The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - City Council - 03/26/2013 4 IA • southnurb ngton VERMONT AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Executive Session 4:30 P.M. Tuesday, March 26, 2013 Consider entering executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations and litigation. Regular Session 6:30P.M. Tuesday, March 26, 2013 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. A. Update on Nutritional Grant for the School B. *** Resolution from the City of Burlington appointing Pam Mackenzie, Chair of the City Council to the Airport Strategic Planning Committee. 4. Consent Agenda: A. *** Sign Disbursement B. *** Approve Minutes for March 11, 2013 C. *** Review February Financials (Bob Rusten, Interim City Manager). D. ***Approval of the Land Swap Between Lewis Family Partnership and City of South Burlington (Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning). E. *** Consider approval of a Special Event Permit: • Magic Hat-Art Opening, April 5, 2013 4:00-8:00pm 5. Discussing Public Records Request(Bob Fletcher, City Attorney). 6. ***Discuss what Council wants to do at Homestead at Wheeler Park regarding Burlington Garden Club and possibly other entities wishing to use grounds for gardening. Phase 2. (Paul Conner, Planning and Zoning Director). 7. ***Interview candidate for the Planning Commission and DRB. 8. Discuss Council's position on the three components of the voters approved Clerk's Office Charter changes in preparation of testimony before the House Government Operations Committee. Discuss and possibly approve the Resolution regarding keys to the City Clerk's Office (Donna Kinville, City Clerk). 9. Joint meeting with Planning Commission (approximately 7:30pm) to hear Reports from the four (SusAg, FBC, Affordable Housing, Open Space) IZ Committees. 10. Discuss the role of the liaison with IZ Committees and how the committees will report back to Council. 11. *** Interim Zoning-Deliberative Session: (City Council-Deliberative session on applications closed or presently before the City Council. Deliberative sessions are not open to public comment). [Note: Deliberations will be in open session unless due to a legal issue it is voted by Council to deliberate in closed session] A. #IZ-13-01, Perkins Smith Design Build for Conditional use review to construct a 768 square ft. two-story addition to a single family dwelling, 15 Mayfair Street. 12. *** Presentation on final Intercept Facility scoping study (Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works). 13. Discuss what date for the VLCT Training (April 22 or 29). 14. Discuss when to schedule the final Legislative Breakfast. 15. Discuss setting date for Front Entrance Ribbon Cutting. 16. Other Business: A. Items held from the Consent Agenda B. Bike Rack—items Council may wish to place on a future agenda: i. Traffic Lights and sequencing. ii. City Street Lights (adequacy/number) at various locations. iii. Dorset Park Solar Array. iv. Advertising logos or names on City Property v. Taser Policy vi. East Terrance Ordinance vii. Policy regarding landscaping City-owned land and Request from Hadley Road. C. Other? 17. Consider entering executive session for discussion of personnel matters, negotiations, real estate and litigation. 1. Adjourn Respectfully Submitted: [it Bob Rusten, Interim City Manager ***Attachments Included South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines City Council meetings are the only time we have to discuss and decide on City matters. We want to be as open and informal as possible; but Council meetings are not town meetings. In an effort to conduct orderly and efficient meetings, we kindly request your cooperation and compliance with the following guidelines. 1. Please be respectful of each other(Council members, staff, and the public). 2. Please raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. Once recognized please state your name and address. 3. Please address the Chair and not other members of the public, staff, or presenters. 4. Please abide by any time limits that have been set. Time limits will be used to insure everyone is heard and there is sufficient time for the Council to conduct all the business on the agenda. 5. The Chair will make a reasonable effort to allow everyone to speak once before speakers address the Council a second time. 6. The Chair may ask that discussion be limited to the Councilors once the public input has been heard. 7. Please do not interrupt when others are speaking. 8. Please do not repeat the points made by others, except to briefly say whether you agree or disagree with others views. 9. Please use the outside hallway for side conversations. It is difficult to hear speaker remarks when there are other conversations occurring. Public Sign- In March 26, 2013 City Council Meeting Please Print Name Name Name 1 �; - Rfl 4 Li TUP-Q 18 35 213ecn( A0(1 19 36 3 ` ��ii� ,��7 20 37 y tc v 4 &r i/ -NI /k-e--0,0-e 21 38 5lig 4 a 22 39 611 n I , ck 23 Z-tb cam.`li lL l c-i k9 24 41 8 kt A\JC S c j' \ ) 25 42 9T)1;.4S/"tztr/Li_,- 26 43 10 LcLtivk. t14 wti� 27 44 11 ,` (,,,, ;&(. --28 45 12 29 46 13 Mop;c #„r, ,�5-ham,., 30 47 14 ,:26 ,J (&tOL: 31 48 15 fas?y, ,\i[Vst— �,- 32 49 16 �1,4�Lae 0i9- - 33 50 i 17 1 34 51 IJ, 41 0041 0 south : : . n. PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Interim City Manager FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner 0 SUBJECT: Burlington Garden Club Use of Wheeler Homestead DATE: March 26, 2013 City Council meeting Brief History: Since 2000, the Burlington Garden Club, a 109 member, 79 year-old organization with assistance from the UVM Extension Mater Gardener Program, has planted and maintained many of the display gardens at the Homestead in Wheeler Nature Park; group leaders estimate that approximately 780 volunteer hours are logged each season. The group has previously raised funds for founding and installation of many of these gardens, and reports this amount at approximately $130,000. The group also grows approximately 600 pounds of vegetables each season to provide to area food shelves. On the first Saturday of June, this year June 1st, the Garden Club's Annual Plant Sale is held on the property. Proceeds from the sale support the Club's annual philanthropic donations, civic beautification projects in the region, and $3,000 of scholarships in horticulture at UVM and other institutions. Spring cleanup of the grounds and gardens is mid to late April, with spring planting in the gardens beginning at the end of May, continuously maintained until end of October. Spring 2013 Proposals: The Burlington Garden Club seeks permission for the following: • Access to the grounds to maintain the gardens; work is typically done one times per week, on Thursdays; • Access to the Homestead building during work hours for volunteers' use of bathrooms; • Access to a City-owned shed on the property; • Mowing and trimming around gardens by Public Works Department; Permission to host annual plant sale on the first Saturday in June. Proceeds from the sale supports the Club's annual philanthropic donations, civic beautification projects in the region, and $3,000 of scholarships in horticulture at UVM and other institutions. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com Options and Estimates: The Departments of Public Works and Recreation would coordinate to oversee access to the building via a key kept at City Hall. Public Works will be responsible for mowing and trimming and have estimated approximately 4-8 hours per week for this duty. The Director states that there is capacity to do this, provided other activities such as clean-up of recreation paths, etc, were done less frequently. The Department of Public Works could manage clean up of facilities and bathrooms, or the City may wish to task this to the Garden Club after each use. Use of the facility would follow procedures already in place for use of other City owned parks and buildings: keys would be kept at City Hall, with use of the space outlined in a signed agreement submitted to the Recreation Department for approval. This agreement covers liability and responsibility of the site. There are no proposed fees for use of the grounds or building by this organization for the times indicated in this memo. Other Users of the Property: Staff has contacted all those organizations identified by the previous tenant as users of the property. Only the South Burlington Library has responded to identify their interest in continuing occasional programs on the property. Based on communication with the South Burlington Community Gardeners and the Burlington Garden Club, neither organization's work or use of the property would impact other uses of the property in the future. A final decision date on this should be no later than April 15, 2013. City Manager's Plan Regarding Burlington Garden Club (BGC): Allow them access to Homestead at Wheeler Park in same locations they used last year Have Public Works responsible for weekly mowing. BGC will be allowed access to Homestead building only for use of bathroom facilities. BGC will complete "Use of building form" typically required of groups wishing to use City buildings — and will be allowed to use Homestead building as long as City requirements are met. Key to Building kept at City Hall and each Thursday BGC will sign out and return key as per standard City agreement. No fees will be charged to the BGC. We will provide BGC access to one lockable storage shed where they and the City will have a key. If BGC wishes to sell items with proceeds going to a non-profit entity City will not object as long as BGC completes and if approved for any typically- required permits. The areas to be utilized by the BGC will not impinge on any other approved user of Wheeler Park. 2 00, p southhtko'i : V I N M 0 N AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL City Hall 575 Dorset Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Executive Session 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 26, 2013 Consider entering Executive Session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations and litigation where premature general public knowledge would clearly place the municipality at a substantial disadvantage. • Please make sure to say in open session who you are inviting into the Executive Session (other than Councilors). • Please provide to the CM office via email (jladd(cDsburl.com & cinqallssburl.com ) who made the motion to going into Executive Session and who seconded it. And who (if anyone other than Councilors) were invited into the Executive Session. • Make sure to adjourn the Executive Session and return to Open Session. Please provide CM office with who made the motion and seconded it. Items to discuss in Executive Session: 1. Discuss status and costs of Sandy Miller's Public Records Request. 2. Discuss Sandy Miller's benefits request. 3. Discuss status of University Mall appeal and lawsuit. 4. ***Discuss status of Katz & Berger lawsuit (if summary sheet supplied by city attorney). - 5. Discuss reference questions and process for interim candidates. 6. Discuss role of Department Heads in interview process. 7. ***Discuss extending temporary interim city manager agreement between City and deputy city manager. r /tiJ EXTENSION OF LETTER AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON and ROBERT RUSTEN WHEREAS, there presently is no incumbent City Manager for the City of South Burlington ("City"); WHEREAS, Robert Rusten, the Deputy City Manager, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer for the City ("Rusten"), and the City Council have previously entered into a Letter Agreement dated February 7, 2013, pursuant to which the City Council requested Rusten to serve as Temporary Interim City Manager and Rusten accepted that responsibility through 4:59 PM, March 8, 2013 (the "Letter Agreement"); and WHEREAS, The term of office for Temporary Interim City Manager Rusten was extended and shall expire at 11:59 PM, March 31, 2013, or upon the appointment by the City Council of an Interim City Manager and acceptance by that appointee of the appointment, whichever shall first occur. If an Interim City Manager has not been chosen and assumed the duties of the office by 1:00 PM, March 28, 2013, the City Council and Rusten can agree to extend the term of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City has not, as of the date of this Extension, engaged an Interim City Manager, and it will not do so prior to the scheduled expiration of the term of Rusten's status as Temporary Interim City Manager of the City under the Letter Agreement; WHEREAS, Rusten has indicated his willingness to continue to serve as Temporary Interim City Manager and the City Council has requested that Rusten do so on the terms and conditions herein set forth: NOW THEREFORE, the City and Rusten, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and set forth below, do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. The term of office for Temporary Interim City Manager Rusten is extended and shall expire at 11:59 PM, April 19, 2013, or upon the appointment by the City Council of an Interim City Manager and acceptance by that appointee of the appointment, whichever shall first occur. If an Interim City Manager has not been chosen and assumed the duties of the office by 1:00 PM, April 18, 2013, the City Council and Rusten can agree to extend the term of this Agreement. 2. The City Council shall use its best efforts to appoint Interim City Manager during the week of April 15, 2013. 3. Except as modified hereby, the terms of the Letter Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. DATED at South Burlington, Vermont this day of March, 2013. ROBERT RUSTEN DATED at South Burlington, Vermont this day of March, 2013. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: Pam Mckenzie, Chair South Burlington City Council Duly Authorized SON13-002 Rusten Temp Interim CMgr Agreement 2 AGR.docx City of South Burlington Job Reference Check for Interim City Manager Applicant's Name Date Name of Reference Relationship to Applicant Reference Check done by 1. How long have you known this person and what is the nature of your relationship? 2. Did s/he stay in the position for which s/he was hired,or was s/he promoted within your organization? 3. What were the primary responsibilities of the last position our applicant had in your organization? 4. What would you describe as the three top qualities of our applicant? 5. What would you describe as the three qualities most needing improvement? 6. How would you describe their management and leadership style and skill? 7. What was our applicant's reason for leaving the position? 8. Did you have any concerns about the person's: Accuracy of work Task completion Attitude Communication skills Ability to be adaptable Ability to handle pressure Ability to handle conflict Honesty/Integrity 9. Do you think the position of City Manager is a good fit for s/he? Why or why not? 10. Would you rehire this candidate? 11. Is there anything you'd like to add about our applicant? The application submitted by applicants for their property at 54 Central Avenue in the Queen City Park Road District has 5 aspects: 1. Enclose the existing front porch 2. Construct a new covered front porch 3. Convert a rear deck to an enclosed two-story addition 4. Add a screened rear deck 5. Add two dormers on the front and rear portions of the south side of the dwelling. Applicant submitted two versions of this application. In the first version, applicants proposed aspects 1 and 3 so that each would be within the required 5-foot side setback. In the second version, applicants proposed aspects 1 and 3 so that each would comply with the required 5-foot side setback. The applicants' neighbor, Bruce Alvarez, participated in opposition to both applications. In early 2010, applicants submitted the first version of the application. However, when the Administrative Officer informed them that the proposed new construction must comply with the 5-foot setback, and Applicants withdrew the application. Applicants then submitted the second version to the DRB, which denied the application. On appeal, however, applicants attempted to submit to the Court the application that they had withdrawn, the first version. On applicants' motion for partial summary judgment, the Court ruled that the application that applicants withdrew was not within the scope of the appeal. In addition, in response to Applicants' argument that certain provisions of the Land Development Regulations did not apply to their application, the Court ruled that the proposals to enclose the front porch and to enclose and add a second story to the rear deck "increased the square footage of the building" and therefore required review under Section 408(G)(2) of the Regulations. The Court then placed this matter on hold while applicants (re)submitted the original application to the City DRB. On appeal, the Environmental Court concluded on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment that three aspects of the application - the enclosure of the existing front porch, the enclosure of the existing rear deck and the addition of a second story over it, and the new covered front porch - required review under Section 4.08 of the LDR. However, the Court concluded that it could not grant summary judgment to either party and that the applicants needed to present their applications to the court. The Court's decision after the merits hearing turned on Judge Durkin's findings/conclusions on to the extent to which views and sunlight would be impacted by the proposed construction. See findings# 31-33, conclusions page 12-14. The bottom line is that he found the impact of the proposed construction did not rise to the legal standard of"substantial and material", the applicable test for an "adverse effect" regulation, in the context of the existing structure's impacts on views and sunlight of the Alvarez property. The City (and Alvarez) have 30 days from March 7, 2013 to file an appeal—Monday April 8, 2013 is the deadline because the 30th day falls on a Saturday. However, the judgment order is effective immediately unless and until a stay of the order were requested of and granted by the Env Court. Of course, Katz must fulfill the stated obligations before he can receive a zoning permit from the AO. Our recommendation is that the City not appeal because the Court's judgment does not contain what we view as plainly incorrect legal conclusions. Essentially the Court had a fact-based difference of opinion from the DRB and the landscape architect who testified on behalf of the City as to the extent of impact on sunlight and views on the Alvarez property. The Supreme Court should refuse to second- guess factual findings of a trial court such that we believe it would be unlikely the City could prevail on an appeal. Each of the Court's decisions is attached for your information. 38, 2 Councilor Paul, Dober 3 4 5 6 7 APPOINTMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL CITIZEN MEMBER 8 TO THE AIRPORT STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 10 11 12 13 14 In the year Two Thousand Twelve 15 Resolved by the City Council of the City of Burlington, as follows: 16 17 That WHEREAS, on July 16, 2012 the City Council adopted a resolution asking the Mayor in 18 consultation with Council President Shannon to create an Airport Strategic Planning Committee to create 19 a strategic plan for the Airport, including the following components: 20 • a plan for long-term financial strength 21 • a plan for maintaining and increasing airline service at the airport, including potentially more 22 international service 23 • a plan for maintaining and expanding the number of travelers who use Burlington International 24 Airport 25 • an operations plan that makes recommendations on property management, marketing, 26 communications, finance and air service development staffing 27 • consideration of the Airport's regional role and benefits 28 • a review of the Airport Commission's role in the governance of the Airport; and 29 30 WHEREAS,this resolution called for the committee to consist of two City Councilors, one 31 Airport Commissioner,the CAO and up to 5 citizens; and 32 WHEREAS, it has become apparent that it is important to appoint a representative from South 33 Burlington and Winooski to the committee; 34 WHEREAS the City Council requested that the Mayor appoint Sanford Miller of South Burlington 35 and Michael O'Brien of Winooski as voting members to the Airport Strategic Planning Committee on 36 September 12, 2012; and 37 WHEREAS, Sanford Miller is no longer in his role as City Manager of South Burlington. 38 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council requests that the Mayor appoint 39 Pam MacKenzie, as a voting member of the Airport Strategic Planning Committee as of today, March 11, 40 2013. 41 42 03/20/2013 City of South Burlington Accounts Payable Page 1 of 1 01:42 pm Check Warrant Report # cingalls Unpaid Invoices For Check Acct l(GENERAL FUND) From / / To 03/26/2013 Purchase Discount Amount Check Check Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Amount Paid Number Date A C S AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES I 878778 ACS RECEIPT PRINTER/SCAN 750.00 0.00 . /--/-- AT&T AT&T MOBILITY 292X03152013 WQD MOBILE PHONES 208.24 0.00 . /--/-- AT&T AT&T MOBILITY 623X03152013 PW MOBILE PHONES 382.02 0.00 /--/-- CGLIC COLIC 1494127 MARCH HEALTH PREMIUM 96338.58 0.00 . /--/- EXXON EXXON MOBIL 139900303 UNLEADED FUEL 221.63 0.00 . /--/- EYE EYE MED VISION CARE 4893662 VISION PLAN - MARCH 13 1063.53 0.00 . /--/- GREEPW GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATI 727610MAR13 AIRPORT PARKWAY 12647.48 0.00 . /--/-- GREEPW GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATI 379310FEB13 MUNICIPAL COMPLEX 2709.38 0.00 . /--/-- OREEPW GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATI 379310MAR13 MUNICIPAL COMPLEX 2184.59 0.00 . /--/-- HARTFORD HARTFORD-PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 6224090-8 LIFE/STD-MARCH 2013 4025.02 0.00 . /--/-- NORTHD NORTHEAST DELTA DENTAL DENTALMAR13 MAR 2013 DENTAL PREMIUMS 11980.82 0.00 . /--/-- PITNEYG PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL 1510413-MR13 MAILING SYSTEM LEASE 159.09 0.00 . /--/-- VLCT PACT VLCT PACIF 0401-063113 PROPERTY & CASUALTY 215240.00 0.00 . /--/-- Report Total 347,910.38 0.00 0.00 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL To the Treasurer of CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, We Hereby certify that there is due to the several persons whose names are listed hereon the sum against each name and that there are good and sufficient vouchers supporting the payments aggregating $ •••347,910.38 Let this be your order for the payments of these amounts. Rosanne Greco Chris Shaw Pat Nowak Helen Riehle Pam Mackenzie South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 03/26/13 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 3/26/2013 2298 Ruth Goodrich 27.82 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 3/19/2013 VI-13016 REFUND OVERPYMT 27.82 27.82 3/26/2013 2299 Joyce E. Stutler 292.96 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 3/18/2013 VI-13014 MARCH MAILINGS 292.96 292.96 3/26/2013 2300 U.S. Postal Service 1,800.00 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 3/20/2013 VI-13015 REPLENISH BULK MAIL 1,800.00 1,800.00 Total Amount Paid: 2,120.78 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Printed: March 20, 2013 Page 1 of I From: Bob Rusten, Deputy City Manager To: City Council Subjects: Analysis of FY 2013 February Unaudited Financials Date: March 20, 2013 City wide expenses as an aggregate are still trending slightly higher than last year same period at 64.05%vs. 62.06% of budget. However, if we exclude the loan expense for the fire truck, (for which we received corresponding revenue) our year to date percent total expenditures comes in at 61.73%which is below same period last year. As was mentioned in last month's narrative, we continue to work with Paydata, our payroll provider,to fine tune the salary and overtime classifications. You may see salary related line items that appear to be under or over spent for the year. Collectively, our payroll expenses are still tracking well relative to budget. We will try to have these corrections completed in the next couple of months. Our analysis is that in the aggregate General Fund expenditures that had been budgeted will come in at or below the total budget amount. Total General Fund revenues are 71.81% FY 2013 vs. 72.80% FY 2012, with the exclusion of the fire truck loan proceeds in FY 13 and a large insurance disbursement in FY 12. The three areas of revenue concern mentioned in last month's narrative are still of concern: Vermont District Court, Ambulance Service Billing, and Fire Inspection Revenue. We remain diligent in addressing all three of these areas. Council's approval of the Fire Ordinance at its last meeting will hopefully help bring in some revenue this fiscal year. Trying to determine where we will end the fiscal year when only 2/3rds of the way through obviously involves estimation. That being said, I would estimate right now that the General Fund (GF) will end up coming in at or just slightly below or above budget. This is assuming that there are no additional unexpected and unanticipated expenditures between now and the end of the fiscal year. If we were to end up with a slight deficit we have sufficient money in the carry forward to cover it. I believe that all our Enterprise Funds are doing fine and are on track. Lastly, we have added a new feature to the Financials whereby we are identifying in "Expenditures"where there is revenue that is off-setting budget lines that are over-expensed. Please find comments below from Department Heads that have responded to our monthly query and as reviewed by Finance. City Clerk Revenue: Recording fees are running ahead of budget due to record low home interest rates. I expect the revenue for the last quarter of FY2013 will be more in line with the monthly budgeted revenue. Pet Licenses: This is seasonal revenue which will increase dramatically beginning in April thru the end of the fiscal year. This budget amount was greatly increased from last year as the City Clerk's office and the Animal Control officer are to work together to find the unregistered dogs and cats in the City. 1 Expenses: Election Expenses will be considerably over budget for the year mostly due to the Board of Civil Authority requesting that the new voting districts be posted twice in the Other Paper which cost about $2,000 which was unbudgeted. Also election expenses will be reduced once applicable expenses are reclassified to the School Election Expense line. Dues and Subscriptions: Although the percentage of budget expended is higher than it should be for the February statement, the total expended is not expected to exceed the budget. Board of Civil Authority: Although the percentage of budget expended is higher than it should be for the February statement, the total expended is not expected to exceed the budget. BCA Appeals/Abatements will be considerably over budget due to the unexpected event of the City of Burlington appealing 124 properties of the City of Burlington and the International Airport. Public Safety Police— Revenue: District Court (Traffic Tickets) revenue continues to lag below expectations due to staffing shortages and changes in the Traffic Bureau. Ticket numbers have increased at the department level but it will take several months before those are processed and fine revenue is realized. Expenses: Range Supplies - Minimal expenses are expected and should not go over budget. Uniform Supplies - This account may go over budget due to one or two planned officer replacement. Unbudgeted revenue ($1,800) is to be received from the Bullet Proof Vest replacement grant. Overages will be covered by areas that will remain under budget(Animal Control, Salary, etc). Computer Connection Systems- Payments are made in a lump sum earlier in the year. No significant expenditures will take place for the remainder of the year. Conferences—A reclassification of expenditures from conferences to in-service training will take place in March. Combined at year end, these two accounts will come in under budget. Fire and Ambulance— We have recently received reimbursements from Vermont Homeland Security for employee training costs which total approximately $20K and equipment purchases for $25.6K. Fire - Expenses: Expenditures for Overtime Fill-In, Training and FICA costs will be offset when the reimbursements noted above are recorded. Vehicle Repair overages are above projected expenditures due to several significant and expensive repairs. Some building repair costs have also just been reimbursed by our insurance company so I anticipate that expenses posted to Fire Station Maintenance will be offset. I am confident that all other budget lines will be sufficient for the remainder of the year and will come in at or under budgeted amounts. Ambulance-Expenditures for Overtime Fill-In, Training and FICA costs will be offset when the reimbursements noted above are recorded. Budget figures for EMS Supplies remain high due to vendor cost increases. Future purchasing procedures, controls and vendors have been identified to help control costs. I believe all other budget lines will be sufficient for the remainder of the year and will come in at or under budgeted amounts. Public Works, Stormwater and Sewer In Highway the areas of concern (salt, liquid, fuel, oil, etc.) are all tracking high because 1) it's been a heavy winter and 2)those expenses mostly occur in the winter months meaning they 2 should level off and/or cease very soon (and yes, as I type this we're getting 8" of snow). Other over expenditures have been discussed in past monthly reports. For Highway revenues Road Opening Permits should pick up again with the (eventual)return of construction season. For Stormwater revenues: • We have already received$25,000 for the "State of VT Fee for Service" line item. We can and will invoice the remaining $25,000 soon. • Landowner payments—This is made up of the Special Assessment Districts reimbursements. The BF/OCV SAD can start invoicing once we compare our costs with the costs you have in NEMRC. For Stormwater expenditures: • GIS Fees - Overspent because we stopped paying for certain GIS licenses when the City's GIS position rif ed two years ago. In order to renew this license so it could be used by our consultant we had to pay the current and back license fees. • Vehicle Maintenance—At 100% already due to the sweeper accident. We should have received insurance money for repair of the sweeper's bumper. • ERU Rate/Equity Analysis—Underspent. The decision to move forward with this analysis was deferred. For Sewer expenses: • As discussed in the past, we will continue to fine tune our chemical use with the new plant. • Sewer Line Maintenance Supplies is high due to a sewer main break on Commerce Avenue in February. It was a very difficult and expensive break to repair as it impacted other utilities that needed to then be repaired. Outside of future emergencies, which are usually very rare, we don't expect to spend much more money on this line. • Fuel—Airport Parkway is over spent as a result of the upgrade project and the new micro-turbine coming on line later than expected causing us to buy natural gas to run the plant. With the turbine now working, we are capturing our waste energy and using it to fuel the treatment process. Other issues on both the expense and revenue side have been discussed in past monthly reports. Culture and Recreation Revenues overall are mainly higher than anticipated, and for the few items that are lower, corresponding expenditures for these accounts are lower as well- a good example of this is the skiing programs which were just completed. As the bulk of Red Rocks expenses happen during the summer months, the remaining amount will allow us to open the park the last week of June, prior to the new budget taking effect July 1. The consulting fee in the Red Rocks section reflects the cost for the Management Report which is complete, and this study was funded out of the Open Space Account. As has been the case for several months, expenses for both youth and adult programs are over budget, but the corresponding revenues for these items are well over what was projected as well, leaving us in a better financial position. 