200 19,977 15,105 3,705 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,705 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -75% (11,400) 85
6113 COST OF GOODS SOLD-BAGGED PRODUCTS 45,675 35,003 51,237 46,278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10% (4,959) 86
6114 COST OF GOODS SOLD-OTHER 41,773 30,409 37,851 26,068 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,068 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -31% (11,783) 87
6128 SIGNAGE 3,689 964 2,980 2,900 0 0 0 300 2,000 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3% (80) 89
6135 DIESEL FUEL&GASOLINE 84,460 93,721 105,295 146,173 0 0 0 8,736 53,040 1,158 0 0 74,670 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,569 39% 40,878 90
6180 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 5,589 4,156 4,350 5,900 0 0 0 0 0 1,850 0 0 4,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36% 1,550 91
6181 SAFETY EQUIPMENT 10,383 15,076 9,111 8,781 0 0 150 0 2,960 4,671 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4% (330) 92
6184 BINS 57,025 28,019 58,110 59,246 0 0 59,246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% 1,136 93
6195 UNIFORMS 9,026 7,179 9,143 9,268 0 0 0 0 5,961 928 0 0 2,330 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 1% 125 94
TOTAL 6100-General Supplies 395,567 294,007 370,438 383,714 0 3,200 60,456 11,706 73,311 23,082 100 0 202,731 80 0 0 0 350 0 129 8,569 4% 13,276 95 •
4/24/2012,5:18 PM BUDGET DETAIL PAGE D-1
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FY2013 BUDGET
GENERAL OPERATING PROGRAMS
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 PROGRAM BUDGETS
LAINE ITEM ACTUAL ACTUAL ADOPTED PROPOSED
Waste Special Drop-off Hazardous Safety GM Special Future Property PERCENT DOLLAR
BUDGET BUDGET MSW MRF Reduction Waste Centers Waste QA Biosolids Compost Projects Projects Managemt Finance Admin Marketing Enforcemt PUD CHANGE 96
IC# ACCOUNT
6210 ADMIN ALLOCATION 0 0 0 (0) 4,519 30,272 35,407 22,788 49,450 24,989 0 24,063 18,783 19,764 13,161 16,948 35,568 (330,885) 19,926 15,247 0 0% (0) 97
6215 FINANCE ALLOCATION 0 0 0 0 4,124 12,371 3,093 6,186 96,9(8 28,868 0 2,062 38,146 3,093 1,031 3,093 (206,192) 0 5,155 2,062 0 0% 0 98
6225 SAFETY-QA/QCALLOCATION 0 0 0 0 982 332 0 0 8,307 5,319 (16,599) 0 1,075 0 0 0 0 584 0 0 0 0% 0 99
6255 MAINTENANCE CHARGES 0 0 0 (0) 6,000 1,000 2,000 18,750 (57,400) 7,500 0 0 14,000 150 0 5,500 0 2,500 0 0 0 0% (0) 102
6259 ROLL-OFF TRUCK CHARGES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,000 (61,950) 7,125 0 0 33,750 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 1105
03
TOTAL 6200-Interdepartmental 0 0 0 (0) 15,625 43,975 40,500 68,724 35,315 73,801 (16,599) 26,125 105,754 23,082 14,192 25,541 (170,624) (327,801) 25,081 17,309 0 n/a (0) 106
17 1,054 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 107
6305 OTHER CHARGES0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 0 0 0% 0 108
63061 GENERAL MGR'S PROJECTSTRETION 7,235 2,013 5,000 5,000 0 0
6319 R&D PILOT 147,235 35,350 80 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 109
6320 COMMUNITY CLEAN UP(SEE 6612 AFTER FY10) 19,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 110
8,667 8,926 10,655 9,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -11% (1,155) 111
6322 TIRE&APPLIANCE ROUNDUP 39,235 40,871 39,510 39,510 0 0 0
6321 GREENUP DAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,510 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 112
114
6324 INCENTIVE GRANTS 56,738 146,412 56,500 56,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0
6325 PAYMENT FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES 22,726 29,773 35,132 35,838 0 23,582 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,840 0 0 7,416 0 0 0 0 0 2% 706 115
6326 PROPERTY TAXES 22,091 22,318 19,222 16,162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,868 0 0 0 0 (3,706) -16% (3,060) 116
512 503 665 565 0 0 0 0 0 565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -15% (100) 118
6350 BOARD MEETIN S
6329 BOA ET 5,011 7,963 10,654 11,108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,108 0 0 0 4% 454 119
MNGS
6350 IMPACT FEES 36,654 18,058 18,795 19,161 0 19,161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2% 366
121
6358 HOST TOWN FEES 9,130 552 8,451 5,719 0 0 0 0 1,900 0 0 0 3,819 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -32% (2,732) 122
6391 BAD DEBT EXPENSE 115 243 700 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 0 0 -29% (200) 123
6398 RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES(PUD ONLY) 0 0 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 0% 0 124
TOTAL 6300-Other Charges 372,447 314,036 230,364 224,643 0 42,743 0 0 1,900 565 0 0 8,659 105,590 0 27,284 500 16,108 0 0 21,294 -2% (5,721) 125
126
365,000 380,000 350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100% (350,000) 127
6425 G.O.BOND PRINCIPAL , 39,940 27,116 13,075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100% (13,075) 128
6425 G.O.BOND INTEREST 404,940 407,116 363,075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100% (363,075) 134
TOTAL 6400-Debt Service 1135
34
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES BEFORE TRANSFERS 8,851,690 8,660,052 9,005,680 8,980,061 87,023 1,861,051 321,249 380,512 1,934,863 725,018 0 1,308,098 988,941 278,482 101,917 80,122 90,767 141,858 282,074 60,483 337,601 0% (25,619) 136
137
OPERATING REVENUES I 137
139
FROM OPERATIONS
4301 LICENSE FEES 8,920 8,820 9,370 9,380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,380 0 0% 10 143
4402 EQUIPMENT RENT/LEASE 4,815 3,083 5,400 5,400 0 0 0 5,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 146
4405 RENTAL INCOME 98,758 92,495 93,388 76,288 4,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86,308 0 0 0 0 (14,820) -18% (17,101) 147
4416 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEES 2,725,816 2,991,209 2,558,960 2,647,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,647,200 0 0 0 0 3% 88,240 149
4420 TIPPING FEES 3,654,228 3,206,328 3,034,658 2,947,236 0 (29,000) 0 17,952 1,636,757 2,100 0 1,208,098 111,329 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3% (87,4220 152
) 150
4430 CHGS FOR SVC--PESTICIDE DISP ST CONTR 18,039 15,394 18,000
138,0003 0 0 0 0 36,483 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 3,603 153
4480 ELECTRONICS MANAGEMENT FEE
4480 DELIVERY FEE REVENUE 82,935 66,262 74,500 69,704 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69,704 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6% (4,796)
154
4520 SALES OF MATERIALS 2,872,109 3,517,389 2,722,770 2,626,024 0 2,034,323 0 10,500 0 41,200 0 0 540,001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4% (96,746) 156
155
4521 EPOSITDISCOUNTS TONT SALES/COFNS MATERIALS (4,119)5,658 (5,583)6,096 (4,608)5, 00 (6 626) 0 0 0 0 6,626 (5,040)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16% (432)926 158
4530 DEPOSIT BOTTLES/CANS 0 61,652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8% 4,698 159
4530 TIRES 56,884 46,199 56,954 61,652 0 0 D 18,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64% 7,309 160
4531 FLUORESCENT LAMPS 7,678 9,769 11,49118,800 0 0 0 0
4540 INTEREST 7,913 7,513 4,710 2,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,400 0 0 0 0 -49% (2,310) 161
4560 CEG 35,692 27,894 36,465 36,345 0 0 0 0 0 36,345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% (120) 165
60,229 94,580 55,415 101,592 0 0 0 0 98,040 3,552 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83% 46,177 166 50 0 0
4565 SCRAP METAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 -50% (50) 167
4572 MISCELLANEOUS 9,962 10,989 100
399 343 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 0
168
4710 FQUIPM ENT SALL ER SA
4598 CAS M 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 169
NT ES
170
4710 FEDERAL&STATE GRANTS 141,118 226,938 72,559 70,000 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4% (2,559)
4711 DONATIONS 500 200 200 200 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 171
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES BEFORE TRANSFERS 9,788,078 10,326,387 8,788,912 8,728,340 4,800 2,005,323 200 95,504 1,777,906 184,957 0 1,208,098 721,034 0 0 86,308 2,649,600 50 0 9,380 (14,820) -1% (60,572) 172
174
NET OPERATING REVENUES OVER(UNDER)EXPENSES 936,388 1,666,335 (216,768) (251,721) (82,223) 144,272 (321,049) (285,008) (156,957) (540,061) 0 (100,000) (267,907) (278,482) (101,917) 6,185 2,558,833 (141,808) (282,074) (51,103) (352,421) 16% (34,953) 175
176
TRANSFERS TO RESERVE FUNDS
6612 COMMUNITY CLEAN UP FD(SEE#6320,PRIOR TO FY11) 100,000 0 19,000
50,000 19,000
159,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,000 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 NEW 50,000 179
66152 LANDFILLC POST-CLOSURE RESERVES
6620 FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT RESERVES 1,096,733 1,514,310 296,012 279,062 0 144,272 0 0 75,007 0 0 0 53,598 0 0 6,185 0 0 0 0 0 -6% (16,950)
6635 INCREASE IN UNDESIGNATED FUND EQUITY 226,603 311,228 93,444 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100% (93,444) 184
TOTAL TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS 1,423,336 1,894,538 408,456 348,062 0 144,272 0 0 75,00? 0 0 0 53,598 19,000 0 6,185 50,000 0 0 0 0 -15% (60,394) 18855
187
TRANSFERS FROM RESERVE FUNDS 0 0 363,075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100% (363,075) 187
4915 DEBTN SERVICE RESERVES
4915 LANDFILL POST-CLOSURE RESERVES 80,282 68,353 78,649 82,223 82,223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5% 3,574 1
89
4920 FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT RESERVES 272,054 74,200 146,500 146,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 46,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 190
4925 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBSIDY 0 0 0 (0) 0 0 321,049 285,008 231,964 540,061 0 0 321,505 250,982 21,917 0 (2,558,833) 141,808 282,074 51,103 111,361 0% (0) 191
4930 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RESERVES 134,612 85,650 37,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -100% (37,000) 193
4935 DECREASE IN UNDESIGNATED FUND EQUITY 0 0 0 371,060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 241,060 NEW 371,060 194
TOTAL TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS 486,948 228,203 625,224 599,783 82,223 0 321,049 285,008 231,9E4 540,061 0 100,000 321,505 297,482 101,917 0 (2,508,833) 141,808 282,074 51,103 352,421 -4% (25,441) 195
NET REVENUES LESS EXPENSES,AFTER TRANSFERS 0
0 0 (0) (0) 0 0 0 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a 0 197
Note: Individual totals may vary due to rounding.
BUDGET DETAIL PAGE D-2
4/24/2012;5:18 PM
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
ADOPTED FY2012 AND PROPOSED FY2013 BUDGET - BY PROGRAM
GENERAL FUND OPERATING PROGRAMS
BUDGETED REVENUES BUDGETED EXPENDITURES TRANSFERS FROM (TO) NET PROGRAM AMOUNT
1 2 3 4 RESERVES SWMF SUBSIDY *
5 6 7 8 9 10
FY12 FY13 FY12 FY13 FY12 FY13 FY12 FY13
PROGRAM ADOPTED PROPOSED $ CHANGE ADOPTED PROPOSED $ CHANGE ADOPTED PROPOSED ADOPTED PROPOSED
1 MSW $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ - $ 91,882 $ 87,023 $ (4,859) $ 87,082 $ 82,223 $ $ - 1
2 MRF 2,032,935 2,005,323 (27,612) 1,848,741 1,861,051 12,310 (184,194) (144,272) - - 2
3 WASTE REDUCTION 200 200 - 276,281 321,249 44,968 - - 276,081 321,049 3
4 SPECIAL WASTE 112,946 95,505 (17,441) 410,903 380,513 (30,390) 24,898 - 273,059 285,008 4
5 DOC 1,615,056 1,777,906 162,850 1,868,853 1,934,863 66,010 15,839 (75,007) 237,958 231,964 5
6 HAZARDOUS WASTE 173,007 184,957 11,950 739,001 725,018 (13,983) 32,160 533,834 540,061 6
7 SAFETY/QA PROGRAM - -
8 BIOSOLIDS 1,299,186 1,208,098 (91,088) 1,687,587 1,308,098
(379,489) 283,914 100,000 104,487 8
9 GREEN MTN COMPOST (GMC) 888,921 721,034 (167,887) 1,039,250 988,941 (50,309) (53,598) 150,329 321,505 9
10 SPECIAL PROJECTS - - - 226,428 278,482 52,054 27,500 27,500 198,928 250,982 10
11 FUTURE PROJECTS - - - 95,909 101,917 6,008 37,000 80,000 58,909 21,917 11
12 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 88,588 86,307 (2,281) 69,541 80,122 10,581 (19,047) (6,185) 12
13 FINANCE 4,710 2,400 (2,310) 86,499 90,767 4,268 81,789 88,367 13
-
14 ADMINISTRATION 100 50 (50) 140,892 141,858 966 5,060 135,732 141,808 14
15 MARKETING 133 - (133) 277,552 282,074 4,522 - - 277,419 282,074 15
16 ENFORCEMENT 9,370 9,380 10 56,236 60,483 4,247 46,866 51,103 16
17 PUD - (14,820) (14,820) 90,125 337,601 247,476 - 241,060 90,125 111,361 17
18 SOLID WASTE MGMT FEE REV 2,558,960 2,647,200 88,240 - - - (93,444) - (2,465,516) (2,647,200) 18
TOTALS $ 8,788,912 $ 8,728,340 $ (60,572) $ 9,005,680 $ 8,980,062 $ (25,618) $ 216,768 $ 251,721 $ - $ -
Note: Individual totals may vary due to rounding.
* The Net Program Amount / Solid Waste Management Fee Subsidy amounts shown in columns 9 & 10 represent the net amount needed to balance the
budget for each individual program. This is calculated as follows:
BUDGETED REVENUES (COL. 1 & 2) LESS BUDGETED EXPENDITURES (COL. 4 & 5) PLUS TRANSFERS FROM (TO) RESERVES (COL. 7 & 8).
5/3/2012 1:11 PM
BUDGET DETAIL PAGE D-3
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
CAPITAL PROJECTS
FY 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
LINE ACCOUNT FY 2013 MRF SPECIAL WASTE DROP-OFF CENTERS UHW
ITEM TOTAL Special Wood General Maint. Roll-Off Williston Essex So.Burl. Milton Richmond Hinesburg Colchester Burlington DEPOT Biosolids Compost PROPERTY ADMIN. FUTURE
# REQUEST Wst Facility Depot Truck DOC DOC DOC DOC DOC DOC DOC DOC PROJECTS
Mgmt
7005 DESIGN AND PERMITTING $182,400 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,900 $41,200 $0 7015 LAND ACQUISITION 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$0 $0 $10,300 $0 $0 $0
0 0 600,000
7020 SITEWORK 184,690 0 33,600 0 0 0 0 49,440 0
0 0 4,000 0 0 1,000 5,150
4
7035 BUILDING 497,063 280,000 0 0 0 0 0 18,060 20,000 20,000 32,548 1,030 0 0 51,500 0 0 40,000
0 0 2,575 0 71,585 102,250 0
7045 EQUIPMENT 1,259,833 889,400 0 0 3,090 79,090 0 0 0 0 16,094 16,094 150,000 0
0 18,000 13,390
7050 ROLL-OFF CONTAINERS 90,300 0 0 0 90,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ,585 0 3,090 0
0 0 0
7055 ROLLING STOCK 280,000 270,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7065 MISCELLANEOUS 25,300 10,000 5,000 0 5,150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $3,119,586 $1,549,400 $38,600 $0 $98,540 $79,090 $10,000 $67,500 $20,000 6,160 0 0 0 0 0
$20,000 $48,642 $21,124 $180,900 $41,200 $19,000 $26,265
REVENUES $0 $153,985 $102,250 $3,090 $640,000
4540 INTEREST INCOME 19,248 11,612 1,068 0 2,369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4605 SALES&TRADEINS OF USED EQPT 12,000 0 0 0 0 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 270 1,160 0 1,760 0 0
4990 PROCEEDS OF LONG-TERM DEBT OBLIG 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4991 PROCEEDS OF CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATIONS 64,000 0 0 0 0 64,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 600,000
TOTAL REVENUES&FINANCING SOURCES $695,248 $11,612 $1,068 $0 $2,369 $76,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0
$0 $1,275 $1,162 $0 $1,762 $0 $600,000
NET REVENUES OVER(UNDER)EXPENDITURES ($2,424,338) ($1,537,788) ($37,532) $0 ($96,171) ($3,090) ($10,000) ($67,500) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($48,642) ($21,124) ($180,900) ($41,200) ($19,000) ($24,990) $1,162 ($153,985) ($100,488) ($3,090) ($40,000)
TRANSFERS OUT AND INCREASE IN FUND EQUITY
6621 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND(FROM FIR) 146,500 46,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6635 INCREASE IN FUND EQUITY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 0
SUBTOTAL $146,500 $46,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 100,000 0 0 $� p
TRANSFERS IN AND DECREASE IN FUND EQUITY
4921 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND 279,062 197,870 0 0 75,007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4935 DECREASE IN FUND EQUITY $2,291,776 1,386,418 37,532 0 21,164 3,090 10,000 67,500 20,000 20,000 48,642 21,124 180,900 41,200 19,000 24,990 98,838 153,985 94,303 3,090
0
SUBTOTAL $2,570,838 $1,584,288 $37,532 $0 $96,171 $3,090 $10,000 $67,500 $20,000 $20,000 $48,642 $21,124 $180,900 $41,200 40,000
$19,000 $24,990 $98,838 $153,985 $100,488 $3,090 $40,000
NET PROGRAM $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Note:Individual totals may vary due to rounding $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PROPOSED BUDGET
4/23/2012
Capital Projects Summary page 20 A-1