3 Planning and Zoning Revenues continue to be on target for the Fiscal Year. Slightly below-projection zoning permit fees have thus far been offset by higher development review fees. Spring projects will likely bolster the permit fees. Expenditures are also on track. Overtime will be exceeded for the year due to an abundance of lengthy DRB meetings & reviews; this will be monitored carefully using other lines within the budget. The expenditures in Natural Resources/Energy have been accounted for via principally offsetting revenue and consultant fees (previously reported to Council). Water As a percentage of budgeted amount total revenue is running 1.5%of ahead of last year despite some heavy first half year expenses for water leaks (contractors, equipment rental,materials, and labor). Total administrative expense are also showing as running ahead of last year and this is partly attributable to the Water System Permit Fees. The department will be managed with a goal of the budget being even or slightly positive at fiscal year-end. Please let me know if you have any questions. 4 A B C D E F G H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) Paid February 7 8 GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP. 9 CITY COUNCIL 10 General Expenses $1,000.00 $1,069.17 106.92% ($69.17) $0.00 11 Holmes Road $0.00 $4,251.51 100.00% ($4,251.51) $0.00 12 Interim Zoning $0.00 $49,618.21 100.00% ($49,618.21) $14,070.10,off-set b y revenu e 13 G.B.I.C. $5,000.00 $5,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 14 V.L.C.T. $18,735.00 $18,735.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 15 Chamber of Commerce $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $4,000.00 $0.00 16 Social Services $36,000.00 $36,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 17 CCTV-Clickable Meetings $5,000.00 $5,531.25 110.63% ($531.25) $0.00 18 Councilors $5,480.00 $5,480.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 19 Liquor Control $300.00 $300.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 20 Front Page Forum $3,960.00 $3,960.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 21 USA Triathlon $5,000.00 $5,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 22 23 Total CITY COUNCIL $84,475.00 $134,945.14 159.75% ($50,470.14) $14,070.10 24 25 ADMINISTRATIVE INSURANCE 26 Payment to Sickbank Fund $25,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $25,000.00 $0.00 27 Employee(s)Payout $17,120.00 $17,119.44 100.00% $0.56 $0.00 28 FICA/Medicare $9,100.00 $0.00 0.00% $9,100.00 $0.00 29 Vision Plan $1,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,500.00 $0.00 30 Vision Plan Sick Bank $124.00 $0.00 0.00% $124.00 $0.00 31 Short Term Disability Pla $4,716.00 $2,793.68 59.24% $1,922.32 $351.49 32 Long Term Disability $6,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $6,000.00 $0.00 33 Group Health Insurance $212,000.00 $156,743.57 73.94% $55,256.43 $17,952.74 34 Health Sick Bank $38,750.00 $35,284.89 91.06% $3,465.11 $4,863.67 35 Group Life Insurance $5,000.00 $6,289.34 125.79% ($1,289.34) $1,028.26 36 Group Dental Insurance $19,750.00 $12,987.38 65.76% $6,762.62 $1,659.20 37 Dental Sick Bank $7,235.00 $2,538.68 35.09% $4,696.32 $333.25 38 Pension $173,850.00 $23,501.59 13.52% $150,348.41 $0.00 39 ICMA Match $21,500.00 $22,398.05 104.18% ($898.05) $3,048.78 40 Workers Comp Insurance $29,538.00 ($7,211.95) -24.42% $36,749.95 $0.00 41 Property Insurance $27,425.00 $23,156.49 84.44% $4,268.51 $0.00 42 VLCT Unemployment Insuran $15,000.00 $10,687.10 71.25% $4,312.90 $0.00 43 Deductibles/Coinsurance $10,000.00 $10,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 44 COBRA $20,200.00_ $0.00 0.00% $20,200.00 $0.00 45 46 Total ADMINISTRATIVE INSURANCE $643,808.00 $316,288.26 49.13% $327,519.74 $29,237.39 47 48 CITY MANAGER 49 City Mgr.Salaries-Penn 7_7' $360,800.00 $387,866.69 107.50% ($27,066.69) $152,557.22 to be off-set by revenu 50 City Mgr.Salaries-Other $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,500.00 $0.00 51 Fringe Benefits $11,400.00 $18,528.80 162.53% ($7,128.80) $12,201.92 to be off-set by revenu 52 FICA/Medicare $27,792.00 $26,527.06 95.45% $1,264.94 $9,825.92 53 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $0.00 $300.00 100.00% ($300.00) $0.00 54 Office Supplies $2,500.00 $2,299.29 91.97% $200.71 $86.07 55 Advertising $7,500.00 $2,670.94 35.61% $4,829.06 $248.00 56 Telephone $2,704.00 $2,322.23 85.88% $381.77 $226.96 57 Postage $3,500.00 $1,755.63 50.16% $1,744.37 $1,345.62 58 Dues and Subscriptions $2,000.00 $3,292.00 164.60% ($1,292.00) $20.00 59 Printing $8,000.00 $4,096.50 51.21% $3,903.50 $4,096.50 60 Consulting Fees _ $2,000.00 $145.00 7.25% $1,855.00 $0.00 61 Travel&Training $8,000.00 $5,800.91 72.51% $2,199.09 $779.67 62 63 Total CITY MANAGER $438,696.00 $455,605.05 1 103 85% ($16,909.05) $181,387.88 64 65 Legal,Accouting,Actuary . 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 1 A B C I D E F G H 1 . 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended j $(+/-) Paid February 66 Hiring-required testing $1,000.00 $322.00 32.20% $678.00 $0.00 67 Payroll Processing Fees $10,500.00 $6,129.03 58.37% $4,370.97 $693.42 68 Planning and Design Litig $35,000.00 $45,386.03 129.67% ($10,386.03) $4,697.50 _ 69 Appeals/Abatements $7,500.00 $13,832.56 184.43% ($6,332.56) $0.00 70 Gen Govt.Actuaries/Pensi $86,000.00 $49,412.96 57.46% $36,587.04 $0.00 71 Legal Retainer $42,000.00 $21,422.50 51.01% $20,577.50 $3,500.00 72 Gen Govt.Audit/Accountin $25,000.00 $18,000.00 72.00% $7,000.00 $0.00 73 Background Checks $4,500.00 $360.00 8.00% $4,140.00 $0.00 74 Legal/Labor/Suits $60,000.00 $42,940.02 71.57% $17,059.98 $6,167.32 75 76 Total Legal,Accouting,Actuary $271,500.00 $197,805.10 72.86% $73,694.90 $15,058.24 77 78 Administrative Services 79 Muni Bld Cleaning Supplie $1,750.00 $804.25 45.96% $945.75 $241.75 80 Natural Gas Car-Parts $100.00 $417.44 417.44% ($317.44) $200.08 81 2nd Floor Copier $5,000.00 $3,462.15 69.24% $1,537.85 $0.00 82 Muni BId Cleaning Service $15,000.00 $10,650.01 71.00% $4,349.99 $2,932.30 83 City Hall Maintenance $35,000.00 $6,364.14 18.18% $28,635.86 $372.95 84 Contingency Fund-Infrastr $278,875.00 $164,199.58 58.88% $114,675.42 $93,351.00 85 Computer Services $60,000.00 $26,139.62 43.57% $33,860.38 $1,056.25 86 Computer Software/Hardwar $48,934.00 $21,818.08 44.59% $27,115.92 $1,300.23 87 Electricity-City Hall $43,000.00 $17,136.49 39.85% $25,863.51 $0.00 i 88 Heating/Cooling-City Hall $21,000.00 $7,891.00 37.58% $13,109.00 $3,381.06 89 Street Lights $163,350.00 $111,005.83 67.96% $52,344.17 $0.00 90 Sewer User Rent $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,500.00 $0.00 91 Stormwater User Rent $280,000.00 $138,962.45 49.63% $141,037.55 $2,441.34 92 Urban Art Project Park $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,500.00 $0.00 93 Health Officer Reimbursem $100.00 $0.00 0.00% $100.00 $0.00 94 Emergency Mgmt Center $11,000.00 $978.59 8.90% $10,021.41 $0.00 95 Generator Prevent Maint. $600.00 $525.00 87.50% $75.00 $0.00 96 Othophotographs/Impact Fe $27,500.00 $3,000.00 10.91% $24,500.00 $0.00 97 Council/Board Secretary $8,075.00 $0.00 0.00% $8,075.00 $0.00 98 Possible Additional Staff $30,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $30,000.00 $0.00 99 PD 3rd Floor Lease $6,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $6,000.00 $0.00 100 Comm.Member ConfReg. $0.00 $221.00 100.00% ($221.00) $0.00 101 102 Total Administrative Services $1,040,284.00 $513,575.63 49.37% $526,708.37 $105,276.96 103 104 CITY CLERK 105 City Clerk Salaries-Penn. $150,245.00 $111,711.87 74.35% $38,533.13 $11,276.82 106 Leave Time Tum-In $3,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,500.00 $0.00 107 Overtime $1,000.00 $1,441.62 144.16% ($441.62) $0.00 108 Fringe Benefits $750.00 $0.00 0.00% $750.00 $0.00 109 FICA/Medicare $11,571.00 $9,016.65 77.92% $2,554.35 $907.12 110 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $0.00 $300.00 100.00% ($300.00) $0.00 111 General Supplies $2,400.00 $1,325.57 55.23% $1,074.43 $66.48 112 Animal Control $9,600.00 $2,806.73 29.24% $6,793.27 $617.00 113 Election Expenses $6,050.00 $6,128.81 101.30% ($78.81) $0.00 114 School Election Expenses $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,000.00 $0.00 115 Telephone $1,622.00 $615.00 37.92% $1,007.00 $56.60 116 Postage $5,200.00 ($109.93) -2.11% $5,309.93 ($6.57) 117 Dues and Subscriptions $275.00 $235.00 85.45% _ $40.00 $0.00 118 Printing $355.00 $195.69 55.12% $159.31 $0.00 119 Board of Civil Authority $3,596.00 $3,292.15 91.55% $303.85 $0.00 120 Election Workers $6,200.00 $2,411.00 38.89% $3,789.00 $600.00 121 BCA Appeals/Abatements $854.00 $1,919.35 224.75% ($1,065.35) $0.00 122 Office Equip Maintenance $4,050.00 $827.12 20.42% $3,222.88 $0.00 123 Travel&Training $3,500.00 $1,591.45 45.47% $1,908.55 $137.24 124 Photocopier Lease Prin $1,805.00 $815.74 45.19% $989.26 $0.00 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 2 A B C D E F G H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) Paid February, 125 126 Total CITY CLERK $214,573.00 $144,523.82_ 67.35% $70,049.18 $13,654.69 127 128 GENERAL LEDGER/PAYROLL 129 G.L./Pyrl.Salaries-Perm. $62,200.00 $38,649.60 62.14% $23,550.40 ' $4,684.80 130 FICA/Medicare $4,758.00 $2,826.54 59.41% $1,931.46 $343.08 131 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $0.00 $300.00 100.00% ($300.00) $0.00 132 Office Supplies $655.00 $445.65 68.04% $209.35 $0.00 133 Telephone $541.00 $333.80 61.70% $207.20 $18.88 134 Postage $2,305.00 $5.74 0.25% $2,299.26 $0.00 135 Dues&Memberships $250.00 $190.00 76.00% $60.00 $0.00 136 Printing $425.00 $493.96 116.23% ($68.96) $0.00 137 Equipment Contracts - $480.00 $129.12 26.90% $350.88 $0.00 138 Travel&Training $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 139 I 140 Total GENERAL LEDGER/PAYROLL $72,114.00 $43,374.41 60.15% $28,739.59 $5,046.76 141 142 ASSESSING/FAX 143 Assessing/Fax Sal.-Perm. $105,100.00 $68,693.70 65.36% $36,406.30 $8,081.62 ' 144 Overtime $500.00 $142.11 28.42% $357.89 $0.00 145 FICA/Medicare $8,078.00 $5,772.26 71.46% $2,305.74 $677.80 146 Office Supplies $600.00 $587.95 97.99% $12.05 $108.95 147 Tax Sales Advertising $350.00 $0.00 0.00% $350.00 $0.00 148 Telephone $1,081.00 $474.28 43.87% $606.72 $37.72 149 Postage $4,800.00 $2,644.69 55.10% $2,155.31 $0.00 150 Dues and Memberships $600.00 $25.00 4.17% $575.00 $0.00 151 Printing $1,300.00 $940.63 72.36% $359.37 $0.00 152 Equipment Maintenance $500.00 $130.53 26.11% $369.47 $0.00 153 NEMRC/APEX $1,300.00 $882.00 67.85% $418.00 $0.00 154 Travel&Training $500.00 $966.98 193.40% ($466.98) $0.00 155 156 Total ASSESSING/fAX $124,709.00 $81,260.13 65.16% $43,448.87 $8,906.09 157 158 PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW I 159 Planning Salaries-Perm. $192,500.00 $132,048.15 68.60% $60,451.85 $19,641.62 j 160 Planning Salaries-Other $0.00 $6,425.00 100.00% ($6,425.00) $0.00 _ 161 Leave Time Turn-In $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 162 Overtime $4,500.00 $4,537.36 100.83% ($37.36) $1,012.67 163 Fringe Benefits $750.00 $0.00 0.00% $750.00 $0.00 164 FICA/Medicare $15,071.00 $10,460.04 69.41% $4,610.96 $1,571.35 _ _ 165 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $0.00 $300.00 100.00% ($300.00) $0.00 166 Office Supplies $4,000.00 $1,828.29 45.71% $2,171.71 $477.98 167 Public Meeting Advertisin $3,500.00 $1,397.38 39.93% $2,102.62 $506.72 _ 168 Telephone $1,622.00_ $518.41 _ 31.96% $1,103.59 $56.60 169 Postage $1,500.00 ($346.76) -23.12% $1,846.76 $0.00 170 Dues and Subscriptions $1,200.00 $943.00 78.58% $257.00 $0.00 171 Document Printing $2,000.00 $5.58 0.28% $1,994.42 $0.00 172 Maps $5,000.00 $2,695.00 53.90% $2,305.00 $0.00 173 Consultants $20,000.00 $1,728.65 8.64% $18,271.35 $0.00 174 PC/DRB Stipends $9,000.00 $7,758.42 86.20% $1,241.58 $0.00 175 Travel&Training $4,500.00 $933.18 20.74% $3,566.82 $703.47 176 Legal Permit Review $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 177 Independent Technical Rev $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $10,000.00 $0.00 178 Reimbursable grant expend $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $15,000.00 $0.00 179 180 Total PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW $296,143.00 $171,231.70 57.82% $124,911.30 $23,970.41 181 182 NATURAL RESOURCES 183 Dues and Subscriptions $700.00 $0.00 0.00% $700.00 $0.00 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 3 A B C D E F G H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended S(+/-) Paid February 184 Educational Programs :< $200.00 $46,400.00 23200.00% ($46,200.00) $0.00 off-set by revenue 185 Special Projects Material $1,700.00 $387.00 22.76% $1,313.00 $0.00 186 Printing $100.00 $0.00 0.00% $100.00 $0.00 187 Travel&Training $200.00 $0.00 0.00% $200.00 $0.00 188 189 Total NATURAL RESOURCES $2,900.00 $46,787.00 1613.34% ($43,887.00) $0.00 190 191 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 192AmbulanceDepartment $155,000.00 $155,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 193 Fuel Pump Reserve Fund $8,200.00 $0.00 0.00% $8,200.00 $0.00 194 Open Space Reserve Fund $277,750.00 $277,750.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 195 Reappraisal Fund $70,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $70,500.00 $0.00 196 To undesignated reserve f $50,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $50,000.00 $0.00 197 To Capital Improvements $190,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $190,000.00 $0.00 _ 198 199 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT $751,450.00 $432,750.00 1 57.59% $318,700.00 $0.00 200 I 201 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP. $3,940,652.00 $2,538,146.24 64.41% $1,402,505.76 $396,608.52 202 203 PUBLIC SAFETY 204 FIRE DEPARTMENT 205 Fire Salaries-Permanent $1,054,500.00 $719,849.92 68.26% $334,650.08 $79,936.45 206 Fire Salaries-Other $18,000.00 $5,284.96 29.36% $12,715.04 $3,528.02 207 Leave Time Turn-In $8,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $8,000.00 $0.00 208 Holiday Pay $119,000.00 $101,566.44 85.35% $17,433.56 $8,705.08 209 Fair Labor Standard O/f $77,000.00 $40,076.71 52.05% $36,923.29 $8,004.18 210 F/D Overtime-Fill-In $90,000.00 $96,199.21 106.89% ($6,199.21) $6,836.52 off-set by revenue 211 F/D Overtime-Training $18,000.00 $17,246.26 95.81% $753.74 $395.21 212 F/D Overtime-Emerg Call $21,000.00 $5,375.41 25.60% $15,624.59 $491.01 213 Wellness/Fitness $9,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $9,500.00 $0.00 214 Fire-Off Duty Outside Emp $6,000.00 $2,582.65 43.04% $3,417.35 $0.00 215 Administrative Assistance $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,500.00 $0.00 216 Payment to Sick Bank Fund $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $15,000.00 $0.00 217 Fire Inspector $100,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $100,000.00 $0.00 218 Fringe Benefits $2,000.00 $1,161.15 58.06% $838.85 $0.00 219 FICA/Medicare $96,583.00 $80,483.81 83.33% $16,099.19 $8,540.56 220 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $0.00 $300.00 100.00% ($300.00) $0.00 221 Vision Plan $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 _ 222 Disability $560.00 $0.00 0.00% $560.00 $0.00 223 Group Health Insurance $202,100.00 $146,429.81 72.45% $55,670.19 $17,210.0I 224 Group Life Insurance $2,425.00 $1,817.28 74.94% $607.72 $275.45 225 Group Dental Insurance $17,300.00 $10,519.67 60.81% $6,780.33 $1,369.07 _ 226 Pension $82,815.00 $0.00 0.00% $82,815.00 $0.00 T ' 227OfficeSupplies $1,500.00 $1,400.52 93.37% $99.48 $0.00 228 Vaccinations-HEP $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 ' 229 REHAB Supplies $300.00 $19.74 6.58% $280.26 $0.00 230 Station Operating Supply $4,500.00 $1,286.04 28.58% $3,213.96 $0.00 231 Maintenance Tools $420.00 $0.00 0.00% $420.00 $0.00 232 Uniforms-Career $5,650.00 $5,690.79 100.72% ($40.79) $14.00 233 Uniforms-Call $5,500.00 $3,940.76 71.65% $1,559.24 $0.00 234 Firefighting Clothing $5,000.00 $1,598.71 31.97% $3,401.29 $12.65 235 Vehicle Tools $1,000.00 $422.42 42.24% $577.58 $0.00 236 Gas Chiefs vehicle&rei $1,400.00 $276.83- 19.77% $1,123.17 $0.00 237 Diesel Fuel $28,000.00 $18,407.15 65.74% $9,592.85 $2,456.73 238 Oil $600.00 $0.00 0.00%I $600.00 $0.00 239 Films and Books $1,100.00 $578.20 52.56%' $521.80 $0.00 240 Fire Prevention Materials $3,500.00 $1,692.62 48.36%r $1,807.38 $0.00 241 Fire Extinguishers $300.00 $164.50 54.83% $135.50 $0.00 242 Airpacks Maintenance $8,000.00 $3,404.41 42.56% $4,595.59 $104.08 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 4 A B C D E F G H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 , 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) Paid February ' 243 Telephone $15,680.00 $7,570.99 48.28% $8,109.01 $988.86 244 Postage-Tool Shipping $400.00 $270.77 67.69% $129.23 $0.00 245 Dues and Subscriptions $1,500.00 S753.32 50.22% $746.68 $0.00 246 Workers Comp Insurance $136,563.00 $124,080.60 90.86% $12,482.40 $0.00 247 Property Insurance $31,533.00 $25,358.85 80.42% $6,174.15 $0.00 248 Fire Station Maintenance $14,000.00 $11,746.96 83.91% $2,253.04 $1,409.26 _ 249 Laundry and Bedding $900.00 $234.08 26.01% $665.92 $56.60 250 Radio Repair $1,500.00 $725.50 48.37% $774.50 $0.00 251 Vehicle Maintenance $8,500.00 $2,449.69 28.82% $6,050.31 $137.67 252 Vehicle Repair $10,000.00 $16,798.29 167.98% ($6,798.29) $2,009.32 253 Equipment R&M $4,000.00 $1,713.65 42.84% $2,286.35 $0.00 254 Computers Contract ACS $2,000.00 $1,663.06 83.15% $336.94 $0.00 -i- 255 Conferences $1,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,500.00 $0.00 256 Training Schools $4,000.00 $1,260.73 31.52% $2,739.27 $25.00 257 Training Equipment $750.00 $0.00 0.00% $750.00 $0.00 258 Recruiting&Testing $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 259 Fire Station#2 Heat/Elec $11,000.00 $7,294.04 66.31% $3,705.96 $1,400.69 260 Fire Safety Equipment _ $110,480.00 $47,113.84 42.64% $63,366.16 $0.00 261 F/D Fumiture/Equipment $4,000.00 $1,581.75 39.54% $2,418.25 $0.00 262 Inspector Car/Equipment $25,000.00 $22,700.00 90.80% $2,300.00 $22,700.00 263 Firefighting Equipment-ho $10,000.00 $2,987.82 29.88% $7,012.18 $51.00 264 Equipment Notes Prin $174,285.00 $174,198.52 99.95% $86.48 $0.00 265 Note on Quint Fire Truck $160,955.00 $602,545.71 374.36% ($441,590.71) $0.00 off-set by revenue 266 267 Total FIRE DEPARTMENT $2,742,099.00 $2,320,824.14 84.64% $421,274.86 $166,657.42 268 269 AMBULANCE 270 Permanent Salaries - $401,700.00 $260,924.52 64.96% $140,775.48 $34,893.08 271 EMT Pay $58,600.00 $34,602.22 59.05% $23,997.78 $1,540.01 272 Holiday Pay $65,300.00 $27,655.48 42.35% $37,644.52 $3,799.86 273 Fair Labor Standard OT $24,000.00 $25,712.96 107.14% ($1,712.96) $3,493.91 274 Overtime Fill-In $20,000.00 $34,842.75 174.21% ($14,842.75) $2,984.21 off-set by revenue 275 Overtime-Training $9,900.00 $2,589.43 26.16% $7,310.57 $172.52 276 Overtime-Emergency Call $7,500.00 $1,427.20 19.03% $6,072.80 $214.33 277 Payment to Sick Bank Fund $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $5,000.00 $0.00 278 Wellness $3,500.00 $1,127.35 32.21% $2,372.65 $0.00 279 Fringe Benefits _ $1,500.00 $506.85 33.79% $993.15 $0.00 280 FICA/MEDI $40,468.00 $26,842.70 66.33% $13,625.30 $3,728.04 281 Group Health Insurance $77,000.00 $55,725.16 72.37% $21,274.84 $7,512.35 282 Group Life Insurance $800.00 $669.86 83.73% $130.14 $120.23 283 GroupDental Insurance $6,600.00 $7,729.69 117.12% ($1,129.69) $1,115.85 284 Pension $31,550.00 $0.00 0.00% $31,550.00 $0.00 285 ICMA Match $1,900.00 $1,081.88 56.94% $818.12 $77.36 286 Doctor Service Stipend $2,400.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,400.00 $0.00' 287 Office Supplies $2,000.00 $1,432.25 71.61% $567.75 $373.24 288 Medical Supplies-Disposab $17,000.00 $21,060.85 123.89% ($4,060.85) $473.99 289 Medical Supplies-Oxygen $4,000.00 $1,886.08 47.15%F $2,113.92 $193.75 290 Medical Equipment Replace $3,000.00 $4,239.58 141.32% ($1,239.58) $0.00 i 291 Uniforms-Career $6,000.00 $3,471.59 57.86% $2,528.41 $120.00 292 Diesel Fuel $7,500.00 $4,982.21 66.43% $2,517.79 $721.13 293 Training Films and Books $750.00 $0.00 0.00% $750.00 $0.00 294 Telephone $2,278.00 $1,028.75 45.16% $1,249.25 $99.55 295 Billing Postage $3,000.00 $5.74 0.19% $2,994.26 $0.00_ 296 Dues&Subscriptions $500.00 $120.00 24.00% $380.00 $0.00 297 Workers Comp Insurance $34,968.00 $30,689.35 87.76% $4,278.65 $0.00 298 Property Insurance $7,267.00 $5,739.90 78.99% $1,527.10 $0.00 299 Contingency-Equipment Rep $10,000.00 $3,523.25 35.23% $6,476.75 $0.00 300RadioRepair $1,500.00 $315.00 21.00% $1,185.00 $0.00 301 Vehicle Maintenance $2,500.00 $739.84 29.59% $1,760.16 $58.00 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 5 A B C D E F G H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 - 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) Paid February _ -1 302 Vehicle Repair $5,000.00 $1,281.79 25.64% $3,718.21 $55.50 303 Equipment R&M $1,250.00 $256.84 20.55% $993.16 $0.00 304 Billing Software/Upgrades $8,278.00 $2,960.15 35.76% $5,317.85 $0.00 305 Med Equipment Maintenance $1,000.00 $884.25 88.43% $115.75 $0.00 306 Training Programs $2,000.00 $1,225.55 61.28% $774.45 $0.00 307 Training Equipment $500.00 $25.00 5.00% $475.00 $0.00 308 To Reserve Fund-Training $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $10,000.00 $0.00 309 Radios Purchase $6,200.00 $0.00 0.00% $6,200.00 $0.00 _ 310 EMS Patient Care Discript $37,250.00 $59,814.64 160.58% 022,564.64) $0.00 off-set by revenue 311 312 Total AMBULANCE $931,459.00 $627,120.66 67.33% $304,338.34 $61,746.91 313 . 314 POLICE DEPARTMENT 315 Police Salaries-Permanent $2,343,000.00 $1,506,630.79 64.30% $836,369.21 $175,628.73 1 316 Police Salaries-Other $15,000.00 $300.30 2.00% $14,699.70 $0.00 317 Leave Time Turn-In $12,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $12,000.00 $0.00 318 Police Salaries-Overtime $220,000.00 $157,999.49 71.82% $62,000.51 $17,922.41 319 Holiday Pay $184,900.00 $170,472.71 92.20% $14,427.29 $17,743.46 320 Automatic Corporal $15,750.00 $17,367.51 110.27% ($1,617.51) $0.00 321 Shift Differential $38,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $38,500.00 $0.00 322 Drug Task Force Personnel $39,336.00 $0.00 0.00% $39,336.00 $0.00 323 Off-Duty Police Salary $28,750.00 $19,260.00 66.99% $9,490.00 $0.00 324 Payment to Sickbank Fund $42,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $42,000.00 $0.00 325 Fitness $27,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $27,000.00 $0.00 326 Reparative Board Grant Ac $72,803.00 $0.00 0.00% $72,803.00 $0.00 327 Fringe Benefits $6,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $6,500.00 $0.00 328 FICA/Medicare $216,430.00 $143,469.37 66.29% $72,960.63 $16,201.34 329 Vision Plan $5,100.00 $0.00 0.00% $5,100.00 $0.00 330 Disability Insurance $9,500.00 $4,836.40 50.91% $4,663.60 $604.55 331 Group Health Insurance $472,500.00 $363,018.73 76.83% $109,481.27 $38,674.78 332 Group Life Insurance $5,650.00 $4,240.24 75.05% $1,409.76 $670.94 333 Group Dental Insurance $41,200.00 $31,632.66 76.78% $9,567.34 $4,258.05 - 334 Pension $185,650.00 $1,152.41 0.62% $184,497.59 $0.00 335 ICMA Match $2,000.00 $975.60 48.78% $1,024.40 $69.76 336 Office Supplies $10,500.00 $5,784.96 55.09% $4,715.04 $718.24 337 Range Supplies $10,045.00 $9,376.97 93.35% $668.03 $0.00 338 Radio Equipment-Supplies $500.00 $374.50 74.90% $125.50 $0.00 339 Investigative Supplies $8,000.00 $2,225.44 27.82% $5,774.56 $612.81 _ 340 Youth Services Supplies $6,800.00 $4,375.26 64.34% $2,424.74 $53.35 341 Traffic Unit Supplies $2,400.00 $672.45 28.02% $1,727.55 $0.00 342 Emergency Mgmnt Supplies $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 343 K-9 Supplies $3,000.00 $744.25 _ 24.81% $2,255.75 $0.00 344 Janitorial Supplies $3,000.00 $833.58 27.79% $2,166.42 $0.00 345 Uniform Supplies $31,700.00 $29,308.89 92.46% $2,391.11 $87.50 346 Tires $10,000.00 $1,213.16 _ 12.13% $8,786.84 $0.00 347 Gas and Oil $68,000.00 $49,075.72_ 72.17% $18,924.28 $5,840.40 348 Telephone $32,548.00 $16,057.45 49.33% $16,490.55 $139.45 349 Postage $2,800.00 $1,643.83 I 58.71% $1,156.17 $45.27 350 Dues and Subscriptions $3,164.00 $894 76 28.28% $2,269.24 $0.00 351 Workers Comp Insurance $120,524.00 $81,099.37 67.29% $39,424.63 $0.00 352 Property Insurance $154,232.00 $124,673.20 80.83% $29,558.80 $0.00 353 Towing Services $1,500.00 $660.00 44.00% $840.00 $0.00 354 Crime Prevention Supplies $5,500.00 $1,218.21 22.15% $4,281.79 $131.41 355 Building Maintenance $9,000.00 $5,393.72 59.93% $3,606.28 $0.00 355Uniform Cleaning $14,000.00 $9,355.01 66.82% $4,644.99 $1,181.75 357 Office Equip.Contract $5,000.00 $2,486.54 49.73% $2,513.46 $0.00 358 Generator Prevent Maint _ $700.00 $635.00 I 90.71% $65.00 $0.00 359 Radio Equip.Maintenance $10,000.00 $990.00 i 9.90% $9,010.00 $90.00 360 Vehicle Repair $40,000.00 $30,412.99 1 76.03% $9,587.01 $511.23 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 6 A B C D E F G H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) Paid February I 361 Computer Connections Syst $18,826.00 $15,291.00 81.22% $3,535.00 $0.00_ 362 Equipment Maintenance $2,500.00 $1,249.00 49.96% $1,251.00 $0.00 363 Records Management System $10,000.00 $2,125.00 21.25% $7,875.00 $0.00 364 Consulting Services $6,840.00 $3,402.00 49.74% $3,438.00 $567.00 365 Tower Lease $300.00 $0.00 0.00% $300.00 $0.00 1 366 Animal Control Contracts $21,000.00 $1,850.00 8.81% $19,150.00 $175.00 _ 367 Conferences $3,800.00 $4,343.30 114.30% ($543.30) $152.34 368 In-Service Training $28,380.00 $5,521.45 19.46% $22,858.55 $0.00 _ 369 Recruiting&Testing $2,500.00 $1,356.00 54.24% $1,144.00 $0.00 370 Tuition Reimbursement $6,800.00 $0.00 0.00% $6,800.00 $0.00 _ 371 Electric-Police Dept. $55,000.00 $27,353.15 49.73% $27,646.85 $0.00 372 Heat/I-lot Water $9,800.00 $1,412.54 14.41% $8,387.46 $45.86 373 Radio Installation Utilit $740.00 $465.36 62.89% $274.64 $0.00 374 Building Common Area Fees $42,260.00 $35,109.02 83.08% $7,150.98 $0.00 375 Cleaning/Building Service $33,800.00 $22,414.31 66.31% $11,385.69 $2,488.00 376 Vehicles and Equipment $109,500.00 $1,135.95 1.04% $108,364.05 $0.00 377 Radio Equipment $12,160.00 $0.00 0.00% $12,160.00 $0.00 378 Taser Replacement $5,469.00 $5,522.25 100.97% ($53.25) $0.00 379 BYRNE Grant $25,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $25,000.00 $0.00 380 381 Total POLICE DEPARTMENT $4,931,657.00 $2,929,411.80 59.40% $2,002,245.20 $284,613.63 382 383 Total PUBLIC SAFETY $8,605,215.00 $5,877,356.60 68.30% $2,727,858.40 $513,017.96 1 384 385 STREETS&HIGHWAYS 386 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 387 Highway Salaries-Perm. $643,510.00 $403,950.28 62.77% $239,559.72 $49,515.07 388 Leave Time Turn-In $11,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $11,000.00 $0.00 389 Highway Salaries-Overtime $35,000.00 $23,151.55 66.15% $11,848.45 $6,964.41 390 On-Call Pay $18,700.00 $7,800.00 41.71% $10,900.00 $1,300.00 391 Payment to Sickbank Fund $9,600.00 $0.00 0.00% $9,600.00 $0.00 392 Fringe Benefits $1,200.00 $209.59 17.47% $990.41 $124.34 393 FICA/Medicare $53,337.00 $33,848.76 63.46% $19,488.24 $4,441.76 394 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $0.00 $300.00 100.00% ($300.00) $0.00 395 Vision Plan $1,650.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,650.00 $0.00 396 Drug/Alcohol/Phys.Testing $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 397 Disability Income $3,560.00 $1,792.88 50.36% $1,767.12 $224.11 398 Group Health Insurance $188,000.00 $129,763.35 69.02% $58,236.65 $12,101.33 399 Group Life Insurance $1,775.00 $1,256.64 70.80% $518.36 $199.92 400 Group Dental Insurance $13,100.00 $10,627.50 81.13% $2,472.50 $1,422.00 401 Pension $99,190.00 $4,457.94 4.49% $94,732.06 $0.00 402 ICMA Match $23,000.00 $7,910.43 34.39% $15,089.57 $791.67 403 Office Supplies $2,200.00 $552.04 25.09% $1,647.96 $66.00 404 Traffic Light Supplies $25,000.00 $10,238.18 40.95% $14,761.82 $0.00 405 Sign Supplies $5,020.00 $4,445.32 88.55% $574.68 $0.00 406 City Highways Material $18,200.00 $13,081.70 71.88% $5,118.30 $283.94 407 Road Striping $20,000.00 $6,159.13 30.80% $13,840.87 $0.00 408 Winter Salt $86,000.00 $77,756.29 90.41% $8,243.71 $17,425.28 409 Winter Sand $1,700.00 $52.64 3.10% $1,647.36 $0.00 410 Winter Liquid Deicer Addi $14,000.00 $12,259.19 87.57% $1,740.81 $4,450.05 411 Building Supplies $2,500.00 $1,025.02 41.00% $1,474.98 $192.00 412 Uniforms $13,000.00 $9,619.66 74.00% $3,380.34 $460.33 413 Vehicle Repair Parts $82,500.00 $57,097.56 69.21% $25,402.44 ($21,664.21) 414 School Bus Parts $32,500.00 $27,740.45 85.36% $4,759.55 $27,740.45 415 Gasoline $18,000.00 $17,866.65 99.26% $133.35 $2,699.89 416 Oil $3,500.00 $8,272.99 236.37% ($4,772.99) $3,368.48 417 Diesel Fuel $55,000.00 $44,654.33 81.19% $10,345.67 $14,789.13 418 Diesel/Gasoline Non City $130,000.00 $132,448.41 101.88% ($2,448.41) $19,608.15 419 Telephone/Intemet $9,733.00 $5,357.40 55.04% $4,375.60 $471.55 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 7 1 A B C D E F G I H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 ' 3 General Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) Paid February 420 Workers Comp Insurance $50,957.00 $35,318.90 69.31% $15,638.10 $0.00 421 Property Insurance $46,351.00 $39,036.95 84.22% $7,314.05 $731.00 422 Building Maintenance $30,000.00 $10,820.16 36.07% $19,179.84 $1,184.26 423 Generator Prevent Maint $630.00 $630.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 424 Hydrant Maintenance $100.00 $0.00 0.00% $100.00 $0.00 425 Tree Care $8,000.00 $8,117.59 101.47% ($117.59) $75.11 426 Equipment Rental/Purchase $3,500.00 $1,134.07 32.40% $2,365.93 $0.00 1 427 Office Equipment Maintnce $5,405.00 $638.42 11.81% $4,766.58 $105.00 428 Travel&Training $5,405.00 $1,755.22 32.47% $3,649.78 $74.60 429 Utilities-Garage $16,000.00 $10,809.05 67.56% $5,190.95 $0.00 { 430 Utilities-Garage Heat $14,000.00 $6,435.88 45.97% $7,564.12 $0.00 431 Traffic Lights $33,000.00 $22,188.52 67.24% $10,811.48 $180.14 _ 432 Vehicle Replacement $360,000.00 $323,074.16 89.74% $36,925.84 ($10,995.00) 433 Highway Paving $460,950.00 $8,548.78 1.85% $452,401.22 $0.00 434 Curbs and Sidewalks $15,000.00 $1,730.97 11.54% $13,269.03 $0.00 _ 435 Spc Prjcts/C Beautifictn $90,000.00 $1,347.90 1.50% $88,652.10 $0.00 436 Equipment Notes Prin $69,812.00 $69,803.58 99.99% $8.42 $0.00 437 438 Total HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT $2,831,085.00 $1,595,086.03 56.34% $1,235,998.97 $138,330.76 439 440 Total STREETS&HIGHWAYS $2,831,085.00 $1,595,086.03 56.34% $1,235,998.97 $138,330.76 441 442 CULTURE AND RECREATION 443 RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 444 Rec.Admin.Salaries-Perm. $199,000.00 $134,063.65 67.37% $64,936.35 $16,711.60 445 Leave Time Turn-In $9,193.00 $0.00 0.00% $9,193.00 $0.00 446 Taxable Fringe Benefits $6,400.00 $3,862.96 60.36% $2,537.04 $479.84 447 FICA/Medicare $15,927.00 $10,429.01 65.48% $5,497.99 $1,312.40 448 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $0.00 $399.73 100.00% ($399.73) $0.00 l 449 Office Supplies $2,900.00 $1,500.51 51.74% $1,399.49 $3.80 450 Telephone $2,163.00 $610.90 28.24% $1,552.10 $75.48 1. 