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
TOTAL SOURCES OF OPERATING REVENUES, AND
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEES
COMPARISON FY2012 TO FY2013
TOTAL SOURCES OF OPERATING FY 2012 ADOPTED FY 2013 PROPOSED
REVENUES BUDGET BUDGET Difference
General Operating Revenues: $ % $ % $ Change
Tipping Fees $ 3,034,658 33.7% $ 2,947,236 32.8% $ (87,422)
Solid Waste Management Fee 2,558,960 28.4% 2,647,200 29.5% 88,240
Sale of Materials/Mat'I Handling Fees 3,009,667 33.4% 2,970,236 33.1% (39,431)
Equipment Rent/Lease 5,400 0.1% 5,400 0.1% -
Federal, State, & Local Grants 72,759 0.8% 70,200 0.8% (2,559)
Interest 4,710 0.1% 2,400 0.0% (2,310)
License Fees 9,370 0.1% 9,380 0.1% 10
Property Management 93,388 1.0% 76,288 0.8% (17,101)
Subtotal Operating Revenues 8,788,912 97.6% 8,728,340 97.2% (60,572)
Net Transfer From (To) Reserves 216,768 2.4% 251,721 2.8% 34,953
Total Operating Exp Budget $ 9,005,680 100.0% $ 8,980,061 100.0% $ (25,619)
FY2012 FY2013
USE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Based on Based on
FEES BY PROGRAM 116,000 tons 120,000 tons Difference
Program $ % $ % _ $ Change
MRF $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ -
Waste Reduction 276,081 10.8% 321,049 12.1% 44,968
Special Waste 273,059 10.7% 285,008 10.8% 11,949
DOCs 237,958 9.3% 231,964 8.8% (5,994)
Unregulated Haz Waste 533,834 20.9% 540,061 20.4% 6,227
Biosolids Program 104,487 4.1% - 0.0% (104,487)
Green Mountain Compost 150,329 5.9% 321,505 12.1% 171,176
Special Projects 198,928 7.8% 250,982 9.5% 52,054
Future Projects 58,909 2.3% 21,917 0.8% (36,992)
Finance 81,789 3.2% 88,367 3.3% 6,578
Administration 135,732 5.3% 141,808 5.4% 6,076
Marketing/Communications 277,419 10.8% 282,074 10.7% 4,655
Enforcement 46,866 1.8% 51,103 1.9% 4,237
PUD 90,125 3.5% 111,361 4.2% 21,236
Increase in Undesignated Fund Equity 93,444 3.7% - 0.0% (93,444)
Total Solid Waste Mgmt Fee Revenues $ 2,558,960 100.0% $ 2,647,200 100.0% $ 88,240
4/23/2012 ; 11:20 AM BUDGET 2013 SWMF COMPARISON Page E - 1
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
OTHER DESIGNATED FUNDS
FY 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
FY 2013 Landfill Facilities Community Managers'
LINE ITEM PROPOSED Post- Closure Cleanup Deferred
AIC# ACCOUNT BUDGET Closure Reserve Fund Comp
EXPENDITURES
6320 COMM CLEANUP GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES 15,000 0 0 15,000 0 1
6510 VESTED RETIREMENT BENEFITS 11,450 0 0 0 11,450 2
SUBTOTAL-OPERATING EXPENDITURES $26,450 $0 $0 $15,000 $11,450 3
4
7020 SITEWORK 11,330 11,330 0 0 0 5
7045 EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 0 6
7065 MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 0 0 7
SUBTOTAL-CAPITAL EXPENDITURES $11,330 $11,330 $0 $0 $0 8
9
TOTAL EXPENDITURES BEFORE TRANSFERS $37,780 $11,330 $0 $15,000 $11,450 10
11
REVENUES 12
13
4540 INTEREST 15,836 11,092 4,744 0 0 14
TOTAL REVENUES $15,836 $11,092 $4,744 $0 $0 15
16
NET REVENUES OVER(UNDER)EXPENDITURES ($21,944) ($238) $4,744 ($15,000) ($11,450) 17
18
TRANSFERS OUT AND INCREASE IN FUND EQUITY 19
6623 TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND(LFPC) 82,223 82,223 0 0 0 20
6630 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RESERVES 0 0 0 0 0 21
6635 INCREASE IN FUND EQUITY 8,744 0 4,744 4,000 0 22
SUBTOTAL $90,967 $82,223 $4,744 $4,000 $0 23
24
TRANSFERS IN AND DECREASE IN FUND EQUITY 25
4915 LANDFILL CLOSURE RESERVES 0 0 0 0 0 26
4922 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND(COMM CLEANUP) 19,000 0 0 19,000 27
4923 TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND(LFPC) 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 28
4930 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RESERVES 0 0 0 0 0 29
4935 DECREASE IN FUND EQUITY 43,911 32,461 0 0 11,450 30
SUBTOTAL $112,911 $82,461 $0 $19,000 $11,450 31
32
NET PROGRAM $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 33
4/23/2012 PROPOSED BUDGET Other Designated Fds Summary page 21A- 1
PROPOSED FY 2013
EMPLOYEE WAGE AND BENEFIT SCHEDULE
C D E I F G I I J I K L M I N I 0 I P I Q I R , S
8 I FY'13 PROPOSED WAGES
9 Primary Primary Hours Base NET NET New New Overtime Overtime TOTAL
10 EMPLOYEE POSITION Site Program per year Grade Step Hourly Wage COLA STEP Base Hourly Hours Wages WAGES
11 (FY131 (FY12) 3.50% 1.25% Wage Rate (base&ot)
12 _ I
13 1 *General Manager ADM ADM 2,080 22 31 $ 61.11 $ 127,109 $ 4,449 $ - $ 131,558 $ 63.25 - $ - $ 131,558
14 2 *Administrative Manager ADM ADM 2,080 15 12 32.09 66,747 2,336 864 69,947 33.63 - - 69,947
•
15 3 Administrative Assistant ADM/FIN ADM 2,080 5 7 16.86 35,069 1,227 454 36,750 17.67 60 1,590 38,340
16 4 *Enforcement Coordinator ADM _ ADM 1,248 12 6 25.02 31,225 1,093 404 32,722 26.22 32,722
17 5 *Marketing&Communications Coordinator MRK MRK 2,080 15 5 29.41 61,173 2,141 791 64,105 30.82 - - 64,105 •
18 6 *Facilities Engineer ADM/FAC ADM/FAC 2,080 15 B 28.34 58,950 2,063 763 61,776 29.70 61,776
19 7 *Facilities Manager/District Engineer ADM/FAC ADM/FAC 2,080 20 6 41.75 86,840 , 3,039 1,123 91,003 43.75 91,003
20 8 *Operations Manager DOC DOC 2,080 16 25 39.99 83,179 2,911 1,076 87,167 41.91 - - 87,167
21 9 Web Design/Marketing Assistant MRK MRK 1,248 12 B 23.51 29,340 1,027 190 30,557 24.48 - - 30,557
22 10 Drop-Off Center Operator-ON CALL ON-CALL DOC 416 4 2 14.92 6,207 217 80 6,504 15.64 - - 6,504
23 11 Drop-Off Center Operator -ON CALL ON-CALUBU DOC 416 4 2 14.92 6,207 217 80 6,504 15.64 - - 6,504
24 12 Drop-Off Center Operator-ON CALL ON-CALL DOC 416 4 13 17.11 7,118 249 92 7,459 17.93 - - 7,459
25 13 Drop-Off Center Operator -ON CALL ON-CALUBU DOC 624 4 14 17.32 10,808 378 140 11,326 18.15 - - 11,326
26 14 Drop-Off Center Operator -ON CALL ESX DOC 416 4 5 15.49 6,444 226 83 6,753 16.23 - - 6,753
27 15 Drop-Off Center Operator ON-CALL DOC 416 4 23 19.37 8,058 282 104 8,444 20.30 - - . 8,444
28 16 Drop-Off Center Operator SOB DOC 2,080 4 6 15.68 32,614 1,142 422 34,178 16.43 - - 34,178
29 17 Maintenance/DOC Operator MIUMAIN/SP MIUMAIN 2,080 5 26 21.34 44,387 1,554 574 46,515 22.36 52 1,744 48,259
30 18 Drop-Off Center Operator WIL DOC 832 . 4 6 15.68 13,046 457 169 13,671 16.43 - - 13,671
31 19 Drop-Off Center Operator-Class I ESX DOC 2,080 5 15 18.62 38,730 1,356 501 40,586 19.51 80 2,342 42,928
32 20 Drop-Off Center Attendant HIN DOC 416 4 2 14.92 6,207 217 80 6,504 15.84 - - 6,504
33 21 Drop-Off Center Operator HIN DOC 832 4 5 15.49 12,888 451 167 13,505 16.23 - - 13,505
34 22 Drop-Off Center Operator BUR DOC 624 4 6 15.68 9,784 342 127 10,253 16.43 - - 10,253
35 23 Drop-Off Center Operator-Class I SOB DOC 2,080 5 13 18.16 37,773 1,322 489 39,584 19.03 52 1,484 41,068
36 24 Drop-Off Center Operator WIUSPW DOC 2,080 4 10 16.48 34,278 1,200 443 35,922 17.27 52 1,341' 37,269
37 25 Drop-Off Center Operator MIL DOC 1,272 4 21 18.89 24,028 841 311 25,180 19.80 - - 25,180
38 26 Drop-Off Center Operator SOB DOC 416 4 5 15.49 6,444 226 83 6,753 16.23 - - 6,753
39 27 Drop-Off Center Operator RIC DOC 1,248 4 8 16.08 20,068 702 260 21,030 16.85 - - 21,030
41 28 Drop-Off Center Operator/Facilities Assistant RIC/ADM DOC 2,080 8 7 20.06 41,725 1,460 540 43,725 21.02 - - 43,725
42 29 Drop-Off Center Operator ESX DOC 2,080 4 5 15.49 32,219 1,128 417 33,764 16.23 80 1,948 35,712
43 30 Drop-Off Center Operator BURL/MIL DOC 2,080 4 8 16.08 33,446 1,171 433 35,050 16.85 - - i 35,050
44 31 Maintenance Supervisor MAIN MAIN 2,080 11 7 23.90 49,712 1,740 643 52,095 25.05 140 5,260 57,355
45 32 Maintenance Operator MAIN/RO MAIN/RO 2,080 7 10 19.65 40,872 1,431 529 42,831 20.59 52 1,606 44,437
47 33 Roll-Off Truck Driver RO RO 2,080 5 11 17.72 36,858 1,290 477 38,624 18.57 120 3,343 41,967
48 34 Seasonal Maintenance MAIN MAIN 416 c c 20.00 8,320 291 8,611 20.70 - - 8,611
49 35 *Finance Manager FIN FIN 2,080 17 15 37.43 77,854 2,725 1,007 81,587 39.22 - - 81,587
50 36 Accounts Payable Specialist FIN FIN 2,080 7 23 23.10 48,048 1,682 622 50,351 24.21 , 50,351
51 37 Accounts Receivable Specialist FIN FIN 1,560 7 9 19.41 30,280 1,060 392 31,731 20.34 - - 31,731
52 38 *Environmental&Safety Compliance Manager ENV HAZ 2,080 17 21 40.33 83,886 2,936 1,085 87,908 42.26 - - 87,908
53 39 Hazardous Waste Coordinator ENV HAZ 2,080 12 14 27.63 57,470 2,011 744 60,225 28.95 120 5,212 65,437
54 40 Hazardous Waste Operator-Class I ENV HAZ 2,080 9 6 21.01 43,701 1,530 565 45,796 22.02 100 3,303 49,098
55 41 Hazardous Waste Operator ENV HAZ 2,080 8 5 19.57 40,706 1,425 527 42,657 20.51 100 3,078 45,733
56 42 Hazardous Waste Operator-Contract ENV HAZ 470 n n 22.00 10,340 - - 10,340 22.00 - - 10,340
57 43 Hazardous Waste Operator-Paint Recycler ENV HAZ 920 4 4 17.00 15,640 - - 15,840 17.00 - - i 15,640
58 44 *Waste Reduction Manager WR WR/SP 2,080 15 13 32.49 67,579 2,365 874 70,819 34.05 - - 70,819
59 45 Community Outreach Coordinator WR WR/SP 1,674 9 14 23.21 38,854 1,360 503 40,716 24.32 - - 40,716
60 46 School Outreach Coordinator WR WR 2,080 9 8 21.54 44,803 1,568 580 46,951 22.57 10 339 47,290
61 47 Business Outreach Coordinator WR WR 2,080 9 4 20.49 42,619 1,492 551 44,662 21.47 10 322 44,984
62 48 Waste Reduction Student Intern SP SP 325 10.00 3,250 3,250 10.00 3,250
63 49 *Intervale Compost General Manager IC IC 2,080 15 3 28.69 59,675 2,089 772 62,536 30.07 - - ! 62,536
64 50 Intervale Sales&Production Coordinator IC IC 2,080 11 3 22.74 47,299 1,655 612 49,567 23.83 - - ,. 49,567
65 51 Intervale Senior Equipment Operator IC IC 2,080 7 19 21.98 45,718 1,600 591 47,910 23.03 40 1,38 49,292
66 52 Intervale Equipment Operator IC IC 2,080 5 2 15.84 32,947 1,153 426 34,527 16.60 25 62 35,149
67 53 Seasonal Equipment Operator IC IC 660 n n 14.50 9,570 - - 9,570 14.50 - - 9,570
68 54 Office Assistant IC IC 1,144 n n 12.00 13,728 - - 13,728 12.00 - - 13,728
69 55 Driver IC IC 600 n n 13.00 7,800 - - 7,800 13.00 - - 7,800
70 56 Light Equipment Operator IC IC 1,144 n n 12.00 13,728 - - 13,728 12.00 - 13,728
71 57 2nd Light Equipment Operator IC IC 260 n n 11.00 2,860 - - 2,860 11.00 - - 2,860
72 58 Bagger-on call IC IC 264 n n 10.50 2,772 - - 2,772 10.50 - - I 2,772
73 59 Overs separators IC IC 200 n n 10.50 2,100 - - 2,100 10.50 8 126 2,226
74 60 On Call Bagger/Light Equipment Operator IC IC 108 n n 12.00 1,296 - - 1,296 12.00 - - 1,296
75 61 Vacant-new employee PUD PUD 2,080 12 b 23.51 48,901 1,712 633 51,245 24.64 - - 51,245
76 62 Vacant-new employee PUD PUD 2,080 12 b 23.51 48,901 1,712 633 51,245 24.64 - - 51,245
77 63 Vacant-new employee PUD PUD 1,040 12 b 23.51 24,450 856 316 25,622 24.64 - - 25,622
78 64
Ij ---
79 65 FY'13 PRELIMINARY BUDGET TOTALS 90,265 2,114,648 71,105 24,341 2,210,094 I 1,101 I 35,04i5 2,245,139
80 66 I
81 67 FY'12 BUDGET I I 82,494 1,943,041 31,731 23,069 1,943,041 1 1,093 i 33,579 I 1,976,620
82 68 1 I I I I I I
83 69 i FY'13 INCREASE OVER FY'12:$ I I 7,771 I I 171,607 39,374 I 1,272 I 267,053 I I 8 I 1,466 I 268,519
sa 70l ' I I I I I I
85 71 I FY'13 INCREASE OVER FY'12:% I I I 9.42%1 I , 8.83%1-124.09%I 5.52%+ 13.74%1 I 0.73%1 4.37a 13.58%
I
4/20/2012 12:20 PM 1 OF 2 WAGES BENEFITS BY POSITION F
PROPOSED FY 2013
EMPLOYEE WAGE AND BENEFIT SCHEDULE
C D I T I W I X Y Z I AA, I AB I AC I AD I AE I AF AG I AH I Al I AJ
. FY 13 MANDATED BENEFITS OPTIONAL BENEFITS TOTAL BENEFITS
9 Workers Unemployment MEDICAL Dental ICMA LIFE A MANDATED OPTIONAL TOTAL TOTAL
10 EMPLOYEE POSITION FICA Comp. Insurance Insurance CSWD Employce _ Opt CSWD Employee Retirement DISAB BENEFITS BENEFITS BENEFITS _ WAGES/
11 7.65% 4.0% Membership pays difference Share Out 95% 5% 6% INS BENEFITS
12 +12%for 6 mos 2.88% 25%of premium 8%increase 2%increase
13 1 *General Manager $ 8,781 $ 445 $ 640 2-PERSON $ 10,657 $ 3,789 $ - $ 818 $ 43 $ 7,893 $ 2,091 $ 9,866 $ 21,459 $ 31,325 $ 162,883
14 2 *Administrative Manager " 6,103 262 640 OPT-OUT - 5,706 1,445 76 4,197 1,210 7,005 12,558 19,562 89,509
15 3 Administrative Assistant 3,015 129 640 FAMILY 18,285 1,058 - 1,445 76 2,205 842 3,784 22,578 26,362 64,702