451 Postage $800.00 $0.00 0.00% $800.00 $0.00 452 Dues and Subscriptions $625.00 $635.00 101.60% 453 Workers Comp Insurance $11,157.00 $7,334.61 65.74% $3,822.39 $0.00 454 Property Insurance $9,738.00 $7,273.42 74.69% $2,464.58 $0.00 455 Scholarships $1,000.00 $550.00 55.00% $450.00 $0.00 456 Printing $3,600.00 $3,554.00 98.72% $46.00 $350.00 457 Software/Printer Contract $3,500.00 $3,778.21 107.95% ($278.21) $0.00 458 Travel&Training $1,700.00 $1,436.63 84.51% $263.37 $0.00 459 - 460 Total RECREATION ADMINISTRATION $267,703.00 $175,428.63 65.53% $92,274.37 $18,933.12 461 462 PROGRAMS 463 Salaries-Programs $9,900.00 $10,007.10 101.08% ($107.10) $706.00 464 FICA/Medicare $757.00 $613.75 81.08% $143.25 $54.01 465 General Supplies $3,000.00 $2,854.80 95.16% $145.20 $0.00 ! 466 Advertising $2,200.00 $947.71 43.08% $1,252.29 $0.00 _ 467 School Wage Reimbursement $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 468 469 Total PROGRAMS $16,857.00 $14,423.36 85.56% $2,433.64 $760.01 470 471 RED ROCKS PARK 472 Red Rocks Park Salaries $9,800.00 $8,196.89 83.64% $1,603.11 $0.00 473 FICA/Medicare $750.00 $627.06 83.61% $122.94 _ $0.00 474 General Supplies $2,000.00 $1,556.00 77.80% $444.00 $0.00 475 Printing j $400.00 $0.00 0.00% $400.00 $0.00 476 Consulting L r , _ $0.00 $4,992.00 100.00% ($4,992.00) $0.00 off-_set by revenue 477 Utilities $500.00 $148.69 29.74% $351.31 $0.00 478 1 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 8 A B C D E F G H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended S(+/-) Paid February 479 Total RED ROCKS PARK $13,450.00 $15,520.64 115.40% ($2,070.64) $0.00 480 481 FACILITIES 482 Park Salaries $3,900.00 $1,821.50 46.71% $2,078.50 $0.00 483 FICA/Medicare $298.00 $139.33 46.76% $158.67 $0.00 484 Supplies $3,500.00 $2,421.82 69.19% $1,078.18 $210.90 485 Fuel-Gas $2,700.00 $1,245.36 46.12% $1,454.64 $424.01 486 Recreation Path Committee $400.00 $34.32 8.58% $365.68 $0.00 _ 487 Electric-Jaycee Park $1,400.00 $974.42 69.60% $425.58 $0.00 488 Electric-Dorset Park $3,200.00 $1,814.02 56.69% $1,385.98 $0.00 489 Electric-Overlook Park $350.00 $198.70 56.77% $151.30 $0.00 _ 490 Electric-Tennis Courts $600.00 $352.59 58.77% $247.41 $0.00 491 Facilities Improvements $32,851.00 $32,738.50 99.66% $112.50 $0.00 _ 492 493 Total FACILITIES $49,199.00 $41,740.56 84.84% $7,458.44 $634.91 494 495 LEISURE ARTS 496 Playground Director $3,600.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,600.00 $0.00 497 Arts&Crafts Instructors $1,000.00 $1,013.00 101.30% ($13.00) $0.00 498 Adult Programs Supplies/I $2,000.00 $2,266.05 113.30% ($266.05) $0.00 499 FICA/Medicare $352.00 $391.45 111.21% ($39.45) $29.84 I 500 Kids Playground Supplies $500.00 $30.07 6.01% $469.93 $0.00 501 Kids Arts&Crarts Materi $400.00 $0.00 0.00% $400.00 $0.00 _ 502 Senior Club Contract $3,800.00 $2,030.76 53.44% $1,769.24 $390.00 503 Reimbursement-Bus Drivers $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 504 Artists-Contracts $400.00 $400.00 100.00% $0.00 $400.00 505 Chorus Directors $3,600.00 $1,800.00; 50.00% $1,800.00 $0.00 506 507 Total LEISURE ARTS $16,652.00 $7,931.33' 47.63% $8,720.67 $819.84 508 509 SPECIAL ACTIVITIES 510 Adult Programs $14,930.00 $16,078.49 107.69% ($1,148.49) $0.00 511 Jazzercise of Shelburne $5,100.00 $4,040.00 79.22% $1,060.00 $0.00 512 Skate lessons-Vt Skate $9,100.00 $0.00 0.00% $9,100.00 $0.00 513 Special Events $6,500.00 $3,090.41 47.54% $3,409.59 $1,297.29 514 Swim Lessons-Sport/Fit Ed $8,800.00 $4,230.00 48.07% $4,570.00 $1,980.00 515 Youth Programs ,. '' $11,200.00 $40,661.12 363.05% ($29,461.12) $0.00 off-set by revenue 516 Great Escape Tickets $17,000.00 $13,643.00 80.25% $3,357.00 $0.00 517 Afternoon Skiing-Middle S $4,500.00 $4,755.00 105.67% ($255.00) $0.00 518 Afternoon Skiing-Orchard $6,500.00 $3,230.00 49.69% $3,270.00 $0.00 519 Spec.Activities Salaries $7,000.00 $1,821.50 26.02% $5,178.50 $186.50 520 FICA/Medicare $536.00 $24.59 4.59% $511.41 $14.26 _ _ 521 Supplies $5,000.00 $5,393.53 107.87% ($393.53) $0.00 522 Telephone $1,330.00 $1,030.68 77.49% $299.32 $0.00 523 524 Total SPECIAL ACTIVITIES $97,496.00 $97,998.32 100.52% ($502.32) $3,478.05 525 526 COMMUNITY LIBRARY 527 Library Salaries $264,800.00 $158,274.48 59.77% $106,525.52 $19,444.41 528 FICA/Medicare $20,257.00 $12,477.43 61.60% $7,779.57 $1,503.87 529 Group Health Insurance $44,000.00 $18,545.47 42.15% $25,454.53 $2,825.11 530 Group Dental Insurance $3,605.00 $2,242.56 62.21% $1,362.44 $294.38 531 Library Supplies $5,074.00 $3,417.81 67.36% $1,656.19 $0.00 532Books-Adult $13,686.00 $7,378.82 53.92% $6,307.18 $1,175.17 533 Books-Children $7,550.00 $4,191.29 55.51% $3,358.71 $560.49 I 534 DVDs/CDs-Adult $4,110.00 $2,282.70 55.54% $1,827.30 $194.59 535 DVDs/CDs-Children $1,556.00 $894.91 57.51% $661.09 $24.69 536 Program Supplies-Arts/Cra $1,450.00 $335.50 23.14% $1,114.50 $0.00 _ 537 Blanchette Expenditures $8,500.00 $4,135.33 48.65% $4,364.67 $610.10 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 9 A B C D E F I G I H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) Paid February 538 Blanchette/Subscriptions- $1,230.00 $1,500.21 121.97% ($270.21) $0.00 539 Postage $1,500.00 $1,133.51 75.57% $366.49 $8.24 540 Dues and Subscriptions $290.00 $0.00 0.00% $290.00 $0.00 541 Online&Print Subscripti $4,336.00 $2,523.56 58.20% $1,812.44 $2,419.56 542 Property Insurance $7,366.00 $5,919.14 80.36% $1,446.86 $0.00 543 School Use $56,287.00 $0.00 0.00% $56,287.00 $0.00 544 Community Programs $4,365.00 $3,635.53 83.29% $729.47 $68.08 545 Service to Shut-Ins $25.00 $0.00 0.00% $25.00 $0.00 546 Bookmobile $500.00 $506.27 101.25% ($6.27) $0.00 547 Computer Operations $1,220.00 $74.21 6.08% $1,145.79 $0.00 548 Travel&Training $915.00 $290.34 31.73% $624.66 $0.00 549 Furniture $4,465.00 $1,705.42 38.20% $2,759.58 $0.00 550 Computer Improvements $3,000.00 $1,941.66 64.72% $1,058.34 $12.67 551 Office Renovations $400.00 $0.00 0.00% $400.00 $0.00 552 C/L Photocopier Lease Pri $2,760.00 $1,343.76 48.69% $1,416.24 $172.07 553 554 Total COMMUNITY LIBRARY $463,247.00 $234,749.91 50.67% $228,497.09 $29,313.43 555 556 CAPITAL/PARK MAINTENANCE 557 Park Maint.Salaries-Perm. $148,500.00 $84,493.69 56.90% $64,006.31 $9,077.63 558 Leave Time Turn-In $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 559 Park Maint.Sal.-Overtime $9,000.00 $3,117.83 34.64% $5,882.17 $887.43 560 Parks On Call $1,000.00 $1,300.00 130.00% ($300.00) $325.00 ! __ 561 Payment to Sickbank Fund $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 562 Taxable Fringe Benefits $0.00 $165.00 100.00% ($165.00) $0.00 563 FICA/Medicare $12,200.00 $6,857.94 56.21% $5,342.06 $794.71 564 Vision Plan $425.00 $0.00 0.00% $425.00 $0.00 _ 565 Disability Income $720.00 $468.64 65.09% $251.36 $58.58 566 Group Health Insurance $48,100.00 $23,621.25 49.11% $24,478.75 $2,268.10 567 Group Life Insurance $420.00 $308.00 73.33% $112.00 $49.00 568 Group Dental Insurance $3,200.00 $1,695.68 52.99% $1,504.32 $222.59 569 Pension $24,700.00 $0.00 0.00% $24,700.00 $0.00 570 ICMA Match $6,150.00 $2,364.60 38.45% $3,785.40 $250.46 571 Park Supplies $16,500.00 $13,770.26 83.46% $2,729.74 $99.29 572 Cemetery Supplies $300.00 $300.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 _ 573 Recreation Path Supplies $1,500.00 $99.42 6.63% $1,400.58 $0.00 574 Workers Comp Insurance $5,503.00 $3,620.16 65.79% $1,882.84 $0.00 575 Property Insurance $4,796.00 $3,582.43 74.70% $1,213.57 $0.00 576 Recreation Path Imprvmnts $7,500.00 $2,111.69 28.16% $5,388.31 $550.29 577 578 Total CAPITAL/PARK MAINTENANCE $294,514.00 $147,876.59 50.21% $146,637.41 $14,583.08 579 580 Total CULTURE AND RECREATION $1,219,118.00 $735,669.34 60.34% $483,448.66 $68,522.44 581 582 OTHER OPERATING ENTITIES 583 County Court $123,500.00 $123,488.71 99.99% $11.29 $0.00 584 Winooski Valley Park $54,000.00 $54,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 585 C.C.T.A. $397,843.00 $265,228.00 66.67% $132,615.00 $0.00 586 Regional Planning $18,269.00 $18,270.00 100.01% ($1.00) $0.00 587 Metropolitan Planning $17,101.00 $17,101.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 588 589 Total OTHER OPERATING ENTITIES $610,713.00 $478,087.71 78.28% $132,625.29 $0.00 590 591 Total OTHER ENTITIES $610,713.00 $478,087.71 78.28% $132,625.29 $0.00 592 593 CURRENT PRINCIPAL,BONDS 594 Public Works Facility $98,568.00 $98,568.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 595 Kennedy Dr Reconstrction $22,440.00 $22,508.00 100.30% ($68.00) $0.00 596 Lime Kiln Bridge $22,440.00 $22,508.00 100.30%j ($68.00) $0.00 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 10 A B C D E F G H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) Paid February _ 597 PENSION LIABILITY-PRINCIP $262,974.00 $0.00 0.00% $262,974.00 $0.00 598 F/D Building Improvements $30,090.00 $30,005.00 99.72% $85.00 $0.00 _ 599 Emergency Center $130,000.00 $130,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 600 Police Headquarters $360,000.00 $360,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 - 601 Parkland,1992 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 602 Parkland/Brand Farm $40,000.00 $40,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 603 604 Total CURRENT PRINCIPAL,BONDS $1,001,512.00 $738,589.00 73.75% $262,923.00 $0.00 605 606 CURRENT INTEREST,BONDS 607 Public Works Facility $45,795.00 $24,166.90 52.77% $21,628.10 $0.00 608 Kennedy Dr Recnstrction $13,038.00 $6,767.03 51.90% $6,270.97 $0.00 609 Lime Kiln Bridge $13,038.00 $6,767.03 51.90% $6,270.97 $0.00 610 PENSION LIABILITY-INTERES $397,974.00 $0.00 0.00% $397,974.00 $0.00 611 F/D Building Improvements $17,483.00 $9,021.00 51.60% $8,462.00 $0.00 612 Emergency Center $7,131.00 $4,725.50 66.27% $2,405.50 $0.00 613 Police Headquarters $263,358.00 $133,200.00 50.58% $130,158.00 $0.00 614 Parkland,1992 $1,148.00 $349.16 30.41% $798.84 $0.00 615 Parkland/Brand Farm $3,400.00 $2,266.40 66.66% $1,133.60 $0.00 616 617 Total CURRENT INTEREST,BONDS $762,365.00 $187,263.02 24.56% $575,101.98 $0.00 618 619 Total GENERAL FUND $18,970,660.00 $12,150,197.94 64.05% $6,820,462.06 $1,116,479.68 620 621 Total All Funds $18,970,660.00 $12,150,197.94 64.05% $6,820,462.06 $1,116,479.68 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 11 A B C D E F 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 Sewer Fund 4 5 %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) Paid Februar3 7 8 W/POLLUTION CONTROL EXPS. 9 Salaries-Permanent $346,244.00 $244,790.79 70.70% $101,453.21 $27,193.32 10 Payment to Highway-wages $245,760.00 $245,760.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 11 Leave Time Turn-In $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $10,000.00 $0.00 12 Salaries-Overtime $40,000.00 $23,827.05 59.57% $16,172.95 $2,428.27 13 Payment to Sick Bank Fund $6,850.00 $0.00 0.00% $6,850.00 $0.00 14 Payroll Svc&Testing to $700.00 $700.00 100.00%I $0.00 $0.00 15 PAFO Certification $9,000.00 $5,065.36 56.28% $3,934.64 $565.36 16 Sick Bank Payouts $13,500.00 $10,968.21 81.25% $2,531.79 $0.00 17 Fringe Benefits $600.00 $0.00 0.00% $600.00 $0.00 18 FICA/Medicare $29,350.00 $21,513.67 73.30% $7,836.33 $2,286.68 19 Payment to Highway-FICA/M $18,801.00 $18,800.00 99.99% $1.00 $0.00 20 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $0.00 $300.00 100.00% ($300.00) $0.00 21 Vision Plan $610.00 $0.00 0.00% $610.00 $0.00 22 Disability Income $1,555.00 $1,599.69 102.87% ($44.69) $95.83 23 Long Term Disability Insu $0.00 $499.83 100.00% ($499.83) $166.61 24 Group Health Insurance $85,000.00 $56,247.07 66.17% $28,752.93 $5,745.66 25 Benefit Reimbursed to Hig $62,328.00 $62,238.00 99.86% $90.00 $0.00 26 Group Life Insurance $840.00 $600.60 71.50% $239.40 $95.55 27 Group Dental Insurance $4,800.00 $3,894.24 81.13% $905.76 $516.97 28 Pension $33,370.00 $17,126.44 51.32% $16,243.56 $0.00 29 ICMA Match $3,907.00 $2,559.64 65.51% $1,347.36 $293.04 30 Pension Payment to Highwa $67,470.00 $67,470.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 31 Pension Note Payment $38,675.00 $38,675.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 32 Office Supplies $2,000.00 $966.05 48.30% $1,033.95 $66.97 Plant Supplies-lights _ $60,000.00 $36,279.22 60.47% $23,720.78 $2,403.85 34 Ferrous Chloride $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,000.00 $0.00 35 Polymer $32,000.00 $36,048.07 112.65% ($4,048.07) $7,806.75 36 Sewer Line Maint/Supplies $20,000.00 $25,267.14 126.34% ($5,267.14) $17,122.03 37 Pumping Station Supplies $25,000.00 $14,065.12 56.26% $10,934.88 $2,059.34 38 Laboratory Supplies $8,000.00 $10,889.41 136.12% ($2,889.41) $574.19 39 Caustic Soda and Lime $11,000.00 $36,952.74 335.93% ($25,952.74) $0.00 40 Alum $17,000.00 $20,890.56 122.89% ($3,890.56) $0.00 41 Water-Airport-B/B-Pump $2,000.00 $330.63 16.53%' $1,669.37 $0.00 42 Generator Preventive Main $3,000.00 $3,035.00 101.17% ($35.00) $0.00 43 Clothing Supplies $3,600.00 $938.26 26.06% $2,661.74 $52.99 44 Truck Parts $8,000.00 $3,895.82 48.70% $4,104.18 $68.52 45 Gas-Diesel Fuel-Oil $16,000.00 $10,346.71 64.67% $5,653.29 $1,407.72 46 Fuel-Airport Parkway $25,000.00 $28,071.15 112.28% ($3,071.15) $8,559.77 47 Fuel-Bartlett Bay $6,000.00 $1,919.61 31.99% $4,080.39 $1,068.68 48 Telephone and Alarms $3,785.00 $3,331.33 88.01% $453.67 $340.31 49 Postage $100.00 $43.68 43.68% $56.32 $0.00 50 Memberships/Dues $350.00 $287.00 82.00% $63.00 $0.00 51 Discharge Permits $7,000.00 $7,546.15 107.80% ($546.15) $5,327.40 52 Workers Comp Insurance $14,861.00 $9,856.64 66.33% $5,004.36 $0.00 53 Property Insurance $34,728.00 $27,652.47 79.63% $7,075.53 $0.00 54 Unemployment Insurance $2,000.00 $1,424.96 71.25% $575.04 $0.00 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-Sewer Fund-FY 2013-February 1 A B I C D E F 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 Sewer Fund 4 5 %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) Paid February 55 Billing Payment to CWD $32,500.00 $16,250.00 50.00% $16,250.00 $0.00 56 Soil/Sludge Management $265,000.00 $81,157.49 30.63% $183,842.51 $15,503.91 57 Discharge Water Testing $1,500.00 $210.00 14.00% $1,290.00 $0.00 58 Environmental Studies $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 59 Landfill Fees $7,500.00 $2,953.42 39.38% $4,546.58 $464.46 60 To GF-Audit/Actuary $4,832.00 $4,832.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 61 Engineering/Consulting $7,500.00 $17,085.26 227.80% ($9,585.26) $332.50 62 Landfill Engineering $10,000.00 $4,970.93 49.71% $5,029.07 $4,805.93 63 Office Equipment Contract $1,200.00 $83.34 6.95% $1,116.66 $0.00 64 Wireless Communication $1,000.00 $208.70 20.87% $791.30 $0.00 65 Administrative Services $137,280.00 $137,280.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 66 Burlington Sewer Lines $99,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $99,000.00 $0.00 67 Travel&Training $4,500.00 $1,365.34 30.34% $3,134.66 $1,055.92 68 Utilities-Pumping Station $70,000.00 $28,010.58 40.02% $41,989.42 $4,051.90 69 Utilities--L/Fill Station $7,000.00 $4,265.65 60.94% $2,734.35 $544.19 70 Electric-Airport Parkway $200,000.00 $110,673.25 55.34% $89,326.75 $16,021.16 71 Electric-Bartlett Bay $105,000.00 $62,157.95 59.20% $42,842.05 $8,992.37 72 Replacement-Vehicles $20,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $20,000.00 $0.00 73 Pumps Replacements $100,000.00 $79,315.77 79.32% $20,684.23 $0.00 74 Pump Repairs $25,000.00 $12,499.15 50.00% $12,500.85 $204.35 75 Payment to GF for Ortho $1,875.00 $375.00 20.00% $1,500.00 $0.00 76 Bartlett Bay Bond Replace $245,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $245,000.00 $0.00 77 78 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 79 80 Total W/POLLUTION CONTROL EXPS. $2,668,971.00 $1,666,367.14 62.43% $1,002,603.86 $138,222.50 81 82 Total ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C. $2,668,971.00 $1,666,367.14 62.43% $1,002,603.86 $138,222.50 . 83 84 Total All Funds $2,668,971.00 $1,666,367.14 62.43% $1,002,603.86 $138,222.50 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-Sewer Fund-FY 2013-February 2 A B C D E F G H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 - 3 Stormwater Fund . 4 1 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended S(+/-) 'aid February 7 8 S/WATER UTILITIES EXPS 9 Salaries-Permanent $234,880.00 $140,749.76 59.92% $94,130.24 $16,834.48 10 Salaries-Other $3,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,500.00 $0.00 11 Leave Time Turn-In $3,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,500.00 $0.00 12 Salaries-Overtime $11,100.00 $7,125.85 64.20% $3,974.15 $2,313.46 13 Payment to Sick Bank Fund $3,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,500.00 $0.00 14 Payroll Svc&Testing to $480.00 $480.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 15 Fringe Benefits $0.00 $42.38 100.00% ($42.38) $21.19 16 FICA/Medicare $19,100.00 $12,155.84 63.64% $6,944.16 $1,562.54 17 Nontaxable Fringe Benefit $0.00 $600.00 100.00% ($600.00) $0.00 18 Vision Plan $510.00 $0.00 0.00% $510.00 $0.00 19 Disability Income Insuran $1,340.00 $625.28 46.66% $714.72 $78.16 20 Group Health Insurance $45,000.00 $27,908.88 62.02% $17,091.12 $3,013.86 21 Reimburse to Highway Bene $7,020.00 $7,020.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 22 Health Insurance FICA $1,300.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,300.00 $0.00 23 Group Life Insurance $840.00 $508.20 60.50% $331.80 $80.85 24 Group Dental Insurance $4,100.00 $2,297.60 56.04% $1,802.40 $301.60 25 Pension $39,150.00 $0.00 0.00% $39,150.00 $0.00 26 ICMA Match $6,990.00 $4,517.62 64.63% $2,472.38 $528.24 27 Pension Note Payment $26,510.00 $26,510.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 28 Office Supplies $3,000.00 $1,220.62 40.69% $1,779.38 $74.99 29 Small Equipment/fools $4,000.00 $2,967.24 74.18% $1,032.76 $0.00 30 Uniforms/Supplies $3,885.00 $2,672.90 68.80% $1,212.10 $178.14 31 Gasoline $4,500.00 $2,083.95 46.31% $2,416.05 $170.63 32 Oil $350.00 $129.67 37.05% $220.33 $0.00 33 Diesel Fuel $8,500.00 $2,267.89 26.68% $6,232.11 $105.70 34 Permit Requirement-Educat $9,300.00 1 $10,800.00 116.13% ($1,500.00) $0.00 35 Telephone $2,704.00 $675.91 25.00% $2,028.09 $68.07 36 Postage $300.00 $0.00 0.00% $300.00 $0.00 37 Membership/Dues $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 38 Discharge Permits Renewal $4,770.00 $980.62 20.56% $3,789.38 $489.72 39 Workers Comp Insurance $16,986.00 $11,772.96 69.31% $5,213.04 $0.00 40 Property Insurance $5,194.00 $3,755.59 72.31% $1,438.41 $0.00 I 41 Unemployment Insurance $2,000.00 '$1,424.94 71.25% $575.06 $0.00 42 GIS-Fees/Software $8,355.00 $12,300.00 147.22% ($3,945.00) $10,400.00 43 Sediment&Depris Disposa $750.00 $0.00 0.00% $750.00 $0.00 44 Water Quality Monitoring $19,000.00 $5,880.26 30.95% $13,119.74 $115.75 45 Building/Grounds Maint $1,500.00 $638.00 42.53% $862.00 $0.00 46 Vehicle Maintenance $8,000.00 $7,701.87 96.27% $298.13 $37.85 47 Storm System Maint Materi $40,000.00 $19,775.61 49.44% $20,224.39 $0.00 48 Printing $100.00 $0.00 0.00% $100.00 $0.00 49 Legal Services $15,000.00 $5,171.25 34.48% $9,828.75 $417.50 50 To GF-Audit and Actuary $3,312.00 $3,312.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 51 Engineering-Watershed _ $28,000.00 $8,686.27 31.02% $19,313.73 $3,064.56 52 Engineering-Nghbrhd Asst $26,000.00 $10,114.05 38.90% $15,885.95 $175.00 53 BillingPaymentCWD $32,500.00 $16,250.00 50.00%' $16,250.00 $0.00 54 Outside Services-GIS $15,000.00 $10,987.50 73.25% $4,012.50 $0.00 55 IT/Computer Support $13,300.00 $19.99 0.15% $13,280.01 $0.00 56 Office Equipment Maintena $1,000.00 ! $249.67 24.97% $750.33 $0.00 57 Equipment Rental $2,000.00 $1,080.00 54.00% $920.00 $0.00 58 Administrative Services $122,720.00 1 $122,720.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 59 Conference/TrainingExpen $4,190.00 ! $1,175.88 28.06% $3,014.12 $72.88 60 S/W Bldg Utilities $3,500.00 $1,873.45 53.53% $1,626.55 $0.00 61 Stormwater Pumps Electric $450.00 $136.60 30.36% $313.40 $0.00 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-Stormwater Fund-FY 2013-February 1 A B C D E F G H 1 2 Expenditure Report-February,2013 3 Stormwater Fund 4 5 Year-to-Date %Budget FY 2013 6 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $(+/-) 'aid February 62 Vehicles/Equipment $200,000.00 $41,795.00 20.90% $158,205.00 $10,995.00 63 Office Furniture/Equipmen $1,000.00 $69.99 7.00% $930.01 $0.00 64 Project Notes Princ/Inter $223,245.00 $103,118.68 46.19% $120,126.32 $0.00 65 Payment to GF for Ortho $1,875.00 $375.00 20.00% $1,500.00 $0.00 66 ERU Rate/Equity Analysis $40,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $40,000.00 $0.00 67 Reimbursement to Highway $15,600.00 $15,600.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 68 69 Total S/WATER UTILITIES EXPS $1,301,206.00 $660,324.77 50.75% $640,881.23 $51,100.17 70 71 72 STORMWATER PROJECTS 73 Stormwater Capital Projec $2,320,650.00 $572,456.47 24.67% $1,748,193.53 $4,369.75 74 Consulting/Engineering $0.00 $2,591.31 100.00% ($2,591.31) $0.00 75 Construction Costs $0.00 $106,790.45 100.00% ($106,790.45) $0.00 off-set by revenue 76 Supplies $0.00 $386.16 100.00% ($386.16) $0.00 77 Engineering $0.00 $1,258.96 100.00% ($1,258.96) $0.00 78 Construction Costs $0.00 $144,061.76 100.00% ($144,061.76) $0.00 off-set by revenue 79 80 Total $2,320,650.00 $827,545.11 35.66% $1,493,104.89 $4,369.75 81 82 Total STORM WATER UTILITIES $3,621,856.00 $1,487,869.88 41.08% $2,133,986.12 $55,469.92 83 84 Total All Funds $3,621,856.00 $1,487,869.88 41.08% $2,133,986.12 $55,469.92 3/22/2013 Expenditure Report-Stormwater Fund-FY 2013-February 2 A B C D E F 1 2 Revenue Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Estimated Received %Budget FY 2013 MTD 6 Account Revenue To Date Received $(+/-) Received-Feb 7 8 TAX REVENUE 9 Tax,Current Budget $11,210,483.00 ($8,418,933.28) 75.10% $2,791,549.72 ($429,819.71) 10 VT Payment in Lieu of Tax $47,000.00 ($33,692.00) 71.69% $13,308.00 $0.00 11 Taxes,Reappraisal/ACT 60 $71,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $71,000.00 $0.00 12 13 Total TAX REVENUE $11,328,483.00 ($8,452,625.28) 74.61% $2,875,857.72 ($429,819.71) 14 15 LOCAL OPTION TAXES 16 Local Option Tax-Sales $2,625,000.00 ($1,661,245.67) 63.29% $963,754.33 ($721,180.49) 17 Local Option Tax-Rooms/Me $104,760.00 ($561,119.31) 535.62% ($456,359.31) ($210,390.00) 18 Rooms/Meals-Fire Vehicl $335,240.00 $0.00 0.00% $335,240.00 $0.00 19 Rooms/Meals-P/D Hdqtrs $360,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $360,000.00 $0.00 20 21 Total LOCAL OPTION TAXES $3,425,000.00 ($2,222,364.98) 64.89%. $1,202,635.02 ($931,570.49) 22 , 23 Total TAX REVENUE $14,753,483.00 ($10,674,990.26) 72.36% $4,078,492.74 ($1,361,390.20) 24 25 INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX 26 Penalty,Current&Prior $105,000.00 ($82,361.83) 78.44% $22,638.17 $0.00 27 Insurance Reimbursements $0.00 ($1,010.10) 100.00% ($1,010.10) $0.00 28 Interest,Current&Prior $42,500.00 ($21,334.46) 50.20% $21,165.54 ($1,387.64) 29 Attorney Fees $0.00 ($3,638.99) 100.00% ($3,638.99) $0.00 30 Fee to Collect State Educ $75,000.00 ($79,063.67) 105.42% ($4,063.67) $0.00 31 Current Use $13,000.00 ($15,008.00) 115.45% ($2,008.00) $0.00 32 Per Parcel Payment Traini $500.00 ($457.72) 91.54% $42.28 ($457.72) 33 34 Total INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX $236,000.00 ($202,874.77) 85.96% $33,125.23 ($1,845.36) 35 36 City Council 37 Interim Zoning Revenue $0.00 ($75,000.00) 100.00% ($75,000.00) ($75,000.00) 38 39 Total City Council $0.00 ($75,000.00) 100.00% ($75,000.00) ($75,000.00) 40 41 CITY MANAGER 42 Administrative Services-W $42,640.00 ($42,640.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 43 Administrative Services-S $122,720.00 ($122,720.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 44 Administrative Services-W $137,280.00 ($137,280.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 45 From Sewer-Audit&Actuar $4,832.00 ($4,832.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 46 From SW-Audit&Actuary $3,312.00 ($3,312.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 47 Wellness Payment $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $5,000.00 $0.00 48 COBRA Repayment $20,200.00 $0.00 0.00% $20,200.00 $0.00 49 Pension Liab Note-WPC $38,675.00 ($38,675.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 50 Pension Liab Note-SW $26,510.00 ($26,510.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 51 From Water-Audit $2,100.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,100.00 $0.00 52 DPSA Insurance Reimb. $5,000.00 ($4,461.00) 89.22% $539.00 $0.00 53 Admin Svc Fee Fund 240 $30,000.00 ($30,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 54 From SW for Ortho $1,875.00 ($375.00) 20.00% $1,500.00 $0.00 55 From WPC for Ortho $1,875.00 ($375.00) 20.00% $1,500.00 $0.00 56 PD 3rd Floor Lease Rent $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $15,000.00 $0.00 57 From WPC-Payroll,Testing $700.00 ($700.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 3/22/2013 Revenue Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 1 A B C D E F 1 2 Revenue Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Estimated Received %Budget FY 2013 MTD 6 Account Revenue To Date Received $(+I-) Received-Feb 58 From SW-Payroll,Testing $480.00 ($480.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 59 Insurance/Leadership $0.00 ($139.17) 100.00% ($139.17) $0.00 60 Insurance Reimbursement $0.00 ($19,830.68) 100.00% ($19,830.68) ($4,205.17) 61 Miscellaneous $2,000.00 ($42,193.39) 2109.67% ($40,193.39) ($40,000.00) 62 63 Total CITY MANAGER $460,199.00 ($474,523.24) 103.11% ($14,324.24) ($44,205.17) 64 65 CITY CLERK 66 Returned Check Fees $50.00 $0.00 0.00% $50.00 $0.00 67 Recording Fees $150,000.00 ($116,508.00) 77.67% $33,492.00 ($12,547.00) 68 Photocopy Fees $30,000.00 ($17,330.78) 57.77% $12,669.22 ($1,818.90) 69 Photocopies-Vital Records $8,000.00 ($2,547.00) 31.84% $5,453.00 ($153.00) 70 Pet Licenses $35,000.00 ($4,990.00) 14.26% $30,010.00 ($2,593.00) 71 Pet Control Fees $3,000.00 ($1,020.00) 34.00% $1,980.00 $0.00 72 Beverage/Cabaret License $6,000.00 ($5,050.00) 84.17% $950.00 ($2,750.00) 73 Tobacco Licenses $0.00 ($30.00) 100.00% ($30.00) ($10.00) 74 Entertainment Permits $300.00 ($200.00) 66.67% $100.00 ($100.00) 75 Fish&Game Licenses $100.00 ($59.00) 59.00% $41.00 $0.00 76 Marriage Licenses $1,750.00 ($905.00) 51.71% $845.00 ($30.00) 77 Green Mountain Passports $150.00 ($160.00) 106.67% ($10.00) ($4.00) 78 Motor Vehicle Renewals $2,000.00 ($507.00) 25.35% $1,493.00 ($54.00) 79 Expedited Mailing Service $250.00 $0.00 0.00% $250.00 $0.00 80 Election Expenses Reimbur _ $0.00 ($3,940.91) 100.00% ($3,940.91) ($3,940.91) 81 School Reimburse-Election $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,000.00 $0.00 82 Interest on Investments _ $80,000.00 ($28,677.92) 35.85% $51,322.08 ($2,033.78) 83 84 Total CITY CLERK $318,600.00 ($181,925.61) 57.10% $136,674.39 ($26,034.59) 85 86 PLANNING 87 Building&Sign Permits $180,000.00 ($102,155.31) 56.75% $77,844.69 ($2,865.45) 88 Bianchi Ruling $6,000.00 ($4,842.00) 80.70% $1,158.00 ($615.00) 89 Ordinance Fines $0.00 ($225.00) 100.00% ($225.00) $162.50 90 Zoning and Planning $60,000.00 ($48,976.42) 81.63% $11,023.58 ($5,602.00) 91 Sewer Inspection Fees $0.00 ($2,400.00) 100.00% ($2,400.00) ($50.00) 92 Peddlers'Permits $1,000.00 ($970.00) 97.00% $30.00 $0.00 93 Legal Permit Review $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 94 Market Street Grant $29,690.00 $0.00 0.00% $29,690.00 $0.00 95 MPG 11 Grant Revenue $15,000.00 ($4,500.00) 30.00% $10,500.00 $0.00 96 Independent Techincal Rev $10,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $10,500.00 $0.00 97 Grant Revenue-EECBG $0.00 ($43,600.00) 100.00% ($43,600.00) $0.00 98 Zoning Violations $0.00 ($150.00) 100.00% ($150.00) $0.00 99 100 Total PLANNING $305,190.00 ($207,818.73) 68.09% $97,371.27 ($8,969.95) 101 102 FIRE DEPARTMENT 103 Engine Trade In $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $4,000.00 $0.00 104 Outside Employment $7,200.00 ($3,730.00) 51.81% $3,470.00 $0.00 105 Misc.Revenue-Fire Dept. $0.00 ($9,007.35) 100.00% ($9,007.35) ($3,330.01) 106 Fire Inspection Revenue _ $200,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $200,000.00 $0.00 107 Fire Impact Fees-Fund Tru $136,000.00 ($136,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 ($136,000.00) 108 Loan Proceeds-MB-Quint $0.00 ($440,250.00) 100.00% ($440,250.00) $0.00 3/22/2013 Revenue Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 2 A B C D E F 1 2 Revenue Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Estimated Received %Budget FY 2013 MTD 6 Account Revenue To Date Received $(+/-) Received-Feb 109 110 Total FIRE DEPARTMENT $347,200.00 ($588,987.35) 169.64% ($241,787.35) ($139,330.01) 111 112 AMBULANCE 113 Tax Revenues $155,000.00 ($155,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 114 Ambulance Service Billing $671,000.00 ($299,133.64) 44.58% $371,866.36 ($28,369.52) 115 Williston Billing $18,000.00 ($11,798.41) 65.55% $6,201.59 ($734.00) 116 Grand Isle Billing $6,000.00 ($3,160.73) 52.68% $2,839.27 ($131.38) 117 Patient Care Equip Grant $5,000.00 ($30,603.56) 612.07% ($25,603.56) ($25,603.56) 118 119 Total AMBULANCE $855,000.00 ($499,696.34) 58.44% $355,303.66 ($54,838.46) 120 121 POLICE DEPARTMENT 122 Vermont District Court $110,000.00 ($25,319.91) 23.02% $84,680.09 $5,751.00 123 Traffic Safety Grant $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $15,000.00 $0.00 124 Sale of Cruisers/Bequest $4,000.00 ($3,010.00) 75.25% $990.00 $0.00 125 Police Reports $6,500.00 ($7,773.21) 119.59% ($1,273.21) ($405.00) 126 I.C.A.C. $0.00 ($2,283.95) 100.00% ($2,283.95) $0.00 127 Drug Task Force Grant $39,336.00 ($15,210.95) 38.67% $24,125.05 $0.00 128 Asset Forfeiture for Trai $8,380.00 $0.00 0.00% $8,380.00 $0.00 129 Parking Tickets $500.00 ($205.00) 41.00% $295.00 ($45.00) 130 Alarm Registrations $9,000.00 ($3,880.00) 43.11% $5,120.00 $1,350.00 131 Alarm Fines $1,500.00 ($3,305.00) 220.33% ($1,805.00) ($1,285.00) 132 Off Duty Police $33,060.00 ($34,997.05) 105.86% ($1,937.05) $155.98 133 Reparative Board Grant $72,803.00 $0.00 0.00% $72,803.00 $0.00 134 I.C.A.C. $0.00 ($518.70) 100.00% ($518.70) $0.00 135 BYRNE Grant $25,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $25,000.00 $0.00 136 Miscellaneous-Police $0.00 ($949.00) 100.00% ($949.00) ($83.00) 137 138 Total POLICE DEPARTMENT $325,079.00 ($97,452.77) 29.98% $227,626.23 $5,438.98 139 140 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 141 Road Opening Permits $155,000.00 ($76,545.00) 49.38% $78,455.00 ($33,520.00) 142 Overweight truck permits $100.00 ($300.00) 300.00% ($200.00) ($140.00) 143 Highway State Aid $211,721.00 ($172,553.73) 81.50% $39,167.27 $11,689.97 144 Class II Paving Grant $134,520.00 $0.00 0.00% $134,520.00 $0.00 145 Fuel Pump Surcharge $1,000.00 ($3,843.20) 384.32% ($2,843.20) ($537.15) 146 HazMat Facility Lease $17,500.00 ($14,112.97) 80.65% $3,387.03 $0.00 147 School Bus Parts Reimbure $32,500.00 ($25,235.62) 77.65% $7,264.38 ($1,249.07) 148 School gas/diesel reimbur $130,000.00 ($76,271.62) 58.67% $53,728.38 $0.00 149 School vehicle repair pay $17,700.00 $0.00 0.00% $17,700.00 $0.00 150 Salary Reimbursement-WPC $245,760.00 ($245,760.