16 4 *Enforcement Coordinator 2,503 107 640 N/A - - - - - - - 3,250 - 3,250 35,972
17 5 *Marketing&Communications Coordinator 5,057 217 640 SINGLE . 6,299 1,846 - 457 - 3,846 1,103 5,914 11,705 17,619 81,724
18 6 *Facilities Engineer 4,584 197 640 FAMILY 17,564 1,779 1,445 76 - 613 5,421 19,623 25,044 88,819
19 7 .*Facilities Manager/District Engineer 7,816 335 640 OPT-OUT - - 5,706 457 - 5,460 1,374 8,791 12,997 21,788 112,791
20 8 *Operations Manager 6,870 295 640 FAMILY 16,833 2,510 - _ 1,445 76 5,230 1,378 7,805 24,887 32,691 119,858
21 9 Web Design/Marketing Assistant 2,088 90 640 SINGLE 4,887 3,258 - - - - - 2,818 4,887 7,704 38,262
22 10 Drop-Off Center Operator-ON CALL 498 519 260 N/A - - 1,277 1,277 7,781
23 11 Drop-Off Center Operator-ON CALL 498 519 260 N/A - - - - - - 1,277 • 1,277 7,781
24 12 Drop-Off Center Operator-ON CALL 571 595 298 N/A - - - - - - 1,464 - 1,464 8,923
25 13 Drop-Off Center Operator-ON CALL 866 903 453 N/A - -I - - - - - 2,222 - 2,222 13,548
26 14 Drop-Off Center Operator -ON CALL 517 539 270 N/A - - - - - - 1,326 - 1,326 8,078
27 15,Drop-Off Center Operator 646 674 338 N/A - - - - - - - 1,658 - 1,658 10,102
28 16 Drop-Off Center Operator 2,696 2,811 640 SINGLE 7,160 984 - 457 - 2,051 588 ' 6,147 10,256 16,403 50,581
29 17'Maintenance/DOC Operator 3,797 3,959 640 FAMILY 18,004 1,340 - 1,445 76 2,791 759 8,396 22,998 31,394 79,654
30 18 Drop-Off Center Operator 1,046 1,090 547 N/A - - - - - - 2,683 - 2,683 16,355
31 19 Drop-Off Center Operator-Class I 3,375 3,519 640 FAMILY 18,175 1,149 - 1,445 76 2,435 706 7,534 22,761 30,295 73,223
. 32 20 Drop-Off Center Attendant 498 519 260 N/A i- - - - - - 1,277 - 1,277 7,781
33 21 Drop-Off Center Operator 1,033 1,077 540 N/A - _ - - - - 2,650 - 2,650 16,156
34 22 Drop-Off Center Operator 784 818 410 N/A - - - - - - - 2,012 - 2,012 12,265
35 23 Drop-Off Center Operator-ClassI 3,233 3,371 640 2-PERSON 13,306 1,140 - 818 43 2,375 689 7,244 17,187 24,431 65,499
36 24 Drop-Off Center Operator 2,933 3,059 640 SINGLE 7,110 1,035 - 818 43 2,155 689 6,632 10,772 17,403 54,672
37 25 Drop-Off Center Operator 1,926 2,008 640 N/A . - - - - - - - 4,574 - 4,574 29,754
38 26 Drop-Off Center Operator 517 539 270 N/A - - - - - - - 1,326 - 1,326 8,078
39 27 Drop-Off Center Operator 1,809 1,677 640 NA - - - - - - - 3,926 - 3,926 24,956
41 28 Drop-Off Center Operator/Facilities Assistant 3,449 3,596 640 SINGLE 6,885 1,259 - 457 - 2,623 726 7,685 10,692 18,377 62,102
42 29 Drop-Off Center Operator 3,200 3,336 640 OPT-OUT 4,087 457 2,026 502 7,176 7,071 14,247 49,959
43 30 Drop-Off Center Operator 2,765 2,883 640 SINGLE _ 7,135 1,009 - 457 - 2,103 604 8,288 10,299 16,587 51,637
44 31 Maintenance Supervisor 4,506 3,025 640 FAMILY 21,324 1,500 - 1,445 76 3,126 904 8,171 26,798 34,970 92,324
45 32 Maintenance Operator 3,502 3,651 640 2-PERSON 13,213 1,234 - - - 2,570 681 7,793 16,463 24,256 68,694
47 33 Roll-Off Truck Driver 3,297 3;437 640 FAMILY 18,231 1,112 1,445 76 2,317 672, 7,374' 22,665 30,040 72,007
48 34 Seasonal Maintenance 659 687 344 N/A - - - - - - - 1,690 - 1,690 10,301
49 35 *Finance Manager 6,436 276 640 SINGLE 5,795 2,3$0 - 457 - 4,895 1,330 7,352 12,477 19,829 101,416
50 36 Accounts Payable Specialist 3,969 170 640 2-PERSON 12,996 1,45 - _ 818 43 3,021 783 4,779 17,618 22,397 72,748
51 37 Accounts Receivable Specialist 2,900 124 640 OPT-OUT - - 4,280 - - 1,904 555 3,664 6,738 10,403 42,134
52 38 *Environmental&Safety Compliance Manager 6,929 297 640 FAMILY 16,812 2,53T - 1,445 76 5,274 1,356 7,866 24,887 32,753 120,661
53 39 Hazardous Waste Coordinator 5,595 5,833 640 OPT-OUT 4,087 457 - 3,614 1,044 12,068 9,201 21,269 86,707
54 40 Hazardous Waste Operator-Class l 3,861 4,025 640 FAMILY 21,505 '1,319 - 1,191 60 2,748 752 8,526 26,195 34,722 83,820
55, 41 Hazardous Waste Operator 3,600 3,754 _ 640 SINGLE _ 6,916 1,2 9 - 457 - 2,559 717 7,994 10,650 18,644 64,377
56 42 Hazardous Waste Operator-Contract 791 825 414 N/A - - - - - - 2,030 - 2,030 12,370
57 43 Hazardous Waste Operator-Paint Recycler 1,196 1,247 626 N/A _{ - 3,069 - 3,069 18,709
58 44 *Waste Reduction Manager 6,052 259 640 OPT-OUT 4,087 818 43 4,249 1,226 6,951 10,379 17,331 88,149
59 45 Community Outreach Coordinator 3,177 136 640 SINGLE 6,516 1,629 457 - 2,443 708 3,953 10,123 14,077 54,793
60 46,School Outreach Coordinator 3,730 160 640 FAMILY 21,472 1,352 - 457 . - 2,817 696 4,530 25,442 29,972 77,261
61 47 Business Outreach Coordinator 3,548 152 640 SINGLE 6,859 1,286 - 457 - 2,680 734 4,340 10,730 15,070 60,054
62 48 Waste Reduction Student Intern 249 259 130 N/A 638 - 638 3,888
63 49 *Intervale Compost General Manager 4,930 211 [_ 640 2-PERSON 12,645 1,801 - 818 43 3,752 1,083 5,781 18,298 24,079 86,615
64 50 Intervale Sales&Production Coordinator 3,904 167 640 FAMILY 17,916 1,42T - 1,445 76 2,974 784 4,711 23,119 27,831 77,397
65 51 Intervale Senior Equipment Operator 4,421 2,968 640 OPT-OUT - _ 5,706 1,445 78 2,875 769 8,029 10,795 18,824 68,116
66 52 Intervale Equipment Operator 3,284 2,205 640 OPT-OUT 5,706 - - 2,072 601 6,129 8,379 14,507 49,656
67 53 Seasonal Equipment Operator 732 492 383 N/A - - - - - - - 1,607 1,607 11,177
68 54 Office Assistant 1,050 45 549 N/A - - - - - - - 1,644 - 1,644 15,372
69 55 Driver 597 622 312 N/A - - - - - - - 1,531 - 1,531 9,331
70 56 Light Equipment Operator 1,050 1,095 549 N/A - - - - - - - 2,694 - 2,694 16,422
71 57 2nd Light Equipment Operator 219 147 114 N/A 480 - 480 3,340
72 58,Bagger-on call 212 221 111 N/A 544 - 544 3,316
73 59 Overs separators 170 178 89 N/A __ 1111 437 - 437 2,663
74 60 On Call Bagger/Light Equipment Operator 99 103 52 N/A _ 254 - 254 1,550
75 61 Vacant-new employee 3,802 3,964 640 N/A 17,868 1,476 - 1,445 78 - 600 8,406 19,913 28,318 79,563
76 62 Vacant-new employee 3,802 164 640 N/A 17,868 1,476 -_ 1,445 78 - 600 4,606 19,913 24,519 75,764
77 63 Vacant-new employee 1,960 85 640 N/A
- - _ - - _ 2,685 - 2,685 28,307
78 64 - -
79 65 FY'13 PRELIMINARY BUDGET TOTALS 177,503 I 81,072 I 33,179 I 370,235 I 45,350 39,363 30,369 1,307 103,281 30,267 291,753 573,516 865,269 3,110,408
80 66 1 I I I I I
81 67 FY'12 BUDGET 157,100 I 83,272 1 22,655 I 312,299 I 35,961 37,212 I 27,448 I 1,193 I 96,668 I 23,283 I 263,026 I 496,909 759,936 2,736,556
82 68 I I I I I I I I I I
83 69 FY'13 INCREASE OVER FY'12:$ i 20,403 1 (2,200)1 10,524 I 57,936 I 9,389 2,151 I 2,921 I 114 I 6,613 I 6,984 I 28,727 I 76,607 105,333 373,852
84 70 I f I I I 1 I
85 71 FY'13 INCREASE OVER FY'12:% 12.99%I -2.64% 46.45%1 18.55%I 26.11% 5.78%I 10.64%I 9.52%I 6.84%1 30.00%I 10.92%I 15.42% 13.86% 13.66%
4/20/2012 12.20 PM 2 OF 2 WAGES BENEFITS BY POSITION F
CHITTENDEN SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
FY 13 SCHEDULE OF PROGRAM FEES
FY 13 FY 12 Change
4) MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY
Tipping fees and/or materials purchased price fluctuate with market price. Budgeted rates are:
In District materials,per Ton ($5.00) $0.00 ($5.00)
Out-of-District materials,per Ton $5.00 $5.00 $0.00
6) SPECIAL WASTE PROGRAM
Special Waste Facility(at the Williston Drop-Off Center)
Electronics-per pound(by appt.only) $0.18 $0.18 $0.00
Tires--up to 16" $2.25 $2.25 $0.00
Tires-16.5"to 19" $3.75 $3.75 $0.00
Tires-per ton $200.00 $200.00 $0.00
Tree limbs,trunks,clean stumps,&brush
Up to 6 cubic yards No charge No charge
Each cubic yard in excess of 6 cubic yards • $5.00 $5.00 $0.00
Pallets&clean construction lumber No charge No charge
Propane cylinders over 20 lbs $5.00 $5.00 $0.00
Yard debris No charge No charge
7) DROP-OFF CENTERS
Items accepted vary by facility.
Household Trash
up to 18-gallon bag/barrel $1.75 $1.75 $0.00
up to 33-gallon bag/barrel $3.25 $3.25 $0.00
up to 45-gallon bag/barrel $5.00 $5.00 $0.00
per cubic yard $25.00 $25.00 $0.00
@ Burlington Drop-Off Center 13¢/lb 13¢/lb $0.00
Construction&Demolition Debris
up to 18-gallon bag/barrel $3.50 $3.50 $0.00
up to 33-gallon bag/barrel $6.50 $6.50 $0.00
up to 45-gallon bag/barrel $10.00 $10.00 $0.00
per cubic yard $50.00 $50.00 $0.00
@ Burlington Drop-Off Center 13¢/lb 13¢/lb $0.00
Other Items
(*indicates that limits apply)
All-In-One Recyclables No charge No charge
Appliances without Refridgerants $5 $5 $0.00
Appliances with Refridgerants $10-$15 $10-$15 $0.00
Batteries(household and lead acid) No charge* No charge*
Cell phones No charge No charge
Electronics $1-$15 $1-$15 $0.00
Electronics-items covered by new State program No charge N/A
Fluorescent lamps No charge* No charge*
Food scraps&non-recyclable paper No charge No charge
Furniture items $3-$17 $3-$17 $0.00
Hard cover books No charge No charge
Mercury-containing products No charge No charge
Pallets&clean construction lumber No charge No charge
Propane cylinders 20 lbs&under No charge* No charge*
Scrap metal No charge No charge
Textiles No charge* No charge*
PROGRAM FEES K-1
FY 13 FY 12 Change
Tires—up to 16" $2.75 $2.75 $0.00
Tires—16.5"to 19" $5.25 $5.25 $0.00
Tires—20"to 24.5" $14.00 $14.00 $0.00
Tires- off road $56.00 $56.00 $0.00
Tree limbs,trunks,clean stumps,&brush:
Up to 3 cubic yards No charge No charge
Each cubic yard in excess of 3 cubic yards $10.00 $10.00 $0.00
Used oil No charge No charge
Used oil filters No charge No charge
Wood ashes No charge No charge
Yard debris No charge No charge
8) HAZARDOUS WASTE -ENVIRONMENTAL DEPOT& ROVER
Environmental Depot
Household hazardous waste No charge No charge
Business hazardous waste—Conditionally Exempt Generators are charged by material
as stated in hazardous waste hauler contract.
Rover
Household hazardous waste No charge No charge
10) BIOSOLIDS
Sludge per wet ton for disposal(average projected blended rate) $85.10 $90.00 ($4.90)
Sludge per wet ton for land application(average projected blended rate) $69.48 $71.69 ($2.21)
South Burlington Class A $34.20 N/A
South Burlington Class B $87.35 N/A
11) COMPOST
Per ton tip fee for post-consumer food waste $37.50 $37.50 $0.00
14) FINANCE
Solid Waste Management Fee per ton $22.06 $22.06 $0.00
PROGRAM FEES K-2
/ l'
, Cc tiiI Meeting Committee Volunteers List ' } 1
1
CANDIDATE NAME FIRST CHOICE SECOND CHOICE THIRD CHOICE INTERVIEW DATE COMMENTS
*Baker, Wyrth Pension Advisory June 4, 2012
Boulanger, Matthew Recreation Path - 1 year June 18, 2012
Brown, Melanie Pension Advisory June 18, 2012
Charron, Kellie Library Board - 2 year Recreation/Leisure Arts June 18, 2012
Clemins, Patrick Planning Corn. -Any term Energy - Any term Natural Resources June 18, 2012
*Companion, Marc Energy - 2 year term June 18, 2012
*Cummings, Donald Energy- 2 year term June 4, 2012
Dates, Elaine Library Committee - 3 year Library Committee - 2 year Library Committee - 1 year June 4, 2012
DesLauriers, David Airport Commission June 4, 2012
*Ducharme, Sue Recreation/Leisure Arts June 18, 2012
Hershberg, Mike Red Rocks Park Recreation/Leisure Arts Recreation Path June 4, 2012
Hubbard, Richard Pension Advisory June 18, 2012
Janes, Linda Recreation/Leisure Arts June 4, 2012
Jenkins, Donald Library Board - 3 year June 18, 2012
*Kochman, Jennifer Library Committee - Any term 1 June 4, 2012
*Incumbents
Cc pil Meeting Committee Volunteers List
CANDIDATE NAME FIRST CHOICE SECOND CHOICE THIRD CHOICE COMMENTS
*Leban, Donna Recreation Path - 3 year
June 4, 2012
Mackin, Francine Correctional Facility Liason June 4, 2012
*Milizia, Elizabeth ,Natural Resources June 4, 2012
Miller, Athel "Bill" Development Review June 18, 2012
Nowak, Patricia Airport Commission June 4, 2012
Quest, Sophie Planning Commision June 18, 2012
*ShefXCathy Library Boar- 3 year June , 2012 No Lon) 6 '�eft w A N"1'S i o i1� lu w r Er-
*Simson, Nancy Library Board - Any term June 18, 2012
*Stuono, William Development Review- 3 year Planning Corn. - 3 year June 18, 2012
Tapley, Tracey Planning Commission - 3 year Library Board - any term June 4, 2012
*Taylor, Peter City Charter Committtee _ June 4, 2012
Tousley, Peter Energy- 1 year term June 18, 2012
*Incumbents
1-00,04.