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 151 FICA Reimbursement-WPC $18,800.00 ($18,800.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 152 Pension Reimbursement-WPC $67,470.00 ($67,470.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 153 Benefits Reimbursement-WP $62,238.00 ($62,238.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 154 Salary Reimbursement-SW $15,600.00 ($15,600.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 155 Benefits Reimbursement-SW $7,020.00 ($7,020.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 156 Vehicle Trade In $12,500.00 ($40,904.00) 327.23% ($28,404.00) $0.00 157 Sewer Inspection Fee $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 158 Highway Impact Fee-RT 2 $90,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $90,000.00 $0.00 159 Hgwy Misc Fuel $4,000.00 ($65,635.03) 1640.88% ($61,635.03) ($19,828.88) 3/22/2013 Revenue Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 3 A B C D E F 1 2 Revenue Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Estimated Received %Budget FY 2013 MTD 6 Account Revenue To Date Received $(+/-) Received-Feb 160 161 Total HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT $1,224,429.00 ($892,289.17) 72.87% $332,139.83 ($43,585.13) 162 163 TREE RPLCMNT/MNTNCE 164 Tree Replacement Fee $300.00 $0.00 0.00% $300.00 $0.00 165 166 Total TREE RPLCMNT/MNTNCE $300.00 $0.00 0.00% $300.00 $0.00 167 168 RECREATION 169 RED ROCKS PARK 170 Red Rocks Gate Receipts $4,700.00 ($5,206.00) 110.77% ($506.00) $0.00 171 From Fund 309 re:UVM Cons $0.00 ($4,992.00) 100.00% ($4,992.00) $0.00 172 173 Total RED ROCKS PARK $4,700.00 ($10,198.00) 216.98% ($5,498.00) $0.00 174 175 FACILITIES 176 J/C Park Rentals $300.00 ($600.00) 200.00% ($300.00) ($100.00) 177 178 Total FACILITIES $300.00 ($600.00) 200.00% ($300.00) ($100.00) 179 180 SPECIAL ACTIVITIES 181 Great Escape Ticket Sales $17,000.00 ($13,703.00) 80.61% $3,297.00 $0.00 182 Atemoon Skiing/Middle Sc $6,300.00 ($5,566.00) 88.35% $734.00 $0.00 183 Afternoon Skiing/Orchard $6,900.00 ($3,470.00) 50.29% $3,430.00 $0.00 184 Tennis Class Receipts $4,700.00 ($4,743.00) 100.91% ($43.00) ($125.00) 185 Youth Programs $63,000.00 ($92,091.50) 146.18% ($29,091.50) ($11,168.00) 186 Adult Evening Classes $27,000.00 ($32,359.00) 119.85% ($5,359.00) ($5,961.00) 187 188 Total SPECIAL ACTIVITIES $124,900.00 ($151,932.50) 121.64% ($27,032.50) ($17,254.00) 189 190 Total RECREATION $129,900.00 ($162,730.50) 125.27% ($32,830.50) ($17,354.00) 191 192 COMMUNITY LIBRARY 193 Library Lost Books $0.00 ($614.35) 100.00% ($614.35) ($300.17) 194 Late Book Charges/Fines $3,000.00 ($1,488.45) 49.62% $1,511.55 ($639.50) 195 Non-Resident Fees $750.00 ($615.00) 82.00% $135.00 ($120.00) 196 Blanchette Gift $9,730.00 $0.00 0.00% $9,730.00 $0.00 197 C/L Photocopies $500.00 ($1,183.00) 236.60% ($683.00) ($413.00) 198 Bookmobile Donations $1,000.00 ($400.00) 40.00% $600.00 ($400.00) 199 LIBRARY MISCELLANEOUS $0.00 ($357.62) 100.00% ($357.62) ($243.62) 200 201 Total COMMUNITY LIBRARY $14,980.00 ($4,658.42) 31.10% $10,321.58 ($2,116.29) 202 203 PARK MAINTENANCE l 204 Parks-Misc.Revenue $0.00 ($1,307.26) 100.00% ($1,307.26) $0.00 205 Cemetery Trust-Trsf In $300.00 $0.00 0.00% $300.00 $0.00 206 207 Total PARK MAINTENANCE $300.00 ($1,307.26) 435.75% ($1,007.26) $0.00 208 209 Total GENERAL FUND $18,970,660.00 ($14,064,254.42)1 74.14% $4,906,405.58 ($1,769,230.18) 210 3/22/2013 Revenue Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 4 A B C D E F 1 2 Revenue Report-February,2013 3 General Fund 4 5 Estimated Received %Budget FY 2013 MTD 6 Account Revenue To Date Received $(+/-) Received-Feb 211 Total All Funds $18,970,660.00 ($14,064,254.42) 74.14% $4,906,405.58 ($1,769,230.18) 3/22/2013 Revenue Report-General Fund-FY 2013-February 5 A B C D I E F 1 2 Revenue Report-February,2013 3 Sewer Fund 4 5 Estimated Received %Budget FY 2013 MTD 6 Account Revenue To Date Received $(+/-) Received-Feb 8 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 9 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10 W.P.C.User Fees $3,131,442.00 ($2,184,054.29) 69.75% $947,387.71 ($221,703.94) 11 W.P.C.Truck Charges $50,000.00 ($1,314.50) 2.63% $48,685.50 $0.00 12 Connection Fees $106,090.00 ($96,226.58) 90.70% $9,863.42 ($14,049.36) 13 Enviromental Impact $35,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $35,000.00 $0.00 14 15 Total CHARGES FOR SERVICES $3,322,532.00 ($2,281,595.37) 68.67% $1,040,936.63 ($235,753.30) 16 17 MISCELLANEOUS 18 Miscellaneous Rev.-W.P.C. $0.00 ($26,184.00) 100.00% ($26,184.00) $0.00 19 20 Total MISCELLANEOUS $0.00 ($26,184.00) 100.00% ($26,184.00) $0.00 21 22 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS IN $3,322,532.00 ($2,307,779.37) 69.46% $1,014,752.63 ($235,753.30) 23 24 Total ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C. $3,322,532.00 ($2,307,779.37) 69.46% $1,014,752.63 ($235,753.30) 25 26 Total All Funds $3,322,532.00 ($2,307,779.37)[ 69.46% $1,014,752.63 ($235,753.30) 3/22/2013 Revenue Report-Sewer Fund-FY 2013-February 1 A B C D E F 1 2 Revenue Report-February,2013 3 Stormwater Fund 4 _ — - 5 Estimated Received %Budget FY 2013 MTD 6 Account Revenue To Date Received $(+/-) Received-Feb 7 8 S/WATER UTILI'1'1hS REVENUE 9 S/W User Fees-Water Bil $1,888,104.00 ($1,188,208.07) 62.93% $699,895.93 ($74,801.69) 10 State of VT Fee for Servi $50,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $50,000.00 $0.00 11 SW Grants $1,189,650.00 ($531,813.70) 44.70% $657,836.30 $0.00 12 Land Owner Payments $34,200.00 $0.00 0.00% $34,200.00 $0.00 13 Stormwater Miscellaneous $0.00 ($20.00) 100.00% ($20.00) $0.00 14 Reserve Transfer In $460,160.00 $0.00 0.00% $460,160.00 $0.00 15 Miscellaneous Income $0.00 ($4,002.70) 100.00% ($4,002.70) $0.00 16 17 Total WATER UTILITIES REVENUE 1 $3,622,114.00 ($1,724,044.47)' 47.60% $1,898,069.53 ($74,801.69) 18 19 BUTLER FARMS-FUND 246 20 Intergovernmental Funds $0.00 g ($195,073.19) 100.00% ($195,073.19) ($195,073.19) 21 22 Total BUTLER FARMS-FUND 246 $0.00 ($195,073.19) 100.00% ($195,073.19) ($195,073.19) 23 24 Total S/WATER UTILITIES REVENUE $3,622,114.00 ($1,915,114.96) 52.87% $1,706,999.04 ($269,874.88) 25 26 Total STORM WATER UTILITIES $3,622,114.00 ($1,919,117.66) 52.98% $1,702,996.34 ($269,874.88) 27 28 Total All Funds $3,622,114.00 ($1,919,117.66) 52.98%, $1,702,996.34 ($269,874.88) 29 3/22/2013 Revenue Report-Stormwater Fund-FY 2013-February 1 rtu..;W a 3- if-13 jt .; City of South Burlington, 575 Dorset Street,VT 05403 802-846-4107 Website:sburl.com Commission, Boards and Committee Application Form Note to applicants, including incumbents: After submitting a completed application to the City Manager's Office you will be required to attend a City Council meeting to be interviewed. You will be advised of the date and approximate time of the Council meeting when you will be interviewed and your application considered. Please print clearly ETA -.D T• GA�CyNoPI Leal full Name: Z ;� Date of Birt - Other Names/Nicknames Used: E{Z 11f C Present Mailing Address: 4 YON EV-5 CoUlai S.Bc,)KLI hie-T Y4 How long at this Address? I`I Y RS. Legal residence:(if different from above) Horr►+ Phone:Vo4-vitt BusinessPhone:CIS-VI"GSM Cell Phon E-mai lial Current Employer: I¢VpEU-- CON Suet gi'4 t .S Years of Service: � I Employer Contact Person and Phone: TegerNq WIN-TO S I 9,.(o-S-6( Are you a legally registered voter in the City of South Burlington? Yes ✓ No Poiiiion(Commission,Board or Committee)applying for:1)'LA' - 2) De-3 3) Term (Please provide your 1st, 2nd, &3rd choices) Pleasegive detail stating why you want to serve in this capacity and list qualifications you have which you believe may be beneficial to the commission,committee or board you are applying to(please use back of form or attach additionalsheets a eede'd). . hc,vc, c-tee jC_. 'y-pevtf c ':. rvlry e'r'w_j.oe cry }nu Vw..e 6 va 1>.iw vti iJr 'I yrj. tie..h2zn Icx,kwia ?4 4 t... Lk='k-;.‘y (-Pao Do you have any violations other than minor traffic violations? Have you ever been charged with,or convicted of,a criminal offense? If so,provide complete details(use back of form or attach additional sheets as needed). 110 By signing here you acknowledge:All information provided is accurate and complete to the best of your ability;and,you understand the City Council has the authority to remove members appointed by them in accordance with the City Charter and Vermont State Statue,as applicable,for misrepresentation o4ristatemgat mad n this application. Please sign here: �-� `— r"""' Date: .4 /1 I / l 3 By signing here you understand a Criminal Convictions Records History will be obtained by the City of South Burlington Duly Authorized Agent from the Vermont Criminal Information Center,as permitted by law. Any and all confidential information(birth date,etc)will not be shared with any outside party gpat will lbbe iely uscipy the City Manager's office. Signature: 3 • l { Date:_.J JLiL/ l3 City Managers Office Use Only Application has been notified by phone e-mail,etc) ?)err i f to attend Council meeting on 3 /„1(0 / 13 (date) (,;'10 Notification made by(staff person) r9— j Term of appointment(to-from) , Voter registration verified by(staff person) /fn, Data3_,j For Incumbents-attendance during the past year has been(provide numerical information) a!)A k. 4 BERNARD T.GAGNON.P.E. 4 Myers Court South Burlington,Vermont 05403 PHONE: h. 802-864-0111 0411/111111106 SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS • Experience managing an independent engineering office; • Registered Professional Engineer in VT; • Project design,preparation and review of contract documents,bid solicitation,contract administration experience in the areas of contaminated site cleanup,road design,water supply,wastewater treatment, stormwater,and site design for residential and commercial developments; • Experience on Federal,State,and Local projects; • Experience providing quality products in both the private and pubic sectors; • Demonstrated team skills and customer service; • Expertise in contracting and in the solicitation,evaluation,and selection of design and construction contractors; • Strong written and oral communications skills as demonstrated by authoring and presenting technical papers. WORK EXPERIENCE SENIOR ENGINEER/PROJECT MANAGER: January 2013 to Present: Trudell Consulting Engineers, Williston,VT. I am responsible for managing projects for a variety of clients including commercial,residential,and recreation. In addition, I provide senior level technical review on water/wastewater, storm water, roads, and site design to assure quality of the work, conformance to technical standards, biddability, constructability, and operability. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: August 2005 to January 2013: Town of Shelburne, Vermont. I am responsible for overseeing the operations of the highway, water, and wastewater departments. In addition, I am directly responsible for all stormwater related infrastructure and permits. I assist department managers in annual budget preparation as well as preparation of 5-year capital budget planning and projection. I represent the town on all public works matters at meetings with developers and regional and state agencies. I provide contract administration for the design and construction of town projects and review all contract documents and submittals. I participate in Regional Stormwater Education initiatives, the Regional Planning Commission Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, and conduct permit required Stornwater system inspections. I prepare grant applications for State and Federal funding assistance and have procured over$1,000,000 in grant funding during my tenure with the Town. Projects include design and construction review and administration of these projects: an underground stormwater treatment system;replacement of an existing brick arch culvert with a concrete box culvert; a sewer Forced Main system; a sand/salt storage building; a replacement sewer pumping station; replacement of several sections of water main;and several sidewalk/bike path projects. BRANCH MANAGER/PRINCIPAL ENGINEER: January 2003 to August 2005: Environmental Compliance Services, Inc. (ECS), Bow, New Hampshire. I was responsible for the management of a branch office for a multidisciplinary environmental consulting firm. In this capacity, I supervised a staff of 7 project engineers, scientists,and field personnel. I was responsible for the profit and loss (P &L) of the office. In my first year, the office's annual sales doubled from $320,000 to over$700,000. I provided senior level technical oversight to the office and provided input on projects both in NH and in support to other offices to assure quality of the work, conformance to technical standards, biddability, constructability, and operability. The office produced studies, designs,and technical specifications for all phases of contaminated site restoration and remediation projects. It also produced complete facility compliance audits as well as regulatory compliance plans(e.g.SPCC). I was responsible for professional engineering review and certification of all plans produced. I was responsible for providing business development and strategic growth, hiring, training, employee performance/evaluation to assure that the office is profitable and achieving additional market share. TECHNICAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER/PRINCIPAL ENGINEER: April 2001 to January 2003: Mann Environmental, Inc. (now ECS), Richmond,Vermont. I was responsible for the management and supervision of 14 project engineers, scientists, and field personnel. I provided senior level technical oversight to the water/ wastewater, GIS,regulatory compliance, and remediation programs and provided input into projects both in VT and in support to other offices to assure quality of the work, conformance to technical standards, biddability, constructability,and operability. The office produced studies,designs,and technical specifications for all phases of water/wastewater and contaminated site restoration and remediation projects. It also produced complete facility compliance audits as well as regulatory compliance plans (e.g. SPCC). I was responsible for professional engineering review and certification of all plans produced. DEPARTMENT MANAGER: February 2000 to April 2001: ENSR Consulting and Engineering(now AECOM), Remediation Services Department, Westford, Massachusetts. I was responsible for the management and administration of 35 engineers, scientists, and technical support staff in a department that was managed as its own profit and loss (P &L) center. The department's annual sales exceeded$6.5 million in FY 2000 with a payroll of over $1.6 million. The department produced studies, designs, and technical specifications for all phases of contaminated site restoration and remediation projects. I was responsible for overall supervision,training,technical quality,and work distribution to employees within the department. I was a Corporate technical expert and consultant on site remediation problems. I was responsible for determining department growth plans and establishing business development and strategic planning goals for senior staff. In addition, I continued to have duties as a senior program manager,as described below. SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER: February 1999 to February 2000: ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Remediation Services Department,Acton,Massachusetts. I managed major programs and projects to insure that the organization had allocated the proper resources for successful completion of the program. During my time in this position I managed preparation of design documents(plans,specifications,design analyses),bidding,management of contractors, and field oversight for completion of several large (>$1 million) site remediation projects. I was responsible for setting and maintaining project budgets and schedules, managing resources, a contracting for all subcontractor services to assure successful project completion. I aggressively promoted and conducted business development activities, including preparation of several proposals. Through external contacts and as a result of technical reputation, I built business base and backlog. .I actively enhanced my company's and my own national professional reputation through participation in conferences,seminars,and presentations of published materials. SECTION CHIEF,TEAM LEADER(GS-13): February 1997 to February 1999: Alaska District,US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Technical Engineering Section, Anchorage, Alaska. I directed the technical activities of 9-12 engineers, scientists,and technical support staff. The section produced in-house studies, designs, technical specifications, and provided technical review of A/E submittals for all phases of cold regions and arctic contaminated site restoration and remediation projects. I was responsible for overall supervision,training,technical quality, and work distribution to employees within the section. I was the Alaska District technical expert and consultant on environmental engineering problems arising in both design and construction phases. I was one of 12 innovative technology advocates within the Corps of Engineers responsible for promoting the use and development of innovative technologies for environmental investigation and remediation. SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER (GS-12): April 1992 to February 1997. Alaska District, US Army Corps of Engineers,Environmental Technical Engineering Section,Anchorage,Alaska. I planned and designed cold regions and arctic projects for the handling and control of cold hazardous and toxic wastes, contaminated soil and surface/groundwater remediation, structural demolition and debris removal, and site restoration. On these projects I was the lead engineer on a multi-disciplined team, and I conducted and coordinated in-house work efforts from initial site investigation through site closure. I prepared technical input including work plans,site characterization, risk assessment, and development and screening of alternative treatment methods. I coordinated with regulatory agencies for identification of applicable cleanup levels and I negotiated alternate cleanup levels. I prepared remedial designs including contract plans, specifications, and remedial design analysis. I also evaluated alternative contracting methods and reviewed contractor prepared proposals and submittals. I served on an Architect/Engineer (A/E)preselection committee for the purpose of evaluating and recommending A/E firms for consulting services. SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER (GS-12): February 1987 to April 1992. Alaska District, US Army Corps of Engineers,Civil/Sanitary Design Section,Anchorage,Alaska.I prepared designs on cold regions Corps of Engineers projects and I supervised and directed lower grade engineers. For in-house projects I prepared plans,specifications, and design analyses. When the section served as the lead, I managed and coordinated all aspects of the project, including review of completed contractual documents for advertising. I performed design review and analysis of plans and specifications developed by A/E firms for overall feasibility, inclusion of required services, and coordination with other design disciplines. CIVIL ENGINEER (GS-11): February 1983 to February 1987. Alaska District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Civil/Sanitary Design Section, Anchorage, Alaska. I prepared Civil Engineering designs on cold regions Corps of Engineers projects. These designs included utilidor systems, airfield pavements, roadway pavements, water and sewer lines, small water systems, fire protection pumphouse, and site planning. Responsible for site planning, utilities design,and review of A/E designs. EDUCATION • University of Alaska at Anchorage,Alaska: Masters of Science Degree in Engineering Management. Graduated in December 1993. • University of Alaska at Anchorage,Alaska: Masters of Science Degree in Environmental Quality Engineering. Graduated in December 1984. • University of Vermont at Burlington,Vermont:Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering. Graduated in December 1979. • Farmington High School at Farmington,Connecticut:Graduated in June 1975. ADDITIONAL PERTINENT TRAINING • Water Supply Design and Rehabilitation,40 hours,October 1986 • Cost Reimbursable Federal Contracting,32 Hours,March 1994 • Personnel Management for Executives,72 Hours,May 1994 • I have also taken numerous short courses and webinars and have attended several professional conferences over the years. A complete list can be provided upon request PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY • Registered Professional Engineer in Vermont. Registrations also in Alaska,Connecticut,New Hampshire,New Jersey,Massachusetts,but lapsed. • Member American Society of Civil Engineers,Past President of Local Chapter. • Member American Water Works Association. • Member Project Management Institute,Past Vice President of Finance for Local Chapter. • Adjunct Professor of Environmental Engineering, University of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska from 1995-1998. Taught a graduate level course entitled"Remediation". PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS Gagnon, B.T. and Martel, C.J., 1993. Lagoon Sludge Dewatering by Natural Freeze-Thaw. Joint ASCE-CSCE National Conference on Environmental Engineering. Gagnon, B.T., 1996. Removal and Disposal of Asphalt Drums from Bethel, Alaska. Corps of Engineers 6`h Combined Innovative Technology Transfer and Chemistry Workshop. Gagnon, B.T., 1997. Solvent Extraction Treatment of PCB Contaminated Soil at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site,Alaska. Corps of Engineers 7th Combined Innovative Technology Transfer and Chemistry Workshop. Gagnon, B.T. and Kendall, S., 1998. Treatment of Solvent Contaminated Soil and Groundwater using Six- phase Soil Heating combined with Soil Vapor Extraction. Third Tri-Service Environmental Technology Workshop. Gagnon,S.T.,Groher,D., and Baker,R., 1999. Multiphase Extraction Workshop. University of Massachusetts I5t Annual Conference on Contaminated Soils and Water. Gagnon, B.T. and Baker, R., 2000. In-situ Thermal Remediation Workshop. University of Massachusetts 16th Annual Conference on Contaminated Soils and Water. Gagnon, B.T., 2000. In-situ Steam Stripping Case Studies. U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office,Advances in Innovative Ground-water Remediation Technologies and In-situ Thermal Treatment Seminar. Gagnon, B.T., 2000. In-situ Steam Stripping Case Studies. U.S.EPA National Association of Remedial Project Managers Meeting. REFERENCES Available upon request. /;, #4 yr . 41/44:atA' s out MEMO PUBLIC WORKS To: Bob Rusten,Interim City Manager From: Justin Rabidoux,Director Date: March 22,2013 Re: Proposed Intercept Facility Presentation The CCRPC is funding a Scoping Study for a proposed Intercept Facility to be located behind the Sheraton and directly accessible from I-89S. Staff will be at this coming Tuesday's City Council meeting to present the Scoping Study and its Draft Final Report to the Council. Included with this memo is a brief presentation that I will share with the Council and public on the 26th as well as the more detailed Draft Final Report transmitted to the Council as information only. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.658 7961 fax 802 658 7 www.sburl.com Physical Address 104 Landfill Road South Burlington 1-89 Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility Presentation Overview l t, ■ Project Overview E,,_�. .In rmoc"at , w,.. Intercept Parking Facility • Facility Layout& , ,". rvF r ,RPC Circulation ` • Operations and to Management Options `'�;. , • Construction Cost ., 'take hol1gr,c. ill:ue Estimate �"* �� 0 . Novem.: 2012 .:e ■ Alternatives Assessment • Next Steps IIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIW Project Overview—Major Milestones '': � • Project Overview Milestones Achieved Since Last Stakeholder Committee • } - �. _ Meeting(11/11) •Completed Purpose&Need Statement { •Held Public Meeting and Ward 1 NPA Meeting in April • w •Finalized Facility Sizing and Layout ' .,,., •• t. ;, •Completed Traffic Modeling&Analysis •Developed Alternatives for Evaluation ,4 •Developed Construction&Operating Costs ,- •Evaluated Transit Service Options •Presented Project to VTrans in September 1 1-89 Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility Project Overview Project Purpose&Need Statement i Scopirtgl aasibility Study:Solicitpplilio&staketioftler inpLC to identify issues; evaluate alternatives,and-develop a-preferred alternative, PURPOSE fS -� • ...to reduce parking demand,congestion,vehicle miles travelled,and vehicle emissions in Burlington and South Burlington by intercepting g vehicles prior to reaching their final destination and transferring them to a non-single-occupant-vehicle mode... NEEDS '' •Parking demand drives inefficient use of space in dense settings `i- - • Peak period congestion along major commuter mutes into Burlington and .: < South Burlington • Reduce vehicle emissions and improve air quality levels in Chittenden County - • Lack of adequate and convenient mode-transfer facilities for commuters • in Chittenden County • Lack of parking capacity to accommodate large special events WHAT.Parking facility and transportation center with complimer8 Iy office&,.% .etail uses potential slip ramp off 1-89-S8 •WHO:Users include commuters,airport patrons& .-revents visitors s s Difference Between Intercept Facility&Park&Ride Existing Conditions Assessment ,. Transit Service �t w i Characteristic F 1 tYoa .. - " ( t Park an el"Awe Interce0i. .c Trip Contest Close to n0gin 'Close to Desbnabon `_=. se.Yea mulrlple Alww fornigror - Bike/Ped Links F✓,c0on Defier use of urban 44,tlestinano,a core parking „ ' Geographc Rural or suburban Urbm'A,cr try Center -- L°°alert Prirge . _._ Traffic Flow& Congestion Rs coownPeo Hon frequency INTERCEPT mode IM U w *Vuny SiDart —TrarslT rfece Typical ,,cal Design Surface lot S' lot or structured arlong .act.. -Pr1 F Capecdy Low-medium Medium-1 gb .co „, i,.S x • Desirable but not _ Welk/Bike Access mon Vea s} i r ' _ Ox'rra'slvP Publk Pule w pate Y ' f _ Land Use& -- Zoning M PARK&RIDE - =' _ IS it sc ,s s c._ Natural Resources a... 2 1-89 Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility 1 Defining Parking/Intercept Facility Users ill Potential Users-Facility .40r. * j- .. ■ Facility Layout& •Commuters for access to `. , both shuttle buses and ` "* Circulation carpools •Airport patrons �' • if Special events visitors 7,: •Tourists&Visitors •Other carpoolers Potential Users-Shell --. Space , •Retail,office employees =-- Defining Parking Intercept Facility Users Facility Layout&Circulation misilt ,N. 1 p ' Parking demand .� ++� 4.developed based ' ` asx�as.aax_. _.__--- __-__ ssc... 4 .= on input from oa.. ., ,-, t stakeholders and owe..r -_ ...«� n• —__ Steering u.,�.m ....a : aeies ..., Committee �°�..� :.�„.•.wo.3.�.sA. € members r ,u�+..s.n. asa+n.srw &V .+ HiakeemIlqM t ..v LYC f.esb� Ll.a lm I or,,,,, 4e�isi / ' ''‘.0 w - ,n.�. ia.aril rue �.st'.�. I , isYlgs6H..9Y R 3 1-89 Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility Facility Layout&Circulation `, Facility Layout&Circulation —Transit Circulation m "" All turning movements tested for standard Aw > ;` ,•,?.s " =<. city and coach buses. Getstivoin forme EeetM.aepato r Area ads,!' 6iAioini�i ...._...s.2..... .............. P".01t1 + • 9:c Puma: t v/ chR itafiGttiihCnGi- HIRSH two. seviillit s. �- stre: eetrarree eca aeermotut Steraton ontaneo ........................ • 4 1-89 Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility Facility Layout&Circulation —Auto Circulation _ acuity Layout&Circulation —Pedestrian Circulation , VehecleCone /7"-- irnm EE4; 1A:::44 Mande?\\.- ...--- cn ne't tanWen pwBMg p ....._..... _' Pit... Ar w a £ ^L,'^x 3 +�- �=.i• r -�(.fit- }I 6ru i+� �-. � � � rr Ili-�,. "! �, Facility Elevations Facility Elevations .]=_Itiii;744,,r4-:-_____ a - oa _ (Doi f \ MOM ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION -A la ,C 9 ,a r. .I =' >: SOUTH ELEVA 'A .'.."r "-;. B EAST ELEVATION 5 1-89 Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility Facility Floor Plans Facility Floor Plans TOTAL YAWNS IREA[DOWN loks1Court iso rm ... � its [ '1 sx1 - �Wcmca 9+v smum u lxy d loiall . / — L�toceYUWg m / ' �� iso f4. °1 r,. i "f ii —'—''" !"'. rY 1 rf i - F- t . llWI�i 1 I I i, k V� . ii.,. !PI !! 44 M r 'il. .._ - FERW9Fal. 1 it . E- }}-1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1 Facility Floor Plans Facility Floor Plans ILI IG SPACE °! Level.3 24.4459 :;. s 4.1��►�k o ,, 4'1® ••• Level 2 4J154 - u 0 ¢ a ., +. o - .Told 34.160 sl 1 u/i1■w1� — "t IUI.IHUUM 0 u1_ ��Il�l\®IHI , . IV • . _ �. I .� M__ - S �zs €. ( \ - 4. ° LEVEL 4 poop Ton I . . LEVEL 3 W ( 1 n_ 6 1-89 Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility Slip Ramp Reconfiguration—Merged Ramps+Walls "e.,. Paw .o is Wall Reduced •t _ wetland impact it , a 'e— +� •`, Single°"- � �'�' - • Operations and amp.shared y.'S{ deceleration w e _.. Management Options lane "fgr p Retaining .1 Wall .. '# Operations&Maintenance and Revenue Estimate Facility Management Options _„a«at • CCTA,VTrans, Burlington,South Burlington,UVM: oPQfAIIONs Ana MaNrnNANCr costs _„,Operaaans&Maintenance sasu.O. Not interested in managing facility _..irra_e operations&Maintenance S125OX lranpvshottie Sen.operauons s.sacoc ■ CATMA: Interested in managing facility Total Annual O&M Costsi %Af.000 I • If the Sheraton Hotel would be satisfied with negotiating its terms of use Annual R anue in a facility operated by CATMA,then CATMA management of the facility uoIrd would be the simplest and most straightforward option. operan°ns&Maintenance Fees-FANG(CM spear) suLooa • If the Sheraton Hotel desires a stronger,and ongoing role,then the Operations&Maintenance Fees-Oumplaln College(100 spaces) $19.000 development of a public-private partnership between CATMA and the Operations&Maintenance Fees-aty ofaurbnirtoo 1150 spaces) s00.0oa opent+ons&Maintenance Fees-General Public I spaces)' su.om hotel would be the most effective option. opennans&Ma,.eunoe Fees-Sheraton loll spaces) $78,000 Leese Revenue-Read Space(9,ttssl) $2.1.030 • Separate Third Party Parking Management laasepavenue-o/Rce space R6730 St) Sc68,oa0 Entity Teals Pat tease.'wide.. wm lleel SWUM y 7 1-89 Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility r- Construction Cost Estimate - i:s:: - _ a>lrr� 1-t ; OM SOO 51.310 SW. * Z•eftif•-• ''. '...111 Mono bm corp.Statir. 2 :wpm coo.. ISO PAM sown InSlii• - 6 Y . Hitt Six- ff! !tom ♦ ratwww ca.a km as mtnt ME= pats 411(;:c., I...sYuSf...I 9tAli : 4, ...� . t...t�. .. .. sea vs stair sci> ~-a , _ y°' x..st.,M...1 t. sa. OW � s .* v:tit-tom.....t ,,s ., a '401%.' ' • Construction Cost " "'""""" "�'� r - Estimate ...,.,,�..... ',MAC .Ea...6 v W f-..000.0...r 1.214.30 1.41.4,e0 .rn..�. ameyr,eo.eastam.v tu.w.� woue Alternatives Evaluation-COST c. _ A &ME MIDIS St*MEP n Vs US I Left Mk Canoe.. at as}tat :Odtxtn[ Adi-4 a.e:,-.:so,C.o.( No I, 7..Leers Caw Cut 's.,a>� Di.Gala y^`- m Or S/1]SO v'�SW --_i1t MO GSM -_mma.. f �a i ''I `4 V E c.o..=a+s wea.w.e. i MOWS IMPS SIPS Ile ! fts4108 . y n t^ ' • Alternatives 4 E Assessment Leararxa/Rowena . sous wrir swim 1 awls A. 1-89 Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility Alternatives Evaluation Matrix MD IMMOM MP YIP .- ,........I •.... .."� ",�'_t.• exerr• -oject Overview . .•a... .4,m.• •,•.o. •,,.... - ' : m _ ; -.,.°- • Facility Layout& M. M.M -H. - � a° a- 1 - WI _ 4' ,az Circulation eras•..•.• WM ;' operations and Management Options k i° 4 F„ - Construction Cost E sraw.r ar. -- Estimate _` ■ Alterna�,: • • Next Steps -- ----- Trrfel F S G Next Steps • Alternatives Presentations • Stakehoider Committee(Today) • South Burlington City Council(December) • BTV Transportation,Energy&Utilities Committee (December) • Public Meeting(January) • Selection of Preferred Alternative by Steering Committee (February) • Final Scoping Study(April) li F S t; 9 1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane & Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Draft Scoping Report February 2013 ra CHITTENDEN COUNTY RPC Communities Planning Together nR S 1' GAllaullk ING , TRANSPORTATION 1:a"s..od Ftuw,While River Juiv4tion,Vermont O6001 r...go2 2D54000 • cmr 002.206.loos * wwW.lagitte<arvr 4 CHITTENDEN COUNTY RPC �. Corrmurtit;es fanning gTogether 110 West Canal St,Suite 202 Winooski,Vermont 05404 t 802-660-4071 f 802-660-4079 www.ccrpcvt.org The preparation of this document has been financed through transportation planning funds provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and matching funds provided by Chittenden County's 18 municipalities and the Vermont Agency of Transportation. The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Study Area 3 2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 4 2.1 Purpose 4 2.2 Needs 4 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 3.1 Project Site 5 3.2 Traffic Assessment 6 3.3 Crash Data Assessment 7 3.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Assessment 12 3.5 Transit Service Assessment 12 3.5.1 Existing Transit Facilities and Services 12 3.5.2 Planned and Potential CCTA Services 19 3.6 Land Use&Zoning Regulations 20 3.7 Natural&Cultural Resource Assessment 23 3.8 Flood Zones 23 3.9 Wetlands 24 3.10 Historic&Archeological Resources 24 3.11 Hazardous Waste Sites 25 3.12 Rare,Threatened or Endangered Species 25 3.13 Public Lands/LWCF Grant Sites 25 3.14 Prime Agricultural Soils 25 4.0 USER PROFILE& FACILITY SIZE REQUIREMENTS 27 4.1 Parking Demand Estimation 27 4.1.1 South Burlington 27 4.1.2 Sheraton Burlington Hotel and Conference Center 27 4.1.3 Burlington International Airport 27 4.1.4 University Mall 28 4.1.5 Fletcher Allen Health Care 28 4.1.6 Champlain College 28 4.1.7 General Public 28 5.0 LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONCERNS 31 6.0 EXIT 14 INTERCEPT FACILITY LAYOUT 32 7.0 ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT 39 0.41211 DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page i 7.1 Traffic Impacts 39 7.1.1 Estimate Facility Trip Generation 39 7.1.2 (Re)Distribute Trips to Facility 40 7.1.3 Evaluate Traffic Impacts 42 7.2 Transit Service 44 7.2.1 Existing Transit and Shuttle Services 44 7.2.2 Transit Demand 46 7.2.3 Potential Bus and Shuttle Service Changes with Intercept Facility 47 7.3 Facility Construction Cost Estimate 56 7.4 Operations and Maintenance Costs, Projected Revenue and Management Options 58 7.4.1 Operating Costs and Projected Revenue 58 7.4.2 Management Options 60 7.4.3 Conclusions 62 7.5 Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 62 8.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 64 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1:Study Area 3 Figure 2: Existing Site Plan 5 Figure 3: Intersection Count Locations and Count Dates 6 Figure 4: Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 7 Figure 5:Summary of Crashes from High Crash Location(South Burlington US 2—Mile Marker 0.0-0.158) 7 Figure 6:Crash Assessment Summary 8 Figure 7:Crash Diagram at Sheraton Hotel/Staples Plaza 9 Figure 8: Pedestrian Facilities Adjacent to the Project Site 10 Figure 9: Bicycle Facilities Adjacent to the Project Site 11 Figure 10:Table of CCTA Transit Route Serving Study Area 13 Figure 11:Map of CCTA Routes Serving Study Area 14 Figure 12:Table of CATS Transit Routes 15 Figure 13: Map of CATS Shuttles 16 Figure 14: Park and Ride and Intercept Facilities 18 Figure 15:Current Land Use Adjacent to the Project Site 21 Figure 16: Existing Zoning Districts(Burlington&South Burlington) 22 Figure 17:Overview of Natural and Cultural Resources 23 Figure 18:Approximate Location of Jurisdictional Wetlands 24 Figure 20: Prime Agricultural Soils 26 Figure 21: Existing Park-and-Ride Demand/Market Population 30 Figure 22: Parking Demand Estimation 30 Figure 23: Exit 14 Intercept Facility and 1-89 Southbound Slip Ramp-Full View 32 Figure 24: Exit 14 Intercept Facility and 1-89 Southbound Slip Ramp-Detail View 33 _ 28 February 2012 Page ii `A Figure 25:Transit Access 34 Figure 26:Vehicle Access 34 Figure 27: Facility Layout-Level 1 35 Figure 28: Facility Layout-Level 2 36 Figure 29: Facility Layout-Level 3 36 Figure 30: Facility Layout-Level 4 37 Figure 31:Facility Layout-West Elevation 38 Figure 32: Facility Layout-East Elevation 38 Figure 33: Estimated Peak Hour Trip Generation 40 Figure 34: Distribution of FAHC,Champlain College(CC),and UVM Trips to the Facility 41 Figure 35: Methodology Used for Redistributing Trips 42 Figure 36:Change in Intersection Delay with Exit 14 Facility 43 Figure 37: US 2/Sheraton Drive Congestion Analysis Results 44 Figure 38: Route 1 Williston 45 Figure 39: Route 11 College Street Shuttle 46 Figure 40: Potential Transit Demand by User Group 47 Figure 41: FAHC and Champlain College Shuttles 48 Figure 42: FAHC Shuttle Vehicle Hours and Operating Costs 48 Figure 43:Alternative 1-Vehicle Hours and Operating Costs 49 Figure 44: Extension of College Street Shuttle to FAHC and Main Street 51 Figure 45:Alternative 2-Vehicle Hours and Operating Costs 52 Figure 46:Alternative 2-Capital Costs 52 Figure 47:Alternative 3-Vehicle Hours and Operating Costs 54 Figure 48:Alternative 3-Capital Costs 54 Figure 49:Construction Costs Estimate 57 Figure 50: Exit 14 Intercept Facility-Estimate of Operations and Maintenance Costs 59 Figure 51: Exit 14 Intercept Facility-Estimate of Estimated Lease and Parking Revenue 60 Figure 52:Alternatives Evaluation Matrix 63 Rol - : - DRAFT: 1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page iii APPENDICES Appendix A Steering Committee and Stakeholder Meeting Materials Appendix B Public Meeting Materials Appendix C Environmental Resource Documentation Appendix D Parking Demand Assessment Appendix E Traffic Analysis Documentation Appendix F Transit Assessment Documentation 28 February 2012 A0404.41"1" Page iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION The project scoping process is a phase in the overall project development process that identifies safe and effective alternatives based on objective criteria that meet the stated purpose and need while minimizing environmental impacts.The scoping process results in the recommendation of a preferred alternative,which has local,regional and VTrans support. The I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane and Intermodal Intercept Facility Scoping Study was developed to provide a comprehensive assessment of a potential new southbound I-89 slip ramp and intermodal intercept facility adjacent to the Exit 14 interchange in South Burlington,Vermont. This scoping study was developed in partnership with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) and the Campus Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA). In addition,a project Steering Committee assisted in the overall management and direction of the project,while a Stakeholder Committee provided a forum for key stakeholder input into the process.The membership of these committees is outlined below. Project Steering Committee Members: • Amy Bell,VTrans • Justin Rabidoux,City of South • Erin Demers,City of Burlington Burlington • • Meredith Birkett, CCTA Bob Penniman,CATMA • Chris Jolly, FHWA • Christine Forde,CCRPC Staff Project Stakeholder Committee Members: • Debra Feldman,Sheraton • Dave Keelty, FAHC • Paul Conner,South Burlington • Bob McEwing,Burlington • Kelly Devine, Burlington Business International Airport Association • Heather Tremblay, University Mall • Barb Donovan,VTrans Public Director of Communications Transit Administrator • Ron Redmond,Church Street • Dawn Francis,Chamber/GBIC Marketplace • Aaron Frank,CCTA •• Linda Seavey,UVM • John Caulo, Champlain College David White,City of Burlington Supporting RSG on this Scoping Study were Nelson\Nygaard(transit assessment and planning), Freeman French Freeman(garage and shell space planning and design),and Krebs&Lansing Consulting Engineers(survey,stormwater and wetlands permitting). NP4 °IAN DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 1 1.1 Background Over the years,a number of planning initiatives have investigated options to reduce congestion and parking demand in Burlington.One option involves the development of intermodal intercept facilities at the primary gateways into Burlington to capture single-occupant,primarily commuter,trips at peripheral locations around the city and transfer them onto buses to make the final leg of their trip.Shifting auto trips to transit trips in this manner reduces both traffic congestion and parking demand within the city.An intercept facility differs from a traditional park and ride facility in that an intercept facility is typically located closer to trip destinations (e.g.workplaces,downtowns)while park and ride facilities are typically located closer to trip origins (e.g.homes). An intermodal intercept facility at Exit 14 was identified in the 2007 US 2 Corridor Transportation Management Plan,in the 2010 Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Transit Development Plan,and was ranked as the highest rated intercept facility in the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) Chittenden County Park and Ride& Intercept Facility Plan. To provide access to the potential intermodal facility,several planning initiatives have also identified the potential to construct a new slip ramp adjacent to the existing southbound I-89 Exit 14 off-ramp to provide direct connectivity to the facility from the interstate.A general concept plan for this new slip ramp was evaluated in the Interchange 14 Ramp CScoping Report, which was completed in 2005. The CCRPC initiated this 1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane and Intermodal Intercept Facility Scoping Study in June 2011 to conduct background investigations,stakeholder outreach,and alternatives analysis to identify a preferred alternative recommendation for the site.This scoping effort has proceeded along the schedule outlined below: • Project Kick-off June 2011 • Evaluation of Existing Conditions June-November 2011 • Development of Purpose&Need August-November 2011 • User Profile Assessment November-December 2011 • Traffic Assessment January-June 2012 • Local Concerns&Ward 1 NPA Meetings April 2012 • Alternatives Analysis May-October 2012 • Selection of Preferred Alternative November 2012 • Draft Scoping Study February 2013 28 February 2012 Page 2 1.2 Study Area The primary and secondary study areas are shown below in Figure 1.The primary study area (shown in orange shading) delineates the area most directly affected by the development of an intermodal intercept facility.The primary study area is generally bounded on the east by I-89, on the north by the northern extent of the existing Sheraton Conference Center parking lot,on the west by the Burlington city line inclusive of the area around Corrigan Drive and on the south by US 2.The secondary study area(shown in blue highlighting) represents the adjacent roadway network that is included in this assessment to gauge broader transportation implications of the intercept facility. Figure 1:Study Area i~ a L -- Y, oc / I \\ < 0J _. / / , z .LC I \ 41 \ _ p • war \ P \ \! ) \ / I . y \\ 1\ / R X33t w \ st \ t P t { let %‘ _„1 {(, ! t Rasa # t S 1 - Primary Study Area ' `� !r L Secondary Study AreaS. 1_——— . m w a 00L4&1A4 DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study rdithil Page 3 2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Articulating a clear purpose and need statement is a critical step in the project development process.The purpose and need statement provides a summary of the issues related to the project and facilitates the selection of a reasonable,prudent,and practicable alternative.To focus the direction of this project and with input from the project steering committee,the following purpose and need statement was developed. 2.1 Purpose The purpose of the I-89 Exit 14 Intercept Facility is to encourage the use of multi-modal travel options to reduce parking demand,congestion,vehicle miles travelled (VMT),and vehicle emissions in Burlington and South Burlington by intercepting vehicles prior to reaching their final destination and transferring them safely,efficiently,and seamlessly to a non-single- occupant-vehicle mode (e.g.bus,shuttle,HOV,walk,bicycle).The Intercept Facility will increase the number of publicly available,intermodal parking spaces in Chittenden County's core and will be located at a convenient and efficient intercept facility location to serve a wide range of users including work,travel,and special events related users.The Intercept Facility will allow for potential redevelopment and infill of areas currently occupied by parking and reduce overall energy use and reliance on fossil fuels. 2.2 Needs An intermodal transportation facility at I-89 Exit 14 is needed for the following reasons: • Current downtown parking demand leads to inefficient use of core downtown space to provide parking for employees and visitors. • Limited parking capacity to accommodate large special events in Burlington and South Burlington. • Recurring peak period congestion both in downtown Burlington and along major commuter routes into Burlington and South Burlington caused by oversaturated conditions. • Recurring delays and congestion leads to increased vehicle emissions and degraded air quality levels in Chittenden County. • Limited adequate and convenient mode-transfer facilities for commuters in Chittenden County. 28 February 2012 Page 4 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section provides a comprehensive assessment of the project site,traffic operations,bicycle and pedestrian connectivity,existing transit services,land use context,and natural and cultural resources adjacent to the project site. 3.1 Project Site The project site is located immediately north of the Sheraton Hotel and Conference Center in the northwest quadrant of the I-89 Exit 14 interchange in South Burlington,Vermont.The project site is bordered on the east by I-89,on the north by Centennial Woods and a 270-space UVM satellite parking lot,on the west by Carrigan Drive and stormwater detention basins,and on the south by the Sheraton facility. Primary access to the site is provided off of US 2 (Main Street) via the Sheraton access drive. Secondary access is available from East Avenue via Carrigan/Catamount Drive. The parking area to the north of the Sheraton hotel slopes towards the northeast,with an average 1.5%slope across the lot.The terrain immediately north of this lot drops off significantly,with slopes in the 3:1 range down to an identified wetland area. Figure 2:Existing Site Plan - :3, it 1 - " r= ! / � . _ , ' v Project Site i J'/ / $.3 `^ ' �_ , \ / �. . / . / f) r r j f / ,,„ :� � _ ' odire _ _ DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 5 3.2 Traffic Assessment The traffic volumes along US 2 and I-89 around Exit 14 are some of the highest in Vermont. Exit 14 serves as a main commuting gateway to employment destinations in downtown Burlington and South Burlington.The large volume of commuting trips currently passing through the Exit 14 area makes the project site particularly attractive for a potential transit intercept facility. In 2010,VTrans reported an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)volume of 39,100 vehicles per day along US 2 just west of the I-89 Exit 14 ramps.1 On I-89 north of US 2 between exits 14 and 15 VTrans reported an AADT of 53,900 vehicles per day.2 In order to form an understanding of baseline traffic congestion within the study area, intersection turning movement counts conducted by VTrans,the CCRPC,and RSG were collected for all critical intersections within the project study area.Figure 3 presents the various count dates by intersection. Figure 3:Intersection Count Locations and Count Dates AM Peak PM Peak Colchester Ave/East Ave/Trinity Campus 6/12/2009 6/12/2009 EastAve/Corrigan Drive 11/30/2011 4/7/2010 US2/S Prospect St 7/14/2010 7/14/2010 US2/University Heights 11/30/2011 9/29/2010 US2-SpearSt-08 4/17/2008 4/17/2008 US 2-EastAvenue-08 4/17/2008 4/17/2008 US2/Staples Plaza 11/30/2011 11/30/2011 Westmost Ramps-SB Off-On Ramps Dec'09* Dec'09* SB On-Off Ramp Dec'09* Dec'09* NB Off-On Ramp Dec'09* Dec'09* Eastmost Ramps-NB On-Off Ramp Dec'09* Dec'09* US2/Dorset St 7/1/2009 7/1/2009 *Ramp intersection turning movement counts were derived from CCMPO ATR counts conducted on all on-and off-ramps during December of 2009. Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes from the study intersection turning movement counts were adjusted to represent Design Hour Volume (DHV) conditions using adjustments based on VTrans automatic count stations on US 2 and East Avenue.3 DHV adjustments range from 0.98 to 1.23 depending on time period and count date.Additionally,annual adjustments based on growth rates presented in the 2010 VTrans Red Book for Poll Group 3,Urban Roads, were used to scale count volumes to represent 2012 conditions. Design hour traffic volumes were then used to calculate average vehicle delays and levels of service based on procedures laid out in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.4 Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing the operating conditions as perceived by motorists driving in a traffic stream.In addition to traffic volumes,key inputs for calculating vehicle This AADT was recorded on US 2 at VTrans count station S6D108. 'This AADT was recorded on 1-89 north of Exit 14 at VTrans count station P6D091. DHV adjustments are based on VTrans count stations S6D172,S6D138,S6D162,S6D058,and S6D108. 4 Transportation Research Board,National Research Council,Highway Capacity Manual(Washington,DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2000). 28 February 2012 Page 6 delays and levels of service include the number of lanes at each intersection,intersection control type (signalized or unsignalized),and the traffic signal timing plans.1 The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual defines six qualitative grades to describe the level of service at an intersection.Level-of-Service is based on the average control delay per vehicle. Figure 4 shows the various LOS grades and descriptions for signalized intersections. Figure 4:Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Signalized LOS Characteristics Total Delay(sec) A Little or no delay <_10.0 B Short delays 10.1-20.0 C Average delays 20.1-35.0 D Long delays 35.1-55.0 E Very long delays 55.1-80.0 F Extreme delays >80.0 3.3 Crash Data Assessment A comprehensive crash data assessment was conducted on the roads adjacent to the project site.The crash assessment examined vehicular crashes that had been reported over the five year period from 2006 to 2010 and is summarized below in Figure 6.As the graphic shows, there is a designated High Crash Location section along US 2 adjacent to the Sheraton Access Drive,with dense cluster of crashes being reported in the section over the five-year analysis period. Figure 5 below provides a summary of the crashes occurring within the US 2 High Crash Location section in South Burlington from mile marker 0.0 to 0.158 (East Avenue/Spear Street to the southbound I-89 off-ramp). During the period from 2006-2010,there were 190 reported crashes in this section.The majority of the reported crashes in this section were rear end collisions (53%). Figure 5:Summary of Crashes from High Crash Location(South Burlington US 2—Mile Marker 0.0-0.158) Same Left turn and Thru Right turn and Direction thru-angle/ Other/ movements thru-angle/ Rear End Sideswipe broadside Unknown broadside broadside #Crashes 100 36 21 16 9 8 %of Crashes 53% 19% 11% 8% 5% 4% An analysis of the crashes closest to the Sheraton Hotel entrance (mile marker 0.10-0.23)was completed as well.The 91 crashes identified in this area are presented in a crash diagram in Figure 7 below which shows the type of collision,direction,injuries,the date of the accident and other important information. 1 This analysis assumes construction of the new third lane between the US 2/Staples/Sheraton intersection and the 1-89 Exit 14 Southbound Ramps and updated signal timing plans resulting from the widening project. sogel .411444A DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 7 Figure 6:Crash Assessment Summary 4.„,,„„,„,„,,,,.. ,cww+ .a1/4 � y n' ''''''''' '''''N.sN cRu,r�,un 6 /# N4*"NI ' / ,2„' V,n le:f Hfr / R09,NSONPKW'f �iPF r Y t [anj ioniiltnw� �„ 'y,i n[HarnaoM rcnn y' ccai aKf$T �� fry 11 @ mw.,,,„,r.,,,.r.,, '.. o f:a on �00,4 10N IMIExit 14 Intercept FaclItty. 6udi ton fr�•�,. n 0hr,.v.'.„�,.,,I�ua> marl Crashes (2006 — 2010) • ' """ •No Ow IMrrrtMfnnr It0t1! 349/1 41 li+Yq cr►Ma 04111 1"q 600.it did 1110 It*ip+tr0t 28 February 2012 Page 811111 Figure 7:Crash Diagram at Sheraton Hotel/Staples Plaza E,y;,• Sheraton Hotel & 1-89 SB Off Ramp ',- p13" Conference Center ,./M/07r -- IPe1r,/0! CAS ,••• u;afrn ',I3t/G7 111UGi [tiM 1.'i20/10 1420ii4 4i U/07 13/11/07 WPC7 somila 1/12/10 18M1*a JJ/1Ury IOrW Win S4n .-.--«iYWi e t CD CO � ^C.P C,0 (! F141' CA C,0 CA . 0N91f'4. .-...-.-. %4'rN.G4 ii4/00 fan rr+cry 77%'n rlitn/na ,,, ]V1t/t41 1/11/Oi , p��,,�y 11.07 W37A7 11/10/Pi 4/I1W7/04 A.. U0i,... 11A7 WO r aAA C, rr0,w +' '"' CAS .A'74a 1n C,,0 "„ i' p,„w. „..... ii ,17...— a+"%""' aM la," ""' j, "' cc�F 0 f A �. 4a40, 0bin " 4*' i/0/10 li • Ed1 '•D I032n 1�A%n C.r a 0 +_.� ! ... , �4� �' "Sn - -� c, GA PA WA CA Ci, C,P CP US Haute 1 p�� brans �I1,1+i.Gd KuuU 2 0Ga 1. �. .�p;t. 1Si/4; Jr%Er FL T fl OM; lild70i %L'%i/07 r-7 lr7 L7 btdb7 ::11:47 ; W.* 2%4� 143,49 1i1444 ai1U40 t%7Ca ;/21iO3 114047 11 lyam PM, .s. w,ii Jl+l, ,.ar.ri iHN: rri.r r IC 4 t{p�y,,.�., iiudr %...' Wtrl'. r N' r r W 'f:. C. "„`\; CS.,r"�.:1 [D fl}7CA - SA/�,y CO CAS tdId.I¢35A 'NA ' C:D r SA Ct ; } Jid.fifd ; .yA _ }aI19/�ie l/";:9�%iliX�t i/i0,1i4 d;9,G4 li iG.i',S 1G.i3G1H lvtit�4 Vole %riSLB�,7, ".. v,,,L-� . ___ tGlTh tl4(10 .---• +laN,,f-r d.7 o1—a f-' 0A 'trab/' MA" t10M la:en --Y.''£ 'Jbrin SA1" 111Oh Ir+ (1,1,7 �6A17��?""'-^� 144%n.' , -. / a 5, c.L v!0 C.Li aC.i CD NO C.0 CL C, CA SG 48 `a cA MO -:i2!/0' 7 o 7NG', 14",,iitG 11/17i1� Bi11..9 lOr}0�ft7 7116r1�, lilrif4 li+%b•#G l+y+i4 i l,•24A:i EFirGE �' 71a0n 7Tlil/ ir5in coo I73:n.ter"=, I9Sfiu 11nTn `•} 2'iM ,,,,, ' g o 1%3S7,,,,—'", •'n 3C«n;• �)L)' I C.D CN ... !:D C.0 C. CD C:, N. 0.0 Cl cD ff w,r .-. _ .._ ' lWFlJP :::,r 1-89 SB On Ramp `a 0Y7xn 1144 Staples Plaza -ti'----, r.,., 7".4 1: 15,b., 83n.44 Lug cc/k,k c or Dta ly wt0t Cpnt10, t, 'WO i"w,.y,oi ,i1U mil 0 Qnir .^/"4.,icItudo 4t it„pow wh a'gdria4w AY 71 i1il•.4,34n%4 t Airs uDl 1' i,(iti9Sn Cn'040iA! Nrti!inv '14„—, 710*0 yr,a II ._.._..._ ... ............ ............. .....__._. ......,_._.. ..__,,,....... ......_ ... ..,...,....._..._._ DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 9 Figure 8 Pedestrian Facilities Adjacent to the Project Site 1 �, I:', f nr.n,r.SSao or //1:;/: CCriR r 11 c4' ``''.Z\N-,,,,, i k.N.', r4Sufkitlookl*Pn --::;'k""'"''s°N.t,"„ unrlr pT a r , fw y N 4J \\+, Y n/t r rfr LL m (tpg{NSanPKY W pS? ti F� ," \\< 5h rm'r(enter nenuenaon'can ',, ,,` . . ' l'k el If,ST tre j lino 3i :� r2{ ► r 31b I F / 1 F.tet 5 El) 1 D ISO DDD DDD'i 12D0 J Exit 14 Intercept Facility- Burlington - Morrow Shoulder ...Shand Vie Path Linkages . ... 1. 050 sl.tl,r OWN Cf.rtwftb It"s I _ 4*p IMrIibfr 4441 4110 fr.lNVili wet Paf*0 28 February 2012 Page 10111 Figure 9 Bicycle Facilities Adjacent to the Project Site ...... \,,A,, :r 1 T /4/ C.'+ C4>rtidlW'q 9ft ii U NNN t i, rlal.,l\Iles to .,,,,,tn59NPKWY �� nemle'nWO.IC Mt 1 \\\ ix ‘'•"-,6,,.,...`If) it HD 03 Y. > l � I V 03 J b n ..e,,, 1 o ha A. 661'S }Po I 0 �1 A Exit 14 Intercept Focility- Bur ingten t lifts&D lnt Bicycle Network014 ""'`"""°""`""° sea sn use volt, ` i .,.+I. S 4Muux.to be R S G_ ; i terrw Les 11lll tut xw+nem,*prei.Q) DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Seeping Study / L Page 11 3.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Assessment A detailed field inspection was conducted adjacent to the project site to identify the presence of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. below shows the existing pedestrian facilities (i.e. sidewalks,crosswalks,and shared use paths) within the primary and secondary study areas. The figure shows a well-developed pedestrian network with continuous connections from the project site west to East Avenue and Prospect Street and east across I-89 to Dorset Street. A map of the existing bicycle facilities within the study area is illustrated below in. Included in the figure is a proposed five-foot shoulder that would be constructed as part of the US 2/Main Street widening project adjacent to the Staples plaza.As the graphic shows,there is generally bicycle connectivity to East Avenue and University Place to the west and to Dorset Street to the east(with an eastbound segment forced to traverse a sidewalk between the I-89 northbound off-ramp and Dorset Street). 3.5 Transit Service Assessment The existing and proposed transit facilities and services were assessed in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of transit service adjacent to the proposed facility. 3.5.1 Existing Transit Facilities and Services Existing transit facilities include the Chittenden County Transit Authority(CCTA) routes that serve the greater Burlington area,the Fletcher Allen Healthcare (FAHC) shuttles,and the shuttle services provided by nearby institutions,the University of Vermont(UVM),and Champlain College. 3.5.1.1 Chittenden County Transit Authority(CCTA) Currently the CCTA provides service to the greater Burlington area with 19 bus routes.Seven of these routes operate either on Main Street/Williston Road in Burlington,or serve another portion of the study area such as UVM or FAHC.These routes,along with detailed information about their span of service and service frequency,are shown in Figure 10.A map of the routes is also provided in Figure 11. 28 February 2012 FAV4 Page 12 �� Figure 10:Table of CCTA Transit Route Serving Study Area Service Span of Service Frequency(min) (Peakloff-Peak} Routes that stop along MainStreetlliston Road � � � s t � i�� aid �?�a I � ' i d � Routes that do not stop al7:1,ong Main Streetllistori Road,but operate near UVM and FAHC g 1 +..N.'{-% 4 r. 2 Route 8 City Loop Weekday 6:4 — Saturday 6:45a5a —6:40p10:05p 15/30 30 oni+ t Route 76 Middlebury LINK 90 Express Weekday AM 5:05a—8:50p 60 Weekday PM 4:40p—7:55p 40 Saturday AM 9:45a—1:30p Saturday PM 4:45p—9:45p 90 Route 86 Montpelier LINK Express Weekday AM 5:42a—8:55a 8 one-way trips* Weekday PM 12:02p—7:30p 10 one-way trips* Route 96 St.Albans LINK Express Weekday AM 5:45a—8:35a 4 one way trips* Weekday PM 4:30p—7:20p 4 one-way trips* *Irregular Service Frequency **Seasonal Variations f ' DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study 'F.. ,�_,. Page 13 Figure 11:Map of CCTA Routes Serving Study Area A h r 4 43 4 _: Fletcher Allen—Unirm :dy Heal ;.me firs•=m„- 4,9, - ",.�.i+:-j .m... li - - 12 _ $ _1 1 ;-; +rfil., - _ _ a..... 71) l . S. • Route 1 Williston- Route 1 Williston operates between downtown Burlington and Williston via Main Street and Williston Road.The route travels east from and passes the project study area on Main Street.There are multiple service variants of this route which determine the eastern alignment in Williston.The variants and their unique portions are: • 1—Williston Road to Tafts Corners,then south to serve Maple Tree Place and Walmart • 1E—Williston Road to Tafts Corners,then north to serve Essex • 1V—Williston Road to Industrial Avenue,then north to make a one-way loop on Industrial Avenue,Mountain View Road, N.Williston Road,and Williston Road. • 12— (Interlined) Follows alignment for Route 1 from Burlington to Williston Road at Kennedy Drive,then becomes the South Burlington Circulator(Route 12). • Route 2 Essex Junction- Route 2 Essex junction operates between downtown Burlington and Essex junction via Colchester Avenue,College Parkway,and Pearl Street. It passes through the study area on Colchester Avenue and serves the Fletcher Allen Heath Care-Medical Center(FAHC-MC). - spoiM 28 February 2012 Page 14 • Route 8 City Loop-Route 8 City Loops is a circulator route that operates throughout downtown Burlington.It serves the study area along Prospect Street,stopping at the UVM Waterman Building which is a transfer point to/from the CATS system. • Route 11 College Street Shuttle-Route 11 College Street Shuttle is a free shuttle that operates between the Burlington Waterfront and FAHC via College Street and Colchester Avenue.The route stops at the UVM Waterman building,the Fletcher Allen Heath Care-University Health Center(FAHC-UHC),and FAHC-MC. • Route 76 Middlebury LINK Express- Route 76 Middlebury LINK Express is an express route that provides service between downtown Burlington and Middlebury via US Route 7.The route makes a stop at the FAHC-MC on the inbound (to Burlington)AM trips and the outbound (to Middlebury) PM trips. • Route 86 Montpelier LINK Express- Route 86 Montpelier LINK Express is an express route that provides service between downtown Burlington and Montpelier via Interstate 89.Similar to Route 76,this route makes a stop at the FAHC- MC on the inbound (to Burlington)AM trips and the outbound (to Montpelier) PM trips. • Route 96 St.Albans LINK Express- Route 96 St.Albans LINK Express is an express route that provides service between downtown Burlington and St.Albans via Interstate 89. Each trip makes a stop at the FAHC-MC. 3.5.1.2 Campus Area Transportation System(CATS) Another existing transit option in the vicinity of the project site is the free transportation services that the University of Vermont's Transportation and Parking Services department provides for students,staff,and faculty of UVM.These services include three campus area shuttles that form the Campus Area Transportation System (CATS).The On Campus Shuttle,the Redstone Express Shuttle,and the Off Campus Shuttle operate as shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13.In addition,CATS also offers a CatsRide on demand door to door service which provides between off campus UVM facilities and the main campus (within a ten mile radius of campus). Trips are scheduled in advance on a first-come,first-served basis.This service is available on weekdays from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. Figure 12:Table of CATS Transit Routes Service Frequency (min) of" ..(PaYtiqi#Ev.#019) ni On Campus Weekday 7:20a—11:45p 10/30 Saturday 11:30a-6:30p 30 Sunday 11:30a—9:30p 30 Redstone Express Monday—Thursday 7:45a-6:45p 15 Friday 7:45a—3:45p 15 Off Campus Sunday—Thursday 18:30p—12:00a 30 Friday/Saturday 18:30p—10:00p 15 Friday/Saturday Late Night` 22:OOp-2:30a 10 *Note the Off Campus shuttle has a distinct Late Night alignment Mdl‘,4h DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 15 Figure 13:Map of CATS Shuttles rig. 4 i. -.„fTtitm'tat e+ttYr CZ i ^"%$ 4#, =i4 ^tom`*-.' 2 ,t 3rcv:.n .moo Off Campu =. t .f i 46,. r Y 4. rai#asf m sr„ s i A Tic s . ..ate lig}�t. S .4.. .t m .I .4 f^, 1. R T ''ccFca.'.E-aJ „, V ff. .• Aat • On Campus Shuttle-The On Campus shuttle provides service internally throughout the UVM campus.The route does not directly serve the FAHC-MC or the FAHC-UHC. Service is offered seven days a week. • Redstone Express Shuttle-The Red Stone Express shuttle provides service between the Central Campus and the Redstone Campus of UVM via Prospect Street.The route directly serves the FAHC-UHC but does not serve the FAHC- MC. • Off Campus Shuttle-The Off Campus shuttle provides evening service within the UVM campus and also to Burlington downtown.The off campus portion travels along Pearl Street and Maple Street to Winooski Avenue.The route directly serves the FAHC-UHC but does not serve the FAHC - MC.A distinct Friday and Saturday Late Night service exists which begins after the normal service ends. 28 February 2012 Page 16 3.5.1.3 Fletcher Allen Healthcare Shuttle Services Fletcher Allen Healthcare provides weekday shuttle service between FAHC-MC and several parking lots in the area (Figure 12and Figure 13).This allows employees of the medical center to park off site and take the shuttle to work for free.Three routes shuttle employees from three locations,described individually below.A fourth employee parking lot,Centennial parking,is located within walking distance of the medical center and is not served by a shuttle. • Fanny Allen shuttle-The Fanny Allen shuttle provides shuttle service between the Fanny Allen Campus and the FAHC-MC.Satellite parking is located behind lot#2. Weekday service runs from 4:15 AM to 9:15 PM and departs every 15 minutes. • Catamount East shuttle-The Catamount East shuttle provides shuttle service between the UVM Catamount East Parking Lot and the FAHC-MC.The parking lot is located off Carrigan Drive,behind the Sheraton property.Weekday service operates from 4:15 AM to 9:15 PM and departs roughly every 10 to 15 minutes. • Gutterson shuttle-The Gutterson shuttle provides shuttle service between the UVM Gutterson Parking Lot and the FAHC-MC.The parking lot is located on the UVM campus,just to the east of the Gutterson Field House.Weekday service operates from 4:15 AM to 6:00 PM and departs roughly every 10 to 15 minutes. 3.5.1.4 Champlain College Shuttle Services Champlain College operates free shuttle service for students between campus and off site residence halls when classes are in session.These shuttles operate to the west and north of the study area. • Gilbane Lot/Lakeside Avenue shuttle-The Gilbane Lot/Lakeside Avenue shuttle provides shuttle service between the Champlain College main campus and the new Lakeside Avenue campus at Lakeside Avenue and Pine Street.Weekday service operates from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM and runs in a continuous loop. • Quarry Hill shuttle-The Quarry Hill shuttle provides shuttle service between the Champlain College main campus and the Quarry Hill residence hall on Quarry Hill Road. Weekday service operates from 7:05 AM to 8:50 PM and departs every 30 minutes. • Spinner Place shuttle-The Spinner Place shuttle provides shuttle service between the Champlain College main campus and the Spinner Place residence hall in Winooski. Weekday service operates from 7:05 AM to 9:10 PM (6:10 PM on Fridays) and departs every 30 minutes. • Late Night and Weekend shuttle-Additional late night service is offered between the Champlain College main campus,Spinner Place,Quarry Hill,and Lakeside Avenue Monday through Thursday from 9:10 PM to midnight, departing every 50 minutes. Weekend service serves the same locations and operates from 11:00 AM to 8:30 PM and departs every hour. 3.5.1.5 Existing Park and Ride and Intercept Facilities Currently there are three park and rides,and four intercept facilities within or serving Chittenden County that are served by public transit.Details about the public transit services that are currently available at these facilities,along with the location (Figure 14),are shown below. • Georgia Park and Ride-North of the study area,the Georgia Park and Ride is serviced by CCTA Route 96 St.Albans LINK Express. DRAFT:189 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study �_ Page 17 • Essex-An existing Park and Ride in Essex is being served by CCTA's Route 3 Essex Center. • Exit 11 Richmond-The Richmond Park and Ride is served by the CCTA Route 86 Montpelier LINK Express. • Fanny Allen-The intercept facility at Fanny Allen in Colchester is currently serviced by CCTA's Route 2 Essex Junction,as well as by a Fletcher Allen Healthcare shuttle. • Winooski-The parking intercept lot by Winooski at Spinner Place is serviced by various public transit routes including CCTA's Route 2 Essex Junction,Route 9 Riverside/Winooski,and the Spinner Place Champlain shuttle. • North Ave/DMV-CCTA's Route 7 North Avenue is currently the only public transit route that serves this intercept facility. • Gilbane/PARC-CCTA's Route 3 Lakeside Commuter is currently the only public transit route that serves this intercept facility. Figure 14:Park and Ride and Intercept Facilities I��I 111 L /1 lMotl Aw- l t 1�as % A. J '+ g t� Ili 0 i i ` `�Dx ,-;,. - , :, ,,,, t "---- ----. . N.Ni u+., C 037S OR IS 1 3 Exit 14 intercept Facility-Burlington p4 Park & Ride and Intercept Facilities M Park and Ride Facilities pi.; Intercept racilities R'S G. Stvtri tt.?oil 28 February 2012INV41 Page 18 3.5.2 Planned and Potential CCTA Services The CCTA 2010 Transit Development Plan (TDP) outlines the following planned and potential CCTA services. • Additional Commuter Routes-The TDP identified a need for additional commuter routes between regional activity centers.These new commuter routes could serve intercept lots or park and ride lots along the route.The potential routes include: - Cambridge-Underhill-Jericho-Essex-Burlington (via VT 15) - Waterbury-Burlington - Extension of St.Albans LINK to northern Franklin County - Grand Isle-Burlington (connection to Gordons Landing-Plattsburgh Ferry) - Rutland-Burlington (connection to Amtrak Ethan Allen Express—or extension to Albany/Bennington via US Route 7 if Ethan Allen Express service is discontinued). - Colchester-Mallets Bay-Burlington - Hinesburg-Burlington - Richmond-Burlington (extension of Williston Village service) • Regional Trunk Route Upgrades-The TDP identified regional trunk routes as important components of the transit network and suggested potential improvements. These improvements are mostly service increases on existing transit routes. Improvements include service frequency improvements,service span improvements, and service day expansion.Two corridors are also identified as having potential to support incremental Bus Rapid Transit improvements,US Route 2 and VT Route 15. • Local Fixed Route Upgrades-The TDP identified various improvements to local fixed routes.These include: - Extension of coverage to new service areas such as South Burlington's Southeast quadrant,Lime Kiln Road in South Burlington,South Burlington City Center. - New connections between southern and eastern sections of South Burlington. - New connections between Colchester,Water Tower Hill,Severance Corners,and Colchester Village. - New connections in Colchester and Essex Junction. - Service frequency and service span upgrades. • Parking and Special Purpose Shuttles-The TDP recognized commuting to destinations on the "Hill,"and suggests improvements designed to better serve this market.The TDP recognized the potential for future additional parking lots with associated shuttle service to downtown and/or the Hill.Identified potential parking lots and services include: - New intercept lot at Exit 14—to serve FAHC and downtown; or to serve airport - New intercept lot at Exit 12—to serve airport - New intercept lot at Exit 16—to serve FAHC and downtown - New FAHC to University Mall parking shuttle service • Feeder Routes to Trunk Lines and Commuter Routes-The TDP recognized the importance of feeder service to major trunk lines and commuter services.It identified potential zones of new feeder service,which includes new service along US Route 2. • Enhanced Passenger Facilities-Outside of the main downtown transfer station,the TDP identifies several other locations that could benefit from enhanced passenger rf,,,441 DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study �� Page 19 facilities.These include Taft Corners/Maple Tree Place,University Mall or South Burlington City Center, Essex Junction,Winooski,and US Route 7 at Burlington/South Burlington line. 3.6 Land Use & Zoning Regulations below shows the existing land use classifications proximate to the project site.The land use designations are based on the 2008 CCRPC parcel-based land use map and is categorized using the Land Based Classification Standards established by the American Planning Association.The figure shows that the land uses adjacent to the project site are primarily commercial and institutional in nature. Figure 16 below shows the existing zoning districts proximate to the project site.The figure shows that the project site is located in the'Commercial 1 -Residential 12'zoning district.The South Burlington Land Development Regulations (3/15/2011) identify the purpose of the C1 district as follows: A Commercial 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location ofgeneral retail and office uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area, including clustered residential development and small industrial employers, may be permitted if they do not interfere with accessibility and continuity of the commercial district. The list of permitted uses within the Commercial 1 -Residential 12 zone includes the following uses: municipal facility,child care facility,convenience store less than 3,000 square feet within a principal structure,financial institution,office,personal or business service,photocopy and printing shops,restaurant,retail and retail services,and retail food establishments 28 February 2012redire Page 20 �7ila Figure 15.Current Land Use Adjacent to the Project Site in, wilik /_z.......,-,,-etikii-o„,..,,,....,0••••1/4,cerl 4.111.... city el wonoosia;;r:),.......„,,.. .-- N, sv,.,,_,..., i Y'�`$'L `.a.�'. / Mr,,, r—^ I fir. ✓ T f 1 ''I'< -r 'rw1:.1, asd r�rrrt+J los' a it, ----mot r t x I 7,-' } '- - \/ / �`` Oy � 1�H " Ir ' \ urlinaton Intcrnononn. T 'r' AtrpOR - , r •'4 • -t O 1 e �, c..-i r !- City of Burlington I to , 4— r4iiia! r- :"*.,,, i 4 ,-- -r L `t.. , , , , ,,_ _ 0 , # -^„+ Residential an Agricultural — : 7'• el Commercial Unclassified " lac r**6.1tnnl v4Sc- 'i,r I Industrial Institutional Exit 14 Intercept Facility• Burlincton Land Use RecreationalM V.=2000'scale imp Public Facilities It S C, ,r,tremb*,iota Open NIP DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Soaping Study a Page 21 N j i1- 3 4 i r. iii 12 s., 441[16- I Sell : F = I ! F CS 117. CI . � I r.,'~ Z� s' . Ilia. 1-et iiIiii � > r 1111i III y i I I lea A x $ � .. 117 a a S is I al •r tali ov N _ - i i i F Y NI - yr c 7 III z[ 2.' t. u 2 3.7 Natural & Cultural Resource Assessment The study area was examined for potential environmental,natural,and cultural resource impacts based on site assessments,existing GIS resource mapping,and previous site investigations. Figure 17 below shows an overview of the identified natural and cultural resources proximate to the project site. Figure 17:Overview of Natural and Cultural Resources 4:11- 4�/- `� • • 4fl7 A1x14.14 katcl.oept Tau&it,-l..ribgiwn nauw ue 46-x1,-ans+uen.44,v ScityGCCAlleatt ,trvaa Natural Resources t . — iL .>� Killgrat`=3.6 scam 0 .,gr s€tr,+age ranks '' a# z and ties �v 3.8 Flood Zones There are no identified flood zones within the project study area,as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA).The current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) identifies a secondary flood area north of the project site crossing under I-89 as shown in Figure 17. 004M DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study 111#41111L1. Page 23 3.9 Wetlands A field assessment of the project area was conducted by Gilman&Briggs Environmental during the summer of 2011.This field investigation identified potential jurisdictional wetlands immediately north of the project site as shown in Figure 17 above,and in more detail in Figure 18 below. On 24 July 2012,project team members met on site with staff from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Water Quality Division to review the project's objectives,the delineated wetland boundaries,and potential permitting implications. Figure 18:Approximate Location of Jurisdictional Wetlands ¢v, of *; 3.10 Historic & Archeological Resources A historic and archeological resource assessment of the project area was conducted by the University of Vermont's Consulting Archeology Program (UVM-CAP) in the summer of 2011. The UVM-CAP review identified three discrete areas as archaeologically sensitive for precontact Native American sites as identified in Figure 17. Soil probes indicated that the level portions of the project area north of the existing conference center parking lot were not disturbed by the construction of Exit 14 and therefore,they may contain archaeological sites.Since these landforms are highly archaeologically sensitive and will be disturbed by the proposed project,a Phase I site identification study of each of these three archaeologically sensitive areas is recommended unless they can be avoided. 28 February 2012 Page 24 �� 3.11 Hazardous Waste Sites According to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources'Environmental Interest Locator,there were no identified hazardous waste sites located on the project site. As shown in Figure 17, several hazardous waste sites and underground storage tanks have been identified on the south side of US 2,proximate to the Staples plaza. 3.12 Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species Based on the latest assessment released by the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, there are no rare,threatened or endangered species and no natural communities or rare animal communities identified within or adjacent to the study area. 3.13 Public Lands / LWCF Grant Sites There are no public land areas identified within or adjacent to the study area according to the latest Public Lands Extract from the Vermont Conserved Lands Database.The latest list of Land and Water Conservation Fund Program (LWCF) grant sites was also reviewed. No such sites are listed in or near the project area. 3.14 Prime Agricultural Soils Figure 19 below shows the prime agricultural lands as identified in the Natural Resource Conservation Service County Soil Surveys (2010). The figure shows the presence of prime agricultural soils (much of which falls under existing paved areas) as well as soils of statewide significance proximate to the study area. 00M 04 Saie°41A110 DRAFT:189 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 25 Figure 19:Prime Agricultural Soils . , ..,,., .. ,.. ;-1'-,:4.,-•,1 / / iI '-1 / , , . .,..., .... ,, 1 Statewide(b) ,(,..,,' .., .., „".......- ' 46* ,-; ' , Statewide * f ..,_'"• -'4. ,i7.-1. '.. ...--. - •••,.t-_f , ...„,4 .if -7.,.. ,_ ,: .-7 N•. 4'7 , ''or ',4..M.. e 4 t 7 i' 4101P ri,,..47. V Tk,14% N.,-..,,,,V4 ..,,,,,,..' 4 gir : , • 11 .'174i,rJ . IT ,1-'' . ... i 'V r 1 f ' ' 4• . 41; - • --...‹. ' . v r " , "d'i- i • - . !." -,, • ,,d 28 February 2012 .. t, Page 26 4.0 USER PROFILE & FACILITY SIZE REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Parking Demand Estimation The development of a reasonably accurate estimation of parking demand is one of the most critical elements of this Scoping Study.The parking demand will in large part determine the size of the facility,the traffic generated by the facility,the revenue estimation formula,and overall facility cost. During the month of December 2011,several key stakeholders were interviewed to identify estimated parking demand as well as other important characteristics such as facility access and design elements,potential mixed-used opportunities,and potential ownership and operations models.Specific comments related to individual stakeholder's current parking operations, parking demand,and anticipated use of the Exit 14 Intercept Facility is provided below. 4.1.1 South Burlington South Burlington staff indicated that there is a potential opportunity to reduce the amount of parking required in the City Center project if some portion can be accommodated within the Intercept Facility,however,this use is contingent on the development of the City Center project and is not expected to generate a large parking demand. 4.1.2 Sheraton Burlington Hotel and Conference Center • Existing hotel and conference center parking capacity is 750 spaces • Approximately 450 spaces in the rear lot will be displaced by the Intercept Facility. • The Sheraton currently has 3-4 events per year that exceed their existing parking capacity • Peak hotel parking demand (approximately 1,200 spaces) is currently accommodated via shuttle service to the Gutterson Garage on the UVM campus. • Shuttle bus from the Intercept Facility to the downtown and waterfront is a very high priority for the hotel. • A climate-controlled pedestrian bridge connecting the Conference Center with the Intercept Facility is a high priority for the hotel. • Maintaining views of Mount Mansfield and the Green Mountain range is a very high priority for the hotel. 4.1.3 Burlington International Airport • Busiest travel months at the airport are July&August. Busiest months for parking garage are February&March. • Parking garage fare recently increased from$8/day to$12/day. • Use of parking garage has declined slightly since 2008,due both to economic conditions and increased parking fares. • The CCTA South Burlington Circulator bus provides connections to other destinations in South Burlington on 30-minute headways. 1114 DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study �i Page 27 • The airport is very interested in a potential airport/hotel shuttle that would run between the various hotels,the Exit 14 Intercept Facility,and the airport. • The airport currently has approximately 2,700 parking spaces between the parking garage and surface lots.2,300 spaces are available for public use (the others are reserved for rental cars and airport use). • The airport's parking garage was constructed to accommodate an expansion that would add 800 additional parking spaces. • The airport feels that the Intercept Facility could be a desirable long-term parking option,particularly for customers coming from the north,provided that there is a convenient and reliable shuttle bus connection to the airport. 4.1.4 University Mall • The University Mall currently has 3,500 parking spaces,400 of which are located in their parking garage. • During peak weekends and holidays,the mall coordinates with South Burlington High School to allow employees to park at the school to free up spaces for customers.The mall provides payment to the school,a private security company,and a private shuttle bus company to provide this off-site employee parking. • The mall has adequate parking capacity outside of peak weekends and holidays. 4.1.5 Fletcher Allen Health Care • FAHC's University Health Center(UHC)and Medical Center Hospital of Vermont (MCHV) off site staff/employee parking demand is 600 spaces.FAHC's desire is to locate all 600 spaces in close proximity to each other and to the Medical Center with shuttle service connection.All parking demand is Monday to Friday daytime only. 4.1.6 Champlain College • Champlain College is seeking opportunities to relocate a portion of their 371 off-street core campus parking supply to off-campus locations.The College has identified a potential demand of 100 spaces for the Exit 14 Intercept Facility. 4.1.7 General Public To estimate demand for the portion of the Exit 14 Intercept Facility assigned to General Public usage we consulted several studies that have been conducted on forecasting of park-and-ride demand including,but not limited to,the AASHTO Guide for Park-and-Ride Facilities1,which presents a summary of several methods of demand estimation.While other studies and reports were reviewed,only the AASHTO document was found to present methodologies appropriate for application to the Exit 14 Intercept Facility,and even this document presented the following caveat in regards to projecting future park-and-ride demand:Estimating the demand for park- and-ride facilities has been suggested to be more of an art than a science.2 AASHTO.(2004).Guide for Park and Ride Facilities:Chapter 3:Park-and-Ride Planning Process.Washington,D.C. 2 AASHTO.(2004).Guide for Park and Ride Facilities:Chapter 3:Park-and-Ride Planning Process.Washington,D.C.,page 40. 28 February 2012 Page 28 The two methods examined for projecting park-and-ride demand use either traffic volumes on adjacent roadways or market population serving the facility as an independent variable. Demand Estimation Method #1 (ITE Method):The most straightforward park-and-ride demand forecasting method was presented by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and is based on the assumption that the demand for a park-and-ride facility is a direct function of the peak-period traffic on adjacent travel facilities.Another assumption is that commuters will not make major changes to their normal commuting route to specifically reach a new park-and-ride location,but will divert from the adjacent roadways.Therefore,demand for a new park-and- ride facility will be a direct result from commuters passing by the new facility on their way to work.The ITE equation for park-and-ride demand is presented below. Demand=a*(Peak) +b* (Main) Where: Peak=total peak-period traffic on adjacent facilities (including the primary facility) Main=peak-period traffic on the primary facility a,b =diversion factors for total traffic and primary facility traffic respectively(a= 1%,b = 3%recommended) Applying this methodology to peak hour traffic volumes collected by VTrans on the adjacent roadway facilities (i.e. 1-89,US 2,Colchester Avenue) gives a simple local projection of demand and results in a projected need of 311 parking spaces for General Public use.See Appendix X for detailed assumptions and calculations. Demand Estimation Method #2 (Market Population Method):The Market Population approach seeks to translate park-and-ride demand values at existing sites to proposed sites.The method involves multiplying the ratio of demand to market population at an existing site by the market population of a proposed site. For this analysis we utilized existing use data presented in the 2004 VTrans Park-and-Ride Plan,gathered by the CCMPO from 2004 to 2010,and by Resource Systems Group in 2009. Market population data for the existing facilities and for the Exit 14 Intercept Facility were obtained from the Longitudinal Employment and Household Dynamics (LEHD) program from the U.S.Censusl.This data was compiled by CCMPO staff and was presented in the Chittenden County Park-and-Ride&Intercept Facility Plane,which Resource Systems Group prepared for the CCMPO in 2011. To calculate demand for General Public spaces within the Exit 14 Intercept Facility using this method,we first calculated an average demand per market population for five park-and-ride lots serving general Chittenden County commuters (none largely specifically influenced by any single employer).Figure 20 presents the calculated demand per market population for these five existing park-and-ride lots in Chittenden County. LEHD has been developed because the Census long form questionnaire,on which the CTPP data are based,is being eliminated in 2010. 2 Resource Systems Group.(2011)Chittenden County Park-and-Ride&Intercept Facility Plan 4016004441014 DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 29 Figure 20:Existing Park-and-Ride Demand/Market Population Observed Peak Demand/ Lot Peak #of Observed Market Market Location Occupancy Spaces Demand Pop. Pop. Exit 10 50% 56 28 1641 0.017 Exit 11 95% 101 96 5788 0.017 Exit 17 32% 108 35 13552 0.003 Exit 18 76% 44 33 7671 0.004 Exit 19 90% 80 72 6088 0.012 Applying the average of these rates to the projected market population demand serving the Exit 14 Intercept Facility and accounting for existing park-and-ride supply already serving this market population,results in a net projected demand of 548 parking spaces for General Public use.See Appendix D for detailed assumptions and calculations. Summary:After completing a thorough review of park-and-ride demand estimation studies and methodologies,we understand that no single method for estimating park-and-ride demand currently exists that can confidently be applied in all situations.We have chosen the two methods presented above as the most applicable to this study.The average demand projected from both methods is 429 parking spaces.Considering this ultimate projection of demand in concert with local input and expertise expressed at the Exit 14 Intercept Facility stakeholder meetings,it has been decided that 300 parking spaces within the facility should be allocated to serve City of Burlington and public uses. Figure 21 below summarizes the anticipated parking demand for the Exit 14 intercept facility by stakeholder during an average weekday day,weekday evening,and weekend. For evaluation purposes,we have focused on the weekday day parking demand for subsequent trip generation and traffic analyses. Figure 21:Parking Demand Estimation sisiguesminalianaimmini Staintimider WireifftaiFiralw wValteNISME araelPgreS ate --r.!z ar lacy 4 ,.-tcxe r.14.^l ee... °c. O, ik daVOINOL 28 February 2012 SPWOld Page 30 5.0 LOCAL AND REGIONAL CONCERNS Project team members presented an overview of the Exit 14 intermodal intercept facility project at a Ward 1 Neighborhood Planning Assembly(NPA) meeting on 11 April 2012.The presentation and meeting notes can be found in Appendix B.The input received from the NPA meeting attendees included the following key points: • Concern that benefits are for downtown but impacts are in Ward 1 • Question whether the facility will connect to East Avenue • Requested Ward 1 representative on the project Stakeholder Committee • Concerned about impacts to: - Centennial Woods - Aesthetics - Wetlands - Air quality(from bus emissions) A Local and Regional Concerns public meeting was held on 19 April 2012 at the Sheraton Conference Center.The presentation portion of the meeting included information on the project background,an overview of the project,a summary of existing conditions,a review of potential intercept facility components,and a discussion of next steps in the process.The meeting presentation and detailed notes can be found in Appendix X.The input received included the following key points: • Concern about attracting more cars to Burlington • Ensure adequate accommodation for bicycles (e.g.enclosed bicycle parking,bike lanes, connection to South Burlington,etc) • Requested UVM student representative on Stakeholder Committee • Requested project website for updates • Questions about facility ownership&management • Suggested"out of the box"thinking • Concerned about impacts to: - Centennial Woods - Stormwater - Wetlands - Air quality(from bus emissions) MotiDRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 31 6.0 EXIT 14 INTERCEPT FACILITY LAYOUT The layout of the Exit 14 intermodal intercept facility was developed in response to public and stakeholder input to accommodate the anticipated parking demand,potential vehicular and bus access from a new I-89 southbound slip ramp,a transit terminal with storefront retail space, leasable office shell space,and internal connectivity to the Sheraton Conference Center.In addition,the facility was designed to avoid any visual impacts of the Green Mountains from patrons attending events in the Sheraton Conference Center meeting rooms. Figure 22 below shows the full view of the proposed intercept facility,including connectivity to Catamount Drive,Sheraton Drive,and the potential I-89 southbound slip ramp. Figure 22:Exit 14 Intercept Facility and 1-89 Southbound Slip Ramp-Full View I i 1r t If'i �" -. :11: f � � i f i. ii. //7 Pq 9 , CA[ 4 } d Figure 23 below shows a more detailed view of the intercept facility,with level two of the parking garage visible in the plans. The graphic shows more clearly the location of garage access points on the west(main access),north,and southeast ends of the facility.The single garage egress is from the northwest corner of the facility,discharging vehicles out to Catamount Drive.In the alternatives that include the new slip ramp,a single travel lane would extend beyond the garage entrance and connect to Catamount Drive, providing a direct connection for vehicles from I-89 southbound to the Catamount East parking lot and the Sheraton. 28 February 2012 ---- 044SO4 Page 32 ` Catamount/Carrigan Drive east of Sheraton Drive would be closed to through vehicles to keep any through vehicles from accessing East Avenue directly from the new I-89 southbound slip ramp. Figure 23:Exit 14 Intercept Facility and 1-89 Southbound Slip Ramp-Detail View tit g :# 1. iAilltiA , I i - CF dirp Figure 24 below shows the access pattern for buses and other transit vehicles.Most buses would arrive via US 2 and Sheraton Drive (teal line),then discharge and pick-up passengers in the bus loading area,and then circle back via Catamount Drive back to return to US 2 via Sheraton Drive.The remaining transit vehicles will arrive from East Avenue via Carrigan/Catamount Drive (purple line) and make a similar loop through the bus loading area and return to East Avenue via Catamount/Carrigan Drive. DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 33 Figure 24:Transit Access &tees xclm East Ave '�` Ems 'C` Loading Area f . . - Sheraton Conference Center Buses to/from ijC SI Figure 25 below shows the primary vehicle access paths to the intermodal facility and parking garage.In the scenarios that include the I-89 southbound slip ramp,vehicles could enter the garage via the slip ramp onto level 1.The main vehicle access would occur in the southwest corner of the facility,processing vehicles arriving from US 2.An alternate third access point is provided in the southeast corner to process a select group of cars,should the garage owner choose to cordon off a section of the garage for specific vehicles. Figure 25:Vehicle Access Kx. `V \--- Vehicle ontranca from 1-89 SS(via new sap lane) Sheraton Vehicle Conference entrance - ventcle c<.,"« from ece Sheraton from US 2 28 February 2012III Page 34 The layout of the four levels of the intercept facility is shown in the figures below.The proposed facility includes 1,510 parking spaces (1,089 net new spaces accounting for displaced Sheraton surface spaces), 10,000 square feet of retail shell space on level 2, 24,000 square feet of office shell space on level 3,and a raised pedestrian walkway connecting the intercept facility with the conference center. Figure 26:Facility Layout-Level 1 r ', 3is,-. F .mow._ - ke _� I yr I. ,'1 e. I 0 w 0 ,3 446E re# 7.-7.. .."7.' t r t f i LEVEL 1 DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study ,,r-'' .. Page 35 Figure 27:Facility Layout-Level 2 411..." — _____._------- ---- ,g- mom :: 9 t t ,...„. .1`12... ._ 3-E _ _. ., v i _ _ -7 1 t . •-zi, t. - •11 i # •. ___` k_ : I' ° r. ;_ I) la ; i 1- ---- _ _,. — - __---1=-J-1 on --. 1 I .m. LEVEL 2 Figure 28:Facility Layout-Level 3 ---r. u P, , a. , V..,.. , tr. -1- ., r _ f =',r,A )_.!t =?"-:::.r.,-.. • .1 1 ......-- ---j - "IC CF-In.t*•44,2Nort ...".- ......r F. 3g•=.0 • - '..i.;•..o i.._ glif t..`if OE Z ..... „....--- ...... •r............- ........... , 1,....e •..,.ro... 4* ' .%, ''- .141.1.1111EXIMNIME ' < a••a..it**** , tn._!_.,t -cs•er . i s' ••-,- ', , . LEVEL 3 ,,,,=-----,_ \ _ 28 February 2012 Page 36 Figure 29:Facility Layout-Level 4 ...r r r i :. 4.t I I x ' .R f inn —4.1-1C9:TAP 1,4RwAn ___ _ Dunn fltvft 2'. i. :CI r 751 all 1 , I { , nwioc :....{ a .. i .,.. Aiii.r at 41111111110, LEVEL 4 ....... 4110‘ftA4 ---- DRAFT:189 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study tFidaciliag Page 37 Figure 30 and Figure 31 show elevations of the proposed facility looking west and east, respectively.The west elevation shows the configuration of the transit loading zone and retail uses at ground level,with office space extending over the transit access area and retail uses.The east elevation shows the facility height in relation to the Sheraton Conference Center as well as the elevated pedestrian connector between the two buildings. Figure 30:Facility Layout-West Elevation B A C I STAR TOWER St<w ` SKYUGM1 ` otn oR GARAGE SOIAP. STAIR TONE. ` =. (K'e6M -(r kti? OCyQC SLRAiM.!ii`E: • ElO0[1 ©ElI SSI Oft I I I 00I IC] i�ar9 - 1 J illi , CL- B L AL-- WEST ELEVATION Figure 31:Facility Layout-East Elevation A B -it-- STAIR TOWER y SEAII0w€1t StAR2 TOWER SOIAR PANES.S 01fiilVE Oi BUSINESS beyprG f—GURNE of IEVEI 4 beyond s iGIAoY recrd^.+ oa�P.d r..rxe.c Gtirs�Cc 4 k••.It y CONNECTOR S." tOvecie 6 11 _ . . , ai.... s x , — - Iv... EAST ELEVATION 28 February 2012 diOPINWill Page 38 _ 7.0 ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT The initial alternatives identified for evaluation in this scoping study included the following: 1) No Build, 2) Build,3) Build with I-89 Southbound Slip Ramp.The preliminary traffic investigation of the two build alternatives,which assumed that Carrigan/Catamount Drive was closed to non-transit vehicles,found that excessive delays and queues were generated at the US 2/Sheraton Drive intersection.As a result of these findings,the set of alternatives was expanded to include the following Build alternatives that addressed anticipated traffic congestion on US 2: 1. No Build 2. Build - 2A. Build with Dual Eastbound US 2 Left Turn Lanes at Sheraton Drive - 2B. Build with Open Carrigan/Catamount Drive Gate for Eastbound General Traffic 3. Build with Slip Ramp - 3A. Build with Dual Eastbound US 2 Left Turn Lanes at Sheraton Drive - 3B. Build with Open Carrigan/Catamount Drive Gate for Eastbound General Traffic 7.1 Traffic Impacts The traffic impacts of the Exit 14 intermodal intercept facility were evaluated by proceeding through the following steps: 1. Estimate Facility Trip Generation:Trip generation from the pro posed intermodal intercept facility was developed based on the projected parking demand and designated retail and office shell space within the facility. 2. (Re)Distribute Trips to Facility:Trips to and from the parking garage were removed from their current paths and redistributed to the intermodal facility. 3. Quantify Changes in Delay&Queuing: Intersection operations were evaluated under a No Build and the various Build scenarios to estimate the change in delay,and queuing at the study area intersections with the addition of the intermodal facility. 7.1.1 Estimate Facility Trip Generation The estimated facility trip generation is driven primarily by the projected parking demand for the facility,as discussed previously in Section 4.1. In addition to the trips generated by the parking demand,trip generation estimates were also developed for the retail and office shell space. Figure 32 below presents the estimate of weekday morning and evening peak hour trip generation broken down by facility stakeholder. Notes on the trip generation methodology are provided in the table,which includes counts at other park and ride facilities in Chittenden County,traffic counts at the existing Catamount East parking lot(FAHC staff lot),and the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. d1/4..A04 _ _ DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study rAki Page 39 As shown in the table below,the facility is anticipated to generate 659 trips during the morning peak hour and 636 trips during the evening peak hour.It is important to note however,that these trips are not new to the network(except for the trips generated by the office shell space). These are existing vehicle trips that are being"captured"at the intermodal facility and transferred onto a bus for the final leg of their trip. Figure 32:Estimated Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimated Trip Generation «Packing YWerkdaeAM Weekday PM StaIidrider Spares E.re. _i Err«' Exit TOM MMes iota' :c $ik s5 22 336 lire! eneranan rate paw:—.. =tragear1-1C..as;ra� iWetland Park&R:dt cour.!:- C-•#or Sadr Sar:.r s, .. Not expected to generate peak v eeldas traps 'i+heE 150 19 40 US 53 82 136 Teo armrest an rate based On a er woe of Colchester& Richmond Part&Ride counts Sheraton'i3rrtrtew & .Assumed that trios afreade on the network!r e nark eat Car,Ferext Carte- a _ — — !spaces shifted from surface of to garage) Fir,erAi€erel el*S Care 272 34 44. gas 249 generation rate based on Cats icunt East tube [count rates Unierrsita of b ermont Not eaptcted to Generate peak v+eet day trips O�otaiafOMeee 106 4S 5 51 7 34 41 ijNV generation rate based on Cate East tube Maine raors It mternaZal --- Not expected to generate peak peek day trips Airport lime st4rtfat6 ,. . _ Not especttd to generate peak weekday trips Nebel Shea Spare :Assumed 10 spaces and 10 peak htwr trips for retai i 4 71Ssi1 le3 Z 1/11 Id ,taaolOvees la 400 sf1 t90%enter.1014raitk Office Sleekl Space & .Assumed 55 spaces for office spaat{19,340 sf a 2.84 SS 18 SS 64 t24.445 eta spaces/1.000 sf per ITE Parking Generation) TOME: 1.515 = S33 126 M 133 467 636 7.1.2 (Re)Distribute Trips to Facility As noted previously,except for the trips generated by the proposed office shell space (which would be new trips),all of the trips generated by the intercept facility would be existing trips already on the road network that would be"captured"and diverted into the facility for transfer onto a bus or carpool for the last segment of their trip. Trips generated by FAHC, Champlain College,and UVM employees were distributed based on recent CATMA survey data of employee home locations and identification of routes to work.The geographic distribution of these trips is shown below in Figure 33 and shows that a majority of these trips arrive via I-89 and travel through Exit 14. 28 February 2012 ONV4j0 Page 40 AlliN Figure 33:Distribution of FAHC,Champlain College(CC),and UVM Trips to the Facility ._..;R;. its r.,. ... t Q i ``� 3% (FANG) 2yy°/fl (CC) et.-wa,2. r+rr,v wvs_ G°IO �V ° M) . ,�- 9 l0 (FANG} ,.� ,, t , 10% (CC) t 10% (UVM) .'. - Y' ` Q Lt ... , t. i 38%(FAHC) ., 1 x 27%(CC) u.�A fwvxssaz:r_., YM rag,z... ,,,,,v--,-- ...'!'`;`,*"''''..... jilt ,„ ry S V : tr. om. 15°l (FANG) "'4(4 + ( ) L E . �u 201fl (CC) a cw ete 7 , (.44y I 18% (UVM) `'+,4 t?: '(CC) C) �: o ., . PI 4% (FAHC) 1 .t.4.— 1 i. I 5% (CC) 4 .' % (UVM) t e21%(FANG) �f4 -�, i I 24%(CC) I 24%(UM) G , 30%(B'TV) L _ Figure 34 below shows an example of how the effect of the trips"captured"by the Exit 14 facility was estimated.In the example shown below,the morning commute trip of a FAHC employee who lives in Winooski is re-routed from parking in the Gutterson garage to the Exit 14 intercept facility.The net result of this re-routed trip is a reduction of one trip through the East Avenue/Colchester Avenue intersection,the East Avenue/Carrigan.Drive intersection,and the East Avenue/US 2 intersection,and a new trip through the Exit 14 s outhbound ramp/US 2 intersection,and the US 2/Sheraton Drive intersection.This approach was used for all projected trips to the Exit 14 facility to quantify the net traffic impact of the interriodal intercept facility. INVI41 DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study 414111 Page 41 Figure 34:Methodology Used for Redistributing Trips Example:Morning commute p for FAHC employee who = es in Winooski re-routed . om parking in Guttersep to a arking at Exit 14 facility. t Stti1 1:Identify distribution C r. of trips being"removed" " r rat from the network as a result of the facility, ,1 � to 2:Redistribute traffic 0 from original source } to/from intercept i-acuity d <- Tr I 4 • STEP 3:Evaluate change in volumes at study f t, f intersections. ry ' 7.1.3 Evaluate Traffic Impacts Figure 35 below shows a high-level assessment of the change in overall intersection delay at the study area intersections projected to result from the construction of the Exit 14 facility.The figure shows intersection delays decreasing at the Spear Street,University Heights,and Prospect Street intersections with US 2,due to the"capture"of commuting trips.Of note,is that the facility is anticipated to improve the Level of Service grade at the US 2/Prospect Street intersection considerably,improving the PM peak hour LOS from F to D.Although not included in this analysis,is can be inferred that downstream intersections on US 2 (i.e.Willard Street, Winooski Avenue,etc.)would see comparable improvements to Level of Service as a result of the facility. 28 February 2012 Page 42 nikatigg Figure 35:Change in Intersection Delay with Exit 14 Facility {jam .4w',,. Pik 1,... $ ., 5i 3 e t • 4'. tit ! F B r Y ^ H! ` ^w.r VM♦ s� �, Rtarl C..a�gstler lw ' " r ` Pete Si 'Ye.M 9+a IT M 4 it, Y t Com-ggf.,, 1 ! — ♦a..,,e, -�. v ter_ "' t•.• `�-- toaru� g i z .? r ,, if Cft,NW t t po, , .4,...u 0 ik -, a, «. ,. 0 . ., cosFtoo E , 4.4. ... �. l A NMI wA+.� . .,.,.4 ;. P s.. - � { — , �� tee.. NatInrraaca - 1 n..... _ J Negligible Clia,Ige 0 ." u.e. �ARe uft.. c ...w., yq t 4 l pars.,iri c I I "4 g Net Decrease iii ,...... p I i 11 The lone intersection showing increased delays in Figure 35 with the construction of the Exit 14 intercept facility is the US 2/Sheraton Drive intersection.This increased delay is driven by the increase in turning movements resulting from the trips accessing and leaving the Exit 14 facility via Sheraton Drive. The congestion analysis results for the 2022 morning and evening peak hours for the identified scenarios are summarized below in Figure 36.As the figure below shows,overall intersection delays are estimated to increase at the US 2/Sheraton Drive intersection under all Build scenarios.The scenarios in which Carrigan/Catamount Drive are open to eastbound traffic result in the lowest increase in delays,as this alternative allows trips destined for the Exit 14 intercept facility from points north to access the site without travelling on US 2.The alternative with both the I-89 southbound slip ramp and the permitted eastbound flow on Carrigan/Catamount Drive shows the best traffic operations of all the Build alternatives. FAMP4 DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study /1411)1kAlli..1 Page 43 Figure 36:US 2/Sheraton Drive Congestion Analysis Results 217Z AAA!Realt 4Fawr ;..w,127'0 _ ::.4 _� 3 3i4 ZE yr., n ...,. '.`FT.a..c 1#,... as ,. t<t..6a ee0Clii.'l s 'rail Sorrow a.Ah..w,..., rats...r<,.,.,,, *+ _ua t. „c cI'� ,ae,uY wC iq I SC x ,et: 1'. �. :arak. z`_Y 31e3ri -uic &DS DOA,- .vlc : 1135 .DeteY viz ,1'i`t:�ot,,.�at op �'. (` cure as a 17.2 0.$T F MO ta72 I. E IliL1G ,Da, a S ;1-44' E: t$.3 337': (C ".L577 .D.32 Ee 1I63 DSD zap MO FNetait E.Tigi'" loamts ati l aa.2111.0. _..^1:2rt AuWeAKWtr ...d9W.W,MeallradM M13attIMMO/ taM1 _Z.S _ra.. .`t _.,a ..,a 1 ,ell 3'. ._. ..... ... _OM 17.1ay w/e Yffi Doing +r/. fl% ">ytav +.,te US agiamiweslmerat an 1 IV+a•;.kt C 25A 6.3l U 19.7 081.' II SIX 31t C V. tblIE ir 4ild7/ cow ID 1'D3 tD R) it 33.3 USD 7.2 Transit Service This section examines three ways to provide and expand bus connections between the Intermodal Intercept Facility, Hill institutions,downtown Burlington,and other locations: 1. Service provided by CATMA-operated shuttles 2. An extension of CCTA's Route 11 College Street Shuttle to the Intermodal Intercept Facility. 3. Improvements to CCTA's College Street Shuttle supplemented with CATMA shuttle service during peak employee arrival and departure times and in the early morning and evening when the College Street Shuttle does not operate. 7.2.1 Existing Transit and Shuttle Services The Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility is proposed to be located behind the Sheraton Hotel off of US 2/Main Street,just to the west of I-89 and east of FAHC,and approximately 1.6 miles from downtown Burlington.Main Street is the major route between downtown Burlington and I-89,and three of Burlington's larger employers-FAHC,the University of Vermont(UVM),and Champlain College are located along or very close to US 2/Main Street. At the present time,the Campus Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA) operates a number of shuttle services between remote parking lots located in and around the proposed new Intermodal Intercept Facility.These include: • Catamount East Shuttle between the UVM Catamount East parking lot and FAHC.The remote parking lot is located off Carrigan Drive,behind the Sheraton property.Weekday service operates from 4:15 AM to 9:15 PM and departs every 10 to 15 minutes. • Gutterson Shuttle between the UVM Gutterson Parking Lot and the FAHC.The parking lot is located on the UVM campus,just to the east of the Gutterson Field House.Weekday service operates from 4:15 AM to 6:00 PM and departs every 10 to 15 minutes. 28 February 2012 0011M Page 44 • Quarry Hill Shuttle between the Quarry Hill Apartments and Champlain College. Weekday service runs from 7:05 AM to 8:05 PM,every 30 minutes during the day and 60 minutes at night. CCTA currently operates one local route in the vicinity of the new facility,which is Route 1 Williston. This route operates between downtown Burlington and Williston via US 2/Main Street/Williston Road (see Figure 37).The route travels east from downtown Burlington and passes the project study area on US 2/Main Street.There are multiple service variants of this route that determine the eastern alignment in Williston.The variants and their unique portions are: • 1 —Williston Road to Tafts Corners,then south to serve Maple Tree Place and Walmart. • 1E—Williston Road to Tafts Corners,then north to serve Essex. • 1V—Williston Road to Industrial Avenue,then north to make a one-way loop on Industrial Avenue,Mountain View Road,N.Williston Road,and Williston Road. Figure 37:Route 1 Williston 1''N 0 The Williston and Williston;Essex �. Amtrak buses will board on the platform at spots#t,2,3 or 4 three et rry . a based on arrival order. L,Ll Smversity • Heights R acyngton Introiationai Airuni t_ 2A Downtown Burlington •"`^^" `' - Williston Rd f Williston Rd UMall &Kennedy &Industrial P In ustrial & 3 uth 5 „a°ya No M �„a'Burlington "b Williston e�� hafts Corners O . Wal-Mart .t o Nlp h 1 & r�'�Plaace leTree Williston & Williston-Essex Route Map 2A Route 1 operates seven days a week.On weekdays,service operates from 6:15 AM to 12:05 PM. Route l's service frequency along US 2 where the Intermodal Intercept Facility will be located is every 15 minutes during peak periods and every 30 minutes in the off-peak. In addition,CCTA's Route 11 College Street Shuttle operates between downtown Burlington and FAHC via College Street and the UVM campus (see Figure 38). This route currently terminates approximately one mile from the proposed Intermodal Intercept Facility. Kt -- _ DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study °Ilk% Page 45 Figure 38:Route 11 College Street Shuttle College Street Shuttle UNC • tea • FAIHIC- L41 WHY Campos moms I•. .� teem - Claw On weekdays,from Memorial Day to Columbus Day,the College Street Shuttle operates from 6:15 AM to 9:00 PM. During the rest of the year,service operates from 6:15 AM to 7:00 PM. Throughout the year,service operates every 30 minutes in the early AM,every 15 minutes from approximately 6:45 AM to 6:00 PM,and then every 30 minutes until the end of service. Note also that a number of"special" shuttles also operate in the vicinity. The University Mall shuttles employees from remote lots during the Christmas season,and CCTA runs special event shuttles for special events such as First Night. With the new Intermodal Intercept Facility,it is anticipated that University Mall off-site parking and special event parking would be shifted to there. In addition,it is also anticipated that the facility would be used for remote parking for Burlington Airport during holiday periods. The shuttles that currently serve these uses operate on an occasional basis,and would continue to do so in the future,but to and from the new Intermodal Intercept Facility. 7.2.2 Transit Demand Projected demand for parking at the Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility was determined based on comprehensive stakeholder interviews,knowledge of the area,and anticipated parking space allocation.The total parking demand at the Intermodal Intercept Facility is projected at 1,515 spaces.1 Of these,850 spaces in particular will drive demand for public transit or shuttle connections: • FAHC: 600 spaces • Champlain College: 100 spaces • City of Burlington: up to 150 spaces2 Based on the arrival and departure patterns of FAHC and Champlain College employees reported by those institutions, demand will be heavily focused in the peak periods. For both institutions,most of the employees who would use the shuttles would arrive at and around traditional commuting hours. The same would also be expected of Burlington employees,many 1 Holiday and special event parking would be at times when"regular"use would be low,and thus additional spaces would not be needed to accommodate those uses. 'Largely for park and ride shuttle service for downtown employees who would use free parking at the facility and free scuttle service to avoid downtown parking charges. 28 February 20120.411,74 Page 46 difrdil"1110 of whom would be expected to use the facility for park and ride shuttle purposes. Correlating the parking demand estimates with the arrival and departure times,peak direction demand for service will be as high as (see also Figure 39): • FAHC: 214 passengers per hour in the AM peak and 250 in the PM peak. • Champlain College: 53 passengers per hour in the AM peak and 41 in the PM peak. • Downtown Burlington: 55 passengers per hour in the AM peak and 60 in the PM peak. Figure 39:Potential Transit Demand by User Group 300 - 1 1......... FAHC 250 ANommChamplain College -Burlington Shuttle 200 150 100 - - 50 ... Air 0 E E 1= E E E E o C E E E E 1= C E E E E co CO CO co CO r0 O a a o Q a Q o aCL Lr)Il co N 00 Ql CD .--� N m [t Vl l0 N 00 01 O 7.2.3 Potential Bus and Shuttle Service Changes with Intercept Facility There are a number of ways that this demand could be served: • Service to and from FAHC and Champlain College could be provided with CATMA shuttles. • CCTA's College Street Shuttle could be extended to the Intermoclal Intercept Facility to provide connections between the facility and FAHC. • Service could be provided with a combination of CATMA shuttle and CCTA services. 7.2.3.1 Alternative 1: CATMA Shuttles With this alternative,existing CATMA shuttles would be redeployed from the current Catamount East and Gutterson shuttle routes to the new Intermodal Intercept Facility and CATMA would continue to provide all park and ride shuttle service.In this case,two separate shuttle services would be developed-one to FAHC and one to Champlain College (see Figure 40). FAHC SHUTTLE At present,CATMA provides 38.25 hours of shuttle service on its Catamount East and Gutterson Field lots. This service is now provided with a combination of school buses and vans at a cost of A$41d4 _ _ _ DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study .r.dill\AN Page 47 $35 per revenue hour. However,CATMA is planning to shift to the use of more comfortable vehicles and anticipates that as it does so,its operating costs will increase to$42 per revenue vehicle hour. Using$42 per hour figure,and once the services are upgraded,operating costs for the Catamount East and Gutterson Field shuttles will be$402,000 per year(Figure 41). Figure 40:FAHC and Champlain College Shuttles FAHC Shuttle • a • `OC41 titon, sa. Champlain College Shuttle Figure 41:FAHC Shuttle Vehicle Hours and Operating Costs Weekday Annual Rev Veh Hrs Operating Cost Existing Catamount East 24.50 $257,250 Gutterson Field 13.75 $144,775 Total 38.25 $401,625 F. FAHC Shuttle 22.00 $231,000 Difference Total 16.25 $170,625 With the development of the new Intermodal Intercept Facility,the parking at those lots would be relocated to the new facility and shuttle service could be provided with a single route.With all demand concentrated at the new Intermodal Intercept Facility,seven to eight traps per hour would be required during peak times (6:00 to 8:30 AM and 3:30 to 6:00 PM). This service could be provided with two buses that would provide service every 7.5 minutes. During other periods,only one trip per hour would be required. However,as a practical matter, more frequent service would be required to provide service comparable to what is now provided,and a single bus could provide service every 15 minutes. 28 February 2012004M Page 48 Overall,the consolidated shuttle services would be significantly less costly to operate than current service. This is largely due to the ability to provide service with fewer routes and the shorter route length. In total, FAHC shuttle operating costs would decline from$402,000 per year to$231,000,a reduction of$171,000. CHAMPLAIN COLLEGE SHUTTLE The 100 Champlain College spaces at the new Intermodal Intercept Facility would be spaces that would be shifted off-campus. The Quarry Hill shuttle currently operates between the Quarry Hill Apartments and Champlain College via Spear Street and could be rerouted via the new Intermodal Intercept Facility. However,this shuttle operates every 30 minutes,and current practice for employee shuttles is for service every 15 minutes. One additional bus could be added to the Quarry Hill shuttle to provide service every 15 minutes or a new dedicated shuttle could be implemented,and either approach would be more than sufficient to meet demand. To simplify the analysis,this work assumes the implementation of a new dedicated shuttle that would operate directly between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and Champlain College. However,as a practical matter,equivalent service could be provided with the Quarry Hill Shuttle at the same cost. With service between 6:00 AM and 6:30 PM,operating costs would be $131,250 per year. TOTAL COSTS With the lower cost FAHC shuttle service and new costs for the new Champlain College shuttle, total CATMA shuttle costs would be$367,500 per year. Compared to current costs,this would be a reduction of$34,000 per year. Figure 42:Alternative 1-Vehicle Hours and Operating Costs Weekday Annual Rev Veh Hrs Operating Cost Existing CATMA Catamount East Shuttle 24.50 $257,250 CATMA Gutterson Field Shuttle 13.75 $144,775 Total 38.25 $401,625 With Intermodal Intercept Facility CATMA FAHC Shuttle 22.00 $231,000 CATMA Champlain College Shuttle 12.50 $136,500 Total 34.50 $367,500 Difference' Total -16.25 -$34,125 7.2.3.2 Alternative 2:Primary Service via CCTA Improvements As an alternative to the development of exclusive CATMA shuttles between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and FAHC,service could be provided with an extension of CCTA's Route 11 College Street Shuttle. This would provide similar service as a CATMA shuttle,plus service all the way to downtown Burlington for downtown employees. In terms of potential changes to CCTA services,the most important considerations are likely ridership markets,the most important of which would be: Fr4d%04 DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 49 • FAHC employees who would use an extension of Route 11 College Street Shuttle in the same manner as a CATMA shuttle to travel between the Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility and FAHC. • Downtown Burlington employees who would park at the new Intermodal Intercept Facility and use CCTA service as park and ride shuttle. The primary motivation to do so would be to avoid downtown Burlington parking costs. Because of this,an extension of the College Street Shuttle would be an attractive option because it is fare-free. • A convenient connection between Route 1 Williston and FAHC could fill what is now a gap in the CCTA system-Route 1 is one of CCTA's strongest routes and FAHC is one of Burlington's most important activity centers,and although Route 1 operates in the vicinity of FAHC,it does not serve it. A connection between Route 1 and an extended College Street Shuttle could eliminate that gap. CCTA has expressed concerns that deviating Route 1 off of Main Street through the new Intermodal Intercept Facility would inconvenience most existing riders and that the additional time could not be accommodated within existing schedules. Both of these concerns are valid, and as described in more detail below,by extending the College Street Shuttle from.FAHC through the new Intermodal Intercept Facility to Main Street,it would be possible to serve the above markets without making any changes to Route 1 Williston. Finally,it should be noted that with this option,a CATMA shuttle between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and Champlain College would still need to be provided,as there are no realistic adjustments to CCTA services that could serve these trips. In theory,Champlain College employees who would park in the Intermodal Intercept Facility could walk to US 2/Main Street to catch Route 2,and then walk from Main Street to campus. However,this option would almost certainly be opposed by those who would be expected to use the Intermodal Intercept Facility. For this reason,with this alternative,it is still assumed that there would be a dedicated CATMA Champlain College shuttle. ROUTE 1 WILLISTON As described above,no changes would be made to Route 1. Connections would be provided between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and downtown Burlington via an extension of the College Street shuttle to the Intermodal Intercept Facility and then beyond to Main Street(as described below). ROUTE 11 COLLEGE STREET SHUTTLE The extension of the College Street shuttle to the new Intermodal Intercept Facility could be accomplished by extending the route from its current terminus along Beaumont Avenue to Carrigan Drive to the Intermodal Intercept Facility. Then,rather than turning around at the Intermodal Intercept Facility,it could continue to Main Street via the Sheraton's access road, and then along Main Street and East Avenue back to FAHC (see Figure 43). In this manner,it could provide connections with Route 1 Williston on Main Street,and obviate the need for Route 1 to deviate into the Intermodal Intercept Facility. The extension would also provide free shuttle service for downtown employees who would use the Intermodal Intercept Facility as free remote parking for downtown Burlington. The extension of Route 11 College Street Shuttle to the Intermodal Intercept Facility and Main Street would add about 10 minutes of running time to the route. To maintain 15 minute headways for most of the day,the number of vehicles deployed on the route would need to be increased from two to three,and the cycle time increased from 30 minutes to 45 mi.nutes. 28 February 2012 INVI4d1 Page 50 However,as described above,at least seven trips per hour will be required to serve demand from the Intermodal Intercept Facility to FAHC during peak periods. To provide this level of service during peak periods,six vehicles would need to be deployed,which would provide service every 7.5 minutes. Route 11's span of service would also need to be extended from 6:15 AM to 8:30 PM in the summer and 6:15 AM to 7:00 PM the rest of the year to 4:15 AM to 9:15 PM year-round. Figure 43:Extension of College Street Shuttle to FAHC and Main Street s u r y I 1 w r 0 fires 4 '� s.�s3:t «'ae c.a 9t R Us.sdalx T YNsr.At, r 36rRr. Cenie ix V. I' Wtods. F Nafuras+imi TO e,,,y§ I 'egg CP.i^yS 6,1 _. .. t woo r t i ! E ii .tar'*9 S Op L 8s..L n 1 5 st Yc .;>.rt(W.. a t NOW., .� et SV` r.-a .u..c P',", oars a:sdu a - r,) s One of the concepts that has been discussed as part of this study would be for CATMA to cover additional CCTA operating costs through the cost savings that it would realize through the replacement of CATMA shuttle service with CCTA shuttle service. CCTA's current policy is to price new services on a fully allocated rate that includes a portion of CCTA's fixed costs and administrative expenses.The fully allocated cost per revenue vehicle hour is $88.50. On this basis,the cost to extend the College Street shuttle to US 2/Main Street via the Intermodal Intercept Facility,and extend the span of service,would be$1,931,000 per year(see Figure 44). Including the additional cost for CATMA Champlain College Shuttle service,the total cost for this alternative would be$1.5 million,which would be$591,000 per year higher than existing costs. FrA — _. - - DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study _� Page 51 Figure 44:Alternative 2-Vehicle Hours and Operating Costs Weekday Weekday Rev Veh Hrs: Rev Veh Hrs: Annual Summer Rest of Year Operating Cost Existing CATMA Catamount East Shuttle 24.50 24.50 $257,250 CATMA Gutterson Field Shuttle 13.75 13.75 $144,775 CCTA Route 11 College Street Shuttle 25.25 23.75 $537,815 Total 63.50 62.00 $939,440 Intermodal Intercept Facility; CCTA Route 11 College Street Shuttle 63.00 63.00 $1,393,875 CATMA Champlain College Shuttle 13.00 13.00 $136,500 Total 76.00 76.00 $1,530,375 Total +12.50 +14.00 +$590,936 There would also be capital costs associated with this alternative. As described above,CCTA would need to deploy four new vehicles to the College Street Shuttle,and the cost of 35 foot transit buses is$390,000 each,or$1.6 million in total. Capital costs are funded differently than operating costs,and it might be possible to include the cost of these vehicles in the overall costs for the Intermodal Intercept Facility. However,over time,these vehicles would need to be replaced,and given the average 12 year lifespan of transit buses,annualized capita.L costs would be$130,000 (see Figure 45). Figure 45:Alternative 2-Capital Costs Quantity Total Capital Cost Annualized Capital Cost 35'Transit Buses 4 $1.6 million $130,000 In total,this alternative would increase operating costs by$591,000 per year and annualized capital costs by$130,000 per year. While costs would increase by a large amount,so would CCTA ridership. At present,the College Street Shuttle serves approximately 600 passengers per day. With the College Street Shuttle also serving the Intermodal Intercept Facility,ridership would increase to approximately 2,100 passengers per day(the existing 600 riders plus 1,200 riders to and from FAHC and 300 riders to and from downtown Burlington),plus additional riders who would transfer between CCTA Route 1 Williston and the College Street Shuttle. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS There would be two additional considerations with respect to CCTA's service provision.These would be: ■ CCTA's Charter states that,"[i]f the Board determines that a route should operate without charging a passenger fare,the community or communities in which the route operates will reimburse the Authority for the foregone fare revenue in addition to the standard local share for that route." This provision is intended to ensure that the ensuing reduction of fare revenue through the provision of fare-free service in one community does not increase local assessments for other communities. The potential Moi28 February 2012 Page 52 financial impact to CCTA as a whole and on its two affected member communities (Burlington and South Burlington)would need to be considered and discussed before any modifications to the College Street Shuttle are contemplated. ■ CCTA provides complementary paratransit service within three-quarters of a mile of its fixed-route service. The regular fare for paratransit service is$2.50,except that it is free within three-quarters of a mile of the College Street Shuttle. The extension of the College Street shuttle to the Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility would expand the length of free paratransit zone by approximately 0.6 miles to include the University Mall and other large retail areas in South Burlington. As a result,there would be a loss of paratransit revenue and increased costs to Burlington and South Burlington. 7.2.3.3 Alternative 3:Combination of CCTA and CATMA Shuttles There would be two major reasons why added service on the College Street Shuttle would be significantly more expensive than the operation of dedicated CATMA shuttles: 1. Additional service on the College Street shuttle would add service for the entire distance between downtown Burlington and the new Intermodal Intercept Facility while CATMA shuttles would operate for a much shorter distance. 2. CCTA's cost structure is higher.' However,a strategy of extending existing service on the College Street Shuttle and supplementing that service with CATMA shuttle service could provide better service than either the CATMA-only or CCTA-only options at a significantly lower cost. In this case: 1. The College Street Shuttle would be extended to the new Intermodal Intercept Facility as described for Alternative 2 above,with service provided every 15 minutes during its existing span of service from 6:15 AM to 9:00 PM in the summer and 6:15 AM to 7:30 PM the rest of the year. This would require one additional vehicle to be deployed on the route,and for three vehicles to be in operation throughout the day. This would increase operating costs for the College Street Shuttle by$346,000 per year. This expanded service would: - Provide connections between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and FAHC. - Provide connections between Route 1 Williston and FAHC (and other Hill locations). - Provide free shuttle service for downtown Burlington employees who could use the Intermodal Intercept Facility for free remote parking. - Provide more frequent early morning and evening service to existing College Street Shuttle riders. 2. CATMA FAHC shuttle service would only be provided during the early morning hours before the College Street Shuttle starts operation,during peak periods when additional service would be needed,and in the evening after the College Street Shuttle stops running. This would be from 4:15 AM to 8:30 AM,from 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM,and after 8:30 PM in the summer and 7:00 PM the rest of the year. During these times,one CATMA bus would operate service to the Intermodal Intercept Facility every 15 minutes. In the early morning and after the end of College Street Shuttle service,this would be the only service running. During peak periods,the CATMA shuttle would alternate with College Street Shuttle service to provide service between the Intermodal Intercept Facility, Main Street,and FAHC every 7.5 minutes. The cost of this limited Prior service agreements between CCTA and CATMA were based on a marginal hourly rate.However,CCTA's current practice and policy in 2012 is for new service prices to be based on a fully allocated hourly rate. INMP4 &11 DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study 411.. Page 53 service would be only$89,000 per year,which would be$313,000 less than the cost of the existing FAHC shuttles.These supplementary CATMA shuttles would be designed primarily to provide service between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and FAHC. However,in the same manner as the extended College Street Shuttle,use could also be permitted for connecting Route 1 Williston riders. 3. CATMA Champlain College Shuttle service would be implemented to provide service between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and Champlain College. This shuttle,which would cost$136,500 per year to operate,would be designed exclusively to provide connections between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and Champlain College. In total,the above services would cost$1.1 million per year to operate,which would be $169,000 more than for existing services (see Figure 46). Costs for CCTA service would go up by$346,000 while costs for CATMA services would decline by$176,000. Figure 46:Alternative 3-Vehicle Hours and Operating Costs Weekday Weekday Rev Veh Hrs: Rev Veh Hrs. Annual Summer Rest of Year Operating Cost Existing; CATMA Catamount East Shuttle 24.50 24.50 $257,250 CATMA Gutterson Field Shuttle 13.75 13.75 $144,375 CCTA Route 11 College Street Shuttle 25.25 23.75 $537,815 Total 63.50 62.00 $939,440 With Intennodal Intercept Facility CCTA Route 11 College Street Shuttle 42.75 38.25 $883,319 CATMA FAHC Shuttle 7.50 9.00 $88,614 CATMA Champlain College Shuttle 12.50 12.50 $136,500 Total 63.25 75.50 $1,108,640 Difference Total -0.25 -1.75 +$169,020 As with Alternative 2,there would also be capital costs associated with this alternative. In this case,CCTA would need to deploy one new vehicle the College Street Shuttle. The cost of one new 35-foot transit bus would be$390,000,and the annualized capital cost would be$32,500. (see Figure 47). Figure 47:Alternative 3-Capital Costs Quantity Total Capital Cost Annualized Capital Cost 35'Transit Bus 1 $390,000 $32,500 In total,this alternative would increase operating costs by$169,000 per year and annualized capital costs by$32,500 per year. With this alternative,ridership on CCTA's College Street Shuttle would also increase significantly,but to a lesser extent than with Alternative 2 as early morning and evening ridership would be served by the CATMA shuttle and peak period ridership would be split between the two. With this alternative,it is likely that College Street Shuttle ridership would 28 February 2012 Page 54 increase from 600 passengers per day to 1,300 to 1,500 passengers per day,plus additional riders who would transfer between CCTA Route 1 Williston and the College Street Shuttle. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The same additional considerations described for Alternative 2 with respect to CCTA fare-free service and impacts on CCTA complementary paratransit service described above would also apply to this alternative. 7.2.3.4 Summary Of the three alternatives,the least expensive would be Alternative 1,in'which CATMA would provide all of the shuttle services between the new Intermodal Intercept Facility and FAHC and Champlain College. Alternative 3,in which CCTA's College Street Shuttle would be extended via the Intermodal Intercept Facility to US 2/Main Street during its existing span of service and service frequencies increased to every 15 minutes throughout the service day,would provide the best opportunities to: • Provide shuttle service to FAHC and Champlain College, • Provide fare-free service between the Intercept Facility and downtown Burlington • Provide a connection between CCTA's Route 1 Williston and FAHC. However,this alternative would increase operating costs by approximately$169,000 per year, and require the purchase of one additional bus for$390,000. ALTERNATIVE 1:CATMA SHUTTLES WITHOUT CHANGES TO CCTA SERVICE Advantages • Provides effective service between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and FAHC and Champlain College. • Lowest cost alternative: CATMA could provide required shuttle services for$34,000 less per year than for existing shuttle services. Disadvantages • Would not provide service to downtown employees who could use the Intermodal Intercept Facility as a free remote parking location. • Would not improve service for CCTA Route 1 Williston and Route 11 College Street Shuttle riders. ALTERNATIVE 2:CCTA SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS Advantages • Provides effective service between the Intermodal Intercept Facility, FAHC and Champlain College (with Champlain College service provided by a CATMA shuttle). • Provides more frequent College Street Shuttle peak period service,and frequent connections between Route 1 Williston and FAHC. • Would also provide service between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and UVM. Disadvantages PAT4#11..ALL"14 DRAFT:189 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 55 • Would increase operating costs by$591,000 per year and annualized capital costs by $130,000 per year ALTERNATIVE 3:COMBINATION OF CCTA SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS AND CATMA SHUTTLES Advantages • Provides effective service between Intermodal Intercept Facility and FAHC and Champlain College. • Improves service for CCTA riders—more frequent early morning and evening College Street Shuttle peak period service,and frequent connections between Route 1 Williston and FAHC. • Would significantly increase College Street Shuttle ridership and productivity(with additional riders on lightly utilized reverse direction trips). • Would likely increase Route 1 ridership and productivity(due to connection to FAHC). • Would also provide service between the Intermodal Intercept Facility and UVM. Disadvantages • Would increase operating costs by$169,000 per year and annualized capital costs by $32,500 per year. 7.3 Facility Construction Cost Estimate Construction cost estimates were developed for the Exit 14 intermodal intercept facility and are summarized below in Figure 48.The cost estimate includes a break-out for the parking garage, shell retail/office space,site improvements,off-site improvements,permitting and design,and construction contingency.The range of costs for the facility plus site improvements was found to be approximately$50 million. 28 February 2012sellM4 Page 56 Figure 48:Construction Costs Estimate ce-ett.a cur lnvr w * .cqs :men :^gstryr_um 1T1=.0.3 352.E 'SPIA23 S8 a1B' .S£23S2 79C rart5rI ge aurae-n: 2.2Un iattuu $450 5E3C.2:14 365C230 Encmc Car'* rg itat-a-n —wen g^ars.._ S7;BZ $?i3Y1 SxTar . cia e:s ffr c w SUM Sigffi S511596i�s f AtrEtr_i 3 t.:t:eCrottcsi tin.nrn 1S5010,3M SMOAK =[;ice PITMOTITTSDtuye Sthan& wowsyams Spy Aetaninil a Space g/ert Saws. arttve-c rm'�ar,aR 34 SAM rat62pe1 SIR= 3 Stte#I sums :Imam=few':rr/rc away/ 11.7fy Sa3C S263 S1,3143;dt4 %MOM W4E4 suace-surd•-our-Once ..14 rsc ica 0J tes:nuz:au: 22022,208 2 Ste warzwerrerun vas 'S ' i- :? lea= Sin Ram h 7 Orr Tom' f.et•-t,rr rez.,r.yrttc+6.dnrtW! al&9itae impmea rents -,taws Qr9ltts.*rlq.envorsarto, r..9..r ..-. : 'issr`(r7R41 tl te'tnr uw ne,t iun 1ttrl :Ol �� tit > sdmtrt.=w reat:irq Jesup. ,vtttsa*cr1 bra 29 It .. 7airs-tr...rtter Amnia i'Insunw rnrE.'#Camtinrpenatescanir&tit:OW= t8111111613IDri10.Llfe $5410C, .... $49,390, 0 Notes on Cost Estimate 1. Structured Garage Costs assume a precast concrete tees,steel frame,and concrete spandrel panels. The low end costs are based upon numbers by Walker Parking Consultants and are considered to be the national average cost. 2. High end parking construction costs are based upon FFF's recent parking construction experience located in South Burlington as well as with comparison with regional and national averages.High cost is above average in part due to inefficiency of constructing only a single level of elevated parking over a large portion of the footprint(in order to preserve views from the adjacent Sheraton Conference Center). 3. Bridge construction is to connect the Second Floor lobby to Garage elevator lobby. The length of this connection is 45.-0"by 6'-0". 4. Core and Shell only.Tenant fit-up costs by others.The ground floor office/retail spaces include storefront at the street side. The ground floor offices also include a shower room,changing stations,and repair shops for bicycle transportation component 5. Core and Shell only.Tenant fit-upc osts by others.The second floor office space includes large steel spans over a sidewalk and roadway. This space includes a light well. The offices are to include ribbon windows. 6. Bridge construction is to be from the Garage lobby to second floor at the Sheridan Hotel. The construction is to be long span structural beams,for a distance of 130 feet,and 12'-0 wide. Two egress stairs and an elevator will be required. 7. The electrical charging station is a two pedestal charging station with a voltage of 208-240 VAC. This item does not include a centralized control system. RPoi _ __ DRAFT:189 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 57 8. The solar panels priced are a photovoltaic power system tied into a central grid. The power generation is 10kw. This system priced assumes approximately 60 photovoltaic modules,combiner box,DC connect, Inverter,AC disconnect,isolation transformer,and utility connection. Labor and materials a.re included as part of this cost. 9. Parking Access and Revenue Control systems are based on the inherent complexities associated with five separate vehicle entry lanes and three exit lanes;pay on foot stations and a single attendant booth at the main exit.Available space counters on a per level bases are also included in this estimate.Estimate is preliminary based on discussions with SkiData Corporation,as well as from FFF experience with similar systems installed in South Burlington VT. 10. Site and I-89 Slip Ramp costs based on VTrans standard pay items and recent bid pricing and include accommodations for site preparation and excavation,fill materials,roadway base and surface materials, curbing and drainage,sidewalks/paths,wet and dry utility hook-ups,guardrails,retaining walls, landscaping,site furnishings,lighting,and traffic control during construction. 11. Off-site roadway improvement costs include the cost to permit,design,and construct either a second left turn lane on US 2 at the Sheraton/Staples Plaza intersection or install a new bus-actuated gate on Catamount Drive between East Avenue and Sheraton Drive. 12. Project costs assume Permit Costs, Geotechnical,Site Utilities,Civil Engineering,Architectural Services, Structural Engineering,Mechanical,Electrical and Plumbing Engineering,Fire Protection,Legal Fees and Construction Administration/Resident Engineer services. 13. General Note:FTA funds would not be available if no public transit service is provided to the facility.If FTA funds are provided,they would likely only be available for a proportional share of the facility that benefits general public users. 7.4 Operations and Maintenance Costs, Projected Revenue and Management Options Throughout the country,most intermodal facilities are owned and managed by transit systems, state departments of transportation,cities,and other public agencies.In addition,a.nd although not yet done for a major facility,they can also be owned and managed by Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) such as the Campus Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA) and by public-private partnerships.This section presents the anticipated costs for the operations and maintenance costs,the anticipated lease and parking revenues,and an evaluation of potential management options for the Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility. At a point in the future when the project is ready to proceed forward,a discussion of ownership of the facility between future interested parties,yet to be identified,would be convened. 7.4.1 Operating Costs and Projected Revenue Ongoing operations and maintenance costs for the Exit 14 Intercept Facility are an important consideration in project planning. For project budgeting purposes,the operations and maintenance costs are presented in the following categories: • Garage Operations and Maintenance: These costs represent the annual expenditures needed to operate and maintain the 1,515 space parking garage.Based on actual costs 28 February 2012041111111 Page 58 ..411111416. for parking garages in Chittenden County and nationally published informations,the annual operation and maintenance costs for this facility will range between$200,000 and$700,000 per year.These values are contingent on the extent of cleaning,lighting, maintenance,repairs,security,enforcement,landscaping,snow removal,access and revenue control systems,enforcement,insurance,labor and administration. • Lease Space Operations and Maintenance:These costs represent the annual expenditures needed to operate and maintain the 14,730 square feet of office lease space and 9,715 square feet of retail lease space. Based on actual lease space operations and maintenance costs from Chittenden County,a cost rate of$6 per square foot was applied to the office space and$4 per square foot was applied to the retail space. • Transit/Shuttle Service Operations:These costs represent the annual expenditures needed to provide transit and/or shuttle service to the facility.For budgeting purposes, the annual operating costs plus annualized capital costs for transit/shuttle service was assumed to be the average cost of the three service options presented previously in Section 7.2. The estimate of facility operations and maintenance costs is presented below in Figure 49. Figure 49:Exit 14 Intercept Facility-Estimate of Operations and Maintenance Costs Annual Cost 12032 tirA m) G {r 13YO`s:AND Gates Operations&Maintenanc+e lease Cinere Operations ts'Maintenance St121)(X) Tr stt/Sf~uttte Service Okras 7; II Total Annual O$M Costs1 Sfinfii. J To ensure ongoing viability of the Exit 14 Intercept Facility,it will be important to ensure that there is a continuing revenue stream available to the facility owner cover the operations and maintenance costs presented above. For project budgeting purposes,the estimated revenue streams are presented in the following categories: • Lease Revenue-Office&Retail Space:These revenues represent the lease payments made to the facility owner by the office and retail tenants. Based on recent observations on Class A lease rates,a$25 per square foot lease rate was applied to both the office and retail space,which is inclusive of property taxes,insurance,and maintenance fees. • Operations&Maintenance Fees (Various Garage Users):To ensure that the facility is financially viable,the difference between the revenue generated by the lease space and the anticipated operations and maintenance costs were then distributed across the various garage stakeholder groups based on each user's proportionate share of parking spaces. The estimate of lease space and parking revenue is presented below in Figure 50. These opinions are based on costing information from Freeman French Freeman experience on similar projects;cost information from Carl Walker Industry Insights parking structure cost outlook for 2011 publication dated May 2011;the ITE Transportation Planning Handbook,1999,as summarized in the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute-Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II—Parking Costs Dated February 22,2012;and RS Means Construction Cost Data 2011. DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study PAVAN Page 59 Figure 50:Exit 14 Intercept Facility-Estimate of Estimated Lease and Parking Revenue Annual Revenue 12012 t€otl tsl 3_NG REVENUE operations&iviaintenance Fees-fAtiC{fit spaces) ) Ssl3i.r044 Opera:liens&Maintenance Fees -Champlain College(TOO spaces; 519,E Operations&Maintenance Fees-City of Burlington(150 spaces; SISOCCi Operations&Maintenance Fees-General Public(ISO spaces)* SPI3,O Operations&Maintenance Fees-Sheraton(421 spaces) S7S,COD Lease Revenue-Retail Space(9,715 sf) S243,0 Lease Revenue-Office Space(14,730 sf) S3611,CCO Total Annual tease&Parking E SIMMS ,Ser .:�a wf+eMtr S;awful`d would tut sodab s ?fatuity raSrors ar a^+s ttant#cwaa 7.4.2 Management Options There are two major factors that will largely determine the best approach for management of the Exit 14 facility,and these are related to: 1) control of the facility and 2)whether or not parties desire to be involved: ■ Control: Major users of facilities typically desire a very strong degree of control.For this facility,those users would be the Hill institutions that collaborate through CATMA (i.e.UVM,Fletcher Allen Medical Center,and Champlain College). It is also likely that the Sheraton Hotel will also require a strong level of input,as it will also be a major user, and the facility will be developed on property now leased by the hotel.Thus,at a minimum,CATMA,and the Sheraton Hotel need to be strongly involved. ■ Desire: Closely related to control of the facility,the controlling party will likely also have to want to be the manager. As described above,intermodal facilities are typically owned and managed by transit systems, state departments of transportation,and cities.Three other options to be considered for the Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility would be for the University of Vermont(UVM),CATMA,or a public-private partnership to own and manage the facility. TRANSIT SYSTEM/CCTA CCTA has stated that they do not desire to manage the facility. STATE!VTRANS Throughout the country,it is very common for states (usually the state Department of Transportation)to operate intermodal facilities and park and ride lots.This is also the case in Vermont,where VTrans has 27 park and ride lots,including lots along I-89.Thus,there is precedent for state operation. However,while the facility will include spaces for general park and ride use,general park and ride will be one of the minority uses.As a result,the management by VTrans would not likely provide the major users with the degree of control that they would require. In addition,VTrans has stated that they do not desire to manage the facility. 28 February 2012 Page 60 CITY/SOUTH BURLINGTON OR BURLINGTON The proposed facility would be located in South Burlington (but just across the Burlington city line).However,as currently envisioned,the facility would serve uses that are heavily oriented toward Burlington,and thus the City of South Burlington has not expressed a desire to manage the facility. Although the facility would be located outside of its own city limits,the City of Burlington does already own facilities in South Burlington (most notably,the airport),and thus City of Burlington management would be an option. However,the City of Burlington does not desire to operate the facility. Finally,management by either city would also not likely provide the major users with the degree of control that they would require. TMA/CATMA As described above,the major users of the intermodal facility will be the Hill institutions,which include UVM, Fletcher Allen Health Care,and Champlain College.In 1992,these institutions formed CATMA to manage mobility,parking and facilitate sustainable land use and economic development.CATMA,acting on behalf of its members,is the major driver of the project,and also has strong working relationships with Burlington,South Burlington,CCTA,VTrans,and others.It has also been working closely with the Sheraton Hotel on the project. Based on a review of management models that are used elsewhere in the country,it appears that there are no existing examples of operation of other major intermodal facilities by a TMA. However,TMAs can operate intermodal facilities as long as they can demonstrate continuing control and management capability,which would be the case with CATMA.CATMA and its members are also interested in CATMA becoming the manager. However,the Sheraton Hotel is not a member of CATMA,and as described above,will likely desire/require a large degree of control over at least the design and operation of the new facility.There would be two options through which this could be accomplished: 1. The Sheraton Hotel could negotiate terms and conditions for its use of the new facility as part of its agreement for the use of its leased property. 2. The Sheraton Hotel could become a member of CATMA. UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT The Exit 14 Intermodal Intercept Facility would be located on land owned by UVM,and the University,as a public entity,could also operate the facility. However,as described in the demand projections that were developed for the study,UVM is not projected to be a major user of the facility.As a result,the management by UVM would not likely provide the major users with the degree of control that they would require. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN CATMA AND SHERATON HOTEL A second option that would include the Sheraton Hotel would be for CATMA and the hotel to join together to form a public-private partnership whose sole purpose would be operations and management of the intermodal facility.This option would also provide the Sheraton Hotel with a much stronger role in the project. DRAFT:I-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility Scoping Study Page 61 THIRD PARTY PARKING MANAGEMENT ENTITY A final potential management option for consideration is a separate,third-party private parking management entity.One common arrangement is for these entities to build,operate,maintain and own the garage and related uses. 7.4.3 Conclusions As described above,the two major considerations for operation of the new facility are control and desire.On this basis,the management by CATMA or a public-private partnership between CATMA and the Sheraton Hotel would be the two most feasible options.Which of the two would be most appropriate largely depends upon the role that the Sheraton Hotel desires: ■ If the Sheraton Hotel would be satisfied with negotiating its terms of use in a facility operated by CATMA,then CATMA management of the facility would be the simplest and most straightforward option. ■ If the Sheraton Hotel desires a stronger,and ongoing role,then the development of a public-private partnership between CATMA and the hotel would be the most effective option. In both cases,the facility would be managed by the parties that will be the largest users of the facility and desire to be involved.As a third possible option,a third party parking management entity could assume responsibility for constructing,operating,maintaining and owning the facility. 7.5 Alternatives Evaluation Matrix To facilitate an objective assessment of the No Build and four Build alternatives,pertinent details of each alternative was assembled and summarized in the Alternatives Evaluation matrix shown below in Figure 51.The evaluation matrix shows the following key differences between the four Build scenarios: ■ Alternative 3A and 3B are the most expansive options ■ Alternative 3B has the best overall traffic operational performance ■ Alternative 3A and 3B both impact VTrans and FHWA rights-of-way ■ Alternative 3A and 3B may likely impact identified archeological resources ■ Alternative 3A and 3B will likely require a more detailed environmental documentation and alternatives assessment process to comply with NEPA requirements 28 February 2012 Page 62 Figure 51:Alternatives Evaluation Matrix BUILD BUILD Wr SLIP RAMP ALTERNATtVE No Build 2A:US 2 Left 28:Catamount 3A:US 2 Left 38:Catamount .n Turn Lanes Drive Gate Turn Lanes Drive Gate Construction Cost $0 $47,300,000 $47,000.000 ' $51.800.000 $51,500 000 _aray*& Daat tiS 2 Tam ta., $300,000 SOM? g °"a'a .,:t;nt t),n,v< - €50.000 ,ram *Ce z £ may(tt^ $5.067.683 $5 030 183 Si S4 n0 Si ill F ,®_�. �. �_._:i H -,,p R1. 4 aq;-'r'': , SS.tie;11,# S41 1il?5iq SI At? §1 =. v Operation&Maintenance $0 $ $03.N00 M 16711,000 T:s 50 000 $450 000 S+tO ON UE4 000 Lease Sp. 5126 000 $128,000 $f2 ese s 12a OM , Lease 8.I'ariung Kevenue SO 68I8.ODU S8/8.UUU SatO.UUO _eiel of Ser1 c NoknprOvemertt Improves t I Improves: :_•;- +*-► i LI :qr iient!{ r e' CtianQes None Yes I Minimal Yes Yes s r�iPod Accecs No Change Sight knpr•, '' it z yabbe Ut ies No Change No Impact_ No knpactM O -i idratic Peitotmance No Change 1 lanor Impact__. Minor Impact W WI Burlington FHWA& .001 of Woy t sks...is None LIVIA&3 But Innitutt I Trans A;':.:Aural Lands No kiacts I No ti4 xk=cnae010gicall Not pacts _?r lxe. Ye -sstonc Structures/S8es No Impacts No ! z ; - odpiaiki No Impacts No z Ce shand Widli a No knpacts No No o H :are Threatened&Cndanejercd Nob. ,sirt t3 t10 ts;; x :ititc lands No Impacts_ No No w Noise Noknpacts No :__- .t,r� Wetlands, NO rmasts Yes Y e_: Hazardous Waste Saes No Impacts No P c atisfies Purpose&Need? z Expands parking supper Yes Yes to Accomoctates specaat events 'i:_ Yes Yes LW co 0 Congestion reduction •L. Yes Yes ce knproved a.Qua +, No Yes Yes a Provides mode-transfer site No Yes Yes i e Azt 250 4 `S } Yes e3 ,:01 Water C No No No s Cuirs or P. ta[as Peairat Nu r usi'o;c a^' 0 Stream _..-. t .�.� No - No No 3 Wetland Permit'Ct +— No 1'nssitie Storm Water Discilaroe No Yes Yes re SYioreland Encraactgnerg ♦ No No Nof a• Endtttweat Species No No !to `,Trans ROW PerrnR_ v.. .. No No Yes SHPo Girmdice No iioa«= NEPA Process Reowred • No E EA-EIS "iorewi=s$12oeleaetwce inCL'des both amnia: y aiing a-1e annualized cam_.. -;,• :,:'ese:es Me a'r erage costs of the three tt`attswttuate of mats«yes presented ea5er,f)rs,s Sco>^.rz 5 Repo"; 0.4M DRAFT:1-89 Exit 14 Slip Lane&Intermodal Intercept Parking Facility.coping Study j� Page 63 8.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The project Steering Committee met on 8 November 2012 to discuss the results of the alternatives assessment process. After discussing the various options,the Steering Committee determined that is was premature to select a preferred alternative at this time given the nature of the unknowns at this time. The Committee members cited the following reasons for not recommending a Preferred Alternative at this time: ■ Unclear whether CCTA would provide service to the facility: CCTA has noted that service to the facility would be problematic as it would add additional service time onto existing routes that are already operating under tight schedules,would require both Burlington and South Burlington to