,,
,}1
..„.
southbur ingtOn
VERMONT
REGULAR SESSION
To: Sanford Miller, City Manager
From: Ilona Blanchard, Project Direc �4
Subject: Request to Amend the South Burlington New Town Center Boundary
Date: May 16, 2012
Background: In 2009,the City applied for a New Town Center designation, one of the
prerequisites to become eligible for a TIF District.
The application included a boundary which excluded part of one of the largest
developable parcels.
The TIF District may only include whole parcels. To clearly include this
parcel within the TIF District,the boundary will need to be amended.
The Downtown Board is meeting in June and will have the opportunity to
review the amendment request at that time.
The Executive Director for the Vermont Economic Progress Council, Fred
Kenney, would prefer that the City requests the boundary change prior to
applying for a TIF District.
Attachments: • Exhibit A, map of requested boundary amendment
• Resolution Requesting a Boundary Amendment
Recommendation: Approve the Resolution requesting a boundary amendment to the New Town
Center.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
Exhibit A: Boundary Amendment Request
di Jill1,
411111:
x
, 4...., , ''. I ° '.
111111,,, 4
f 3`m,
litik1411 -
fi
W 4
nV
1'; tits'3` �.�
,, ________
, _ ____
Dsa...ill
„____-- = _.
, ,.
mu
.106
I. rs` rY aF� xs :m�
r-i IIIIII 1
-:''''. 11111:11111
• Parcel 0450-0000 . .
V II I inglial II I I
..11, 011111.--- .
� ��r .... .1 411k--- .easell
Wr ■ loilim ,1„,,,,,,,,ii::, __,
.;,, 4 4ii„,icilistainsil
ill, Iva '::., AwAikurngsgaiis
._ , ■ 1111111111
.woo
.•
;104111,..„,411 glij '; an
W VII .: SS • 1111 Ilial tillillig..11.11
MIIII
� 1111a � 111\Ilk . � • " : MI1i
'''' "MIPS illar alga II"IA -
4 ", Ili '` IOW (7_3 CD n0:13'°3 Tim
10111910
I , _ . ___--, 111100 SI Sim
■ — Mil We MI101_
rt NaE�_= South Burlington Designated New Town Center Boundary (100 Acres)
Requested Amendment to the
South Burlington Designated New Town Center Boundary (106 Acres)
R-2012-09
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A BOUNDARY AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH
BURLINGTON DESIGNATED NEW TOWN CENTER
WHEREAS,since 1986 the City of South Burlington has expressed a strong interest in redeveloping City
Center as a mixed-use walkable core to the community;and,
WHEREAS,the Downtown Development board approved South Burlington's request to make City
Center as a Designated New Town Center on January 28,2010;and,
WHEREAS,a New Town Center designation is a prerequisite for a parcel to be included in a tax
increment financing district; and,
WHEREAS,a tax increment financing district may only include whole parcels;and,
WHEREAS,the approved New Town Center boundary excludes part of a parcel that is intended to be
open space; and,
WHEREAS,this exclusion of area intended for open space splits one the largest and most developable
parcels so that it is not wholly within the area designated as a New Town Center and ineligible to be
included within a tax increment financing district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South Burlington requests
a boundary amendment to the New Town Center,as shown on Exhibit A,to include all of parcel 0450-
0000.
APPROVED this day of ,2012.
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
Rosanne Greco,Chair Helen Riehle,Vice Chair
Pam Mackenzie,Clerk Sandra Dooley
Paul Engels
JLadd
From: Sandy Miller
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:37 PM
To: JLadd
Cc: Bob Rusten
Subject: F-35 agenda item and Draft 6-4-12 agenda
Attachments: F-35s -draft Itr opposing Ver 5-30-12.doc; SoBurl-F-35-comments053012.doc; CC Agenda Draft 6-4-12.doc
Categories: Interview
Janice,
The draft agenda is attached. Obviously, the red section gets deleted for the public agenda and is used for the CM Notes part.
Please add the other two attachments into the agenda item related to the F-35s as a separate doc.
In addition, I am attaching a draft letter for Rosanne's signature.
The "blurb" for the CM Notes on this item is as follows:
Attached, in the form of a letter for CC consideration which is intended to become the CC's comments on the DEIS is a letter which includes my edits to
the notes Rosanne provided on this topic 9I received this Wednesday morning). I have tried to consolidate items and be mindful of what was discussed
regarding public hearing and comments at CC last week.
Additionally, Sandy D. provided a separate doc (attached), which I received about 3 p.m. Wednesday. I was not able to incorporate these comments
into the letter. If CC wishes us to do so, we can have another version prepared for next week (June 11th CC meeting).
SawPut' "Sandy"7iteeio7
ICMA - Credentialed Manager
City Manager
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Tel: 802-846-4107
Fax: 802-846-4101
E-mail: smiller@sburl.com
Website: www.sburl.com
1
JLadd
From: Bob Rusten
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:50 AM
To: JLadd; Sandy Miller
Subject: RE: Addition to the June 4th Agenda from Paul on IZ for the UMall
HI Janice.
We also need to add to the agenda discussion of possible steering committee meeting for June 20th at 6:00 pm at the middle school.
From: JLadd
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:43 AM
To: Sandy Miller; Bob Rusten
Subject: Addition to the June 4th Agenda from Paul on IZ for the UMall
Paul added the following to the June 4th agenda based on Council action taken on May 215t
Here is what has been added
6. *** Continue hearing on Interim Zoning Application#IZ-12-02 of University Mall, LLC, to 1) raze an existing commercial building, and 2) construct a
6,000 sq. ft. building to be used for shopping center use, 205 Dorset Street.
This has been added as item #6 on the agenda
Thank you,
yauuce
HR Coord.
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset St
South Burlington, VT 05403
802-846-4118
southburlington
VERMONT
For June 4 or 18, 2012
Mr. Nicholas Germanos, HQ ACC/A&PS 4 ,
129 Andrews St., Suite 332
t Za"/
Langley AFB,VA 23665-2269
Dear Mr. Germanos:
First and foremost, all members of the SoBurlington City Councilexpress their strong
support for and appreciation of the men and wome of VTANG for their servieeirdefense of the nation,
their dedication and their and their families' commitment to our cpmmunities ti
For the reasons cited below, orMonday, May 21202RSou,` Burlington City Council voted 4-1
(Greco, Dooley, Engels, Riehle-aye andMackenzie-no),to' rose the bed-down of the F-35s at the
Vermont Air National Guard. VA
•The USAF F-35A Operational BasinEnvironn e I Impact Statement (March 2012) shows that
Burlington ANG is not the preferrred basing forthe F-35s.,,tittaws that1a ng no action (that is not
basing the F-35s) "wo lldle`fthe''eniro vnmentally referabl ate e a ter " (pages 2-29). Because "the
actual number and co figuration of aircraft eventuallyf used will bedetermined by national security
factors extant at the time-pT delivery f(page 2-25r hie South Burlington City Council is basing our
4 a;.i .:" r
assessment oft e .vironmentai�m.aei� e�nano Z r,
Genera:and Specific Co ceThs
Bur ton AGS was selected as-a"preferred" location prior to the Environmental Impact
Assessment 14ov was Burlington selected n addition to mission, capability,cost, environment, and
military judgmenVw at other (if alit'criteria were used the selection process? What weights were
given to each criter
According to th : S"One x f' he F-35A is operating at the selected base(s), the pilots will have
either consistently flown t `e;. e:Xational profiles defined in this EIS or modified them to accommodate
the unique qualities of the F-3`5A. At that time,the Air Force proposed to acquire actual F-35A
acoustical data to validate the proposed impacts in an appropriate noise study un AICUZ" (page 2-43
and 2-44). What, if any, recourse does the local community have at this time,to challenge the
continued basing of the F-35A, or request mitigation measures to accommodate the different impacts
on the neighborhoods affected by the changes?
What is the probability that the F-35A mission or configuration or any other operational factors
might change in the future?
The baseline conditions listed in the DEIS are not the same as the conditions presented to the
Burlington IAP and the FAA in the past. Moreover, the baseline 65dB DNL listed in the DEIS does not
match the existing 65dB DNL currently being used for the FAA buyout program. Will the Air Force assist
in correcting this information with the FAA?
As "analysis of baseline conditions provides a benchmark that enables decision-makers to
evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed beddown alternatives at each base" (page
BR4-13)we are concerned that inaccurate data may have been given to decision-makers.
Changes were made to the F-16 configuration resulting in significantly higher noise levels and
negative impacts on nearby neighborhoods. Therefore, potential changes to the F-35A mission,
configuration, characteristics,flight profiles, etc.,are of great concern to the residents of SB.
The DEIS states that the Air Force will "Continue to work with Burlington IAP and the City of
South Burlington to support purchase and relocation through the,150 process and to assess noise
abatement measures" (page 2-45). How will this occur? Given.arecent statement by the Burlington IAP
that they do not intend to add more houses to the FAA buys o ro ram,what other measures will the
Air Force take to purchase and relocate the additional ffect by the greater noise levels of the
F-35A? What action will the Air Force take to asses - �e abatement meal. es?
The DEIS states, "Other unavoidable adve acts maybe identi ei..urinpublic p ,.},�1 g and agency
review of the Draft EIS which cannot be mitigated ._
g � acceptable. level. If suc'fi��r' avoidable adverse
impacts are identified,they would be detailed for dec .nnakear the Final EIS and ROD" (page 2-45).
How would further detailing adverse it 'acts affect decis oni i ng regarding basing-we F-35A?
Maximum Sound Levels and Sound ExposureLeV
Table C-1 on page C-8 lists the representatiNiemaximUn,v.pnd levels for five aircraft. And Table C-2 on
page C-19 lists the represe - ound expos r levels ar : ircrafttowever, the F-35A is not
listed on either table refore, i '' possible= '. 1~C', an a as earrient as to the sound levels and
exposure for the F-35. -is the F- not inclu
Noise Impactftitiunity Red is s that t ay-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)
correl i;� ell with a ' , nce" C-12); and ° "DNL does not represent the sound level heard
at any particular time, but ra•` r repre e ts the tots sound exposure. DNL accounts for the sound level
of individu ' e events,the • ration oftho a events, and the number of events."(page C-13) A DNL
of 65 dB "is m ommonly used noise pl inning purposes and represents a compromise between
community impac , the need f4 :ctivities like aviation which do cause noise." "Areas exposed to
DNL above 65 dB are rally nab sidered suitable for residential use." (Italics added)
A DNL of 55 dB is 40,' uisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate
a
margin of safety." (page C-140NL of 75 dB "is the lowest level at which adverse healthy effects could
be credible."
Land Use Compatibility: According to the EIS,guidelines produced by a Federal Interagency Committee
(DoD,Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and the Veterans Administration), state that
"residential land uses normally are not compatible with outdoor DNL values above 65 dB...." (page C-15).
Table C-4 appears to be a representation of this in regards to various land uses. However, the table is
contradictory. Under the residential area, in the column for 65-69dB,the block listing "A" seems to
indicate that"land use and related structures are generally compatible"; but then the added note (11)
to (A) says residential use "is discouraged in DNL 65-69 and strongly discouraged in DNL 70-74 dB." Is
this table in error?
Additionally,on this same table, it clearly indicates, "land use and related structures are not
compatible and should be prohibited" in the "Clear Zone" and "APZ I" and "APZ II." However,
commercial airports are not given APZ(Accident Protection Zone)designations. They are given Runway
Protection Zone or RPZ designations(Vol. I, page 3-26). Therefore Table C-4 on page C-16 in Volume II
does not represent the accident potential for commercial airports, such as the Burlington airport.
Request this information be provided.
"The Airport currently has FAA funding to acquire residential properties within the 65 DNL
contour shown in the 2011 Forecast Condition Map. The baseline:cbours depicting current noise
levels equal to or greater than 65 dB DNL extend over the cities�j . uth Burlington, Burlington, and
Winooski,Vermont" (page BR4-61). "The land use analysis pat .the proposed noise contours for
each scenario to: 1) baseline noise contours, which show the existing oise environment, and 2) Part
t.S150 2011 Forecast Condition Map contours, used by th City of Burlington€o planning purposes" (page
BR4-62). What baseline data is being used—the (nicrrect noise levels used by the Burlington IAP or the
actual noise levels provided by the ANG? We request coordinates or other specrfic.data points in order
to decipher/understand the contour comparison on Figgie BR3 1Q 2 and Figure BR3 x10 3. No accurate
assessment of the specific streets and fig dscan be made'wilhmaps and figures provided in the DEIS.
Noise Effects on Classrooms: The EIS cites e so .'es.(U.S. and'fbreign) and their respective noise level
+�1� 4y� t
criteria for classrooms. The noise levels(mr mu.m acc�p qle in classrooms)from low of 30 dB to a
high of 55dBs (page C-22)`T noise levels of ttie F 35A.`' h;'bambeifhn ElementarySchool would be
68/70 dB DNL. i
„It...,
Noise Effects on Sleep Distu. ce° l ep,or the lack'of quality sleep, has the potential to affect
health and c a n, althb� °are &nab be`ti een noise levels and sleep disturbance is
complexa�. {not fully- tood"{.. e 3-9) Th Flees USEPA criteria to evaluate sleep
disturbaance The resulting`'as smen�'�st at an out oor DNL of 65 dB would interfere with sleep (page
C-23). Butthe.assessment fai s:.consid` .e many shift-workers(first responders,firefighters, police,
hospital workers' rr od preparers, ry operators,etc)who sleep during the day.
Noise Effects on Heart toss: G)tng: tudies done in laboratories,the DEIS reports "repeated exposure
to military low-altitude flip o f with Lmax greater than 114dB, especially if the noise level increases
rapidly, may have the potent cause noise induced hearing loss in humans." The DEIS then goes on
to say that as airport neighbors will not remain outside 24 hours a day, this is of little concern. They do
not take into consideration outdoor construction workers and farmers in the vicinity. _"Potential for
Hearing Loss (PHL) applies to people living in high noise environments where they can experience long-
term (40 years) hearing effects. The threshold for assessing PHL is exposure to noise levels greater than
80 dB DNL." "Under baseline conditions, portions of residential areas adjacent to Burlington IAP are
exposed to noise levels of 80 dB DNL and greater" (page BR4-24).
Noise on Non-auditory Health Effects : The DEIS cites studies showing correlations between noise
exposure and cardiovascular problems, birth weight, and mortality rates. Other studies cited conclude,
"Intrusive noise can act as a stress-provoking stimulus" and psychological stresses from noise may cause
a physiological stress reaction that could result in impaired health. Further studies suggest that noise
exposure may cause hypertension and other stress-related effects in adults(pages C-27 and C-28).
Noise Effects on Children: The DEIS states, "there has not been a tremendous amount of research in the
area of aircraft noise effects on children. The research reviewed does suggest that environments with
sustained high background noise can have variable effects, including noise effects on learning and
cognitive abilities, and reports of various noise-related physiology `anges" (page C-30). They then
further admit, "Physiological effects in children exposed to aircr bise and the potential for health
effects have also been the focus of limited investigation" (p 3
Noise Effects on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: Thy 'makes an ass p
ent on the impact of noise
�
on animals with limited to no research to back up = ' Vrassertions. The DEIS`states at the outset and
then repeats again and again "there appears to ha e, en little concerted effortleveloping
quantitative comparisons of aircraft noise effects on nockAl auc i characteristic a e C-32).
Behavioral effects have been relativelyw ll described, but th lager ecological context issues, and the
potential for drawing conclusions regar'dfor te is on popula xis, has not been well developed" (page
C-33). They cite conflicting data on the noise effect ,cattle, ho s s , swine, and domestic fowl.They
further state that studies have not been one rkeys,w; ,jsuch as" arine mammals, small terrestrial
mammals, reptiles, amphib , '':'d.carnivorou namma "'",Te effe f overflight noise on fish,
14
reptiles, and amphibia'' ve bee _ &.rl studied ,'�;(V e C 5) d regarding birds,theysaythat
Y � . ��g ���? g g
Irg
"However,the long-ter ificance,w -noise-relatmpacts is less clear" (page C-40). The effect of
noise on animals is stated t ay i iurnmary see Lion: "The relationships between physiological
effects an.: pe rep interact ei e co nmeri ave not been thoroughly studied. Therefore,
the lar •ological cori .', issue 4.-:.o.rding phj gical effects of jet noise (if any) and resulting
behavi.r. - anges are not ; l unde . ..d" (page C-46).
Noise Effects o , operty Values:, ;roperty i hin a noise zone (or Accident Potential Zone) may be
affected by the a ility of fede guaranteed loans. According to the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Developm" UD), Ee al Housing Administration (FHA), and Veterans Administration
(VA)guidance, sites are - etab1e or program assistance, subsidy,or insurance for housing in noise
zones of less than 65 dB DN ;tirfd sites are conditionally acceptable with special approvals and noise
attenuation in noise zones greater than 65 dB DNL." "...HUD, FHA, and VA recommend sound
attenuation for housing in the higher noise zones and written disclosures to all prospective buyers or
lessees of property within a noise zone (or Accident Potential Zone)" (page C-47). Some studies
conclude, "that decreases in property values usually range from 0.5 to 2 percent per dB increase of
cumulative noise exposure" (page C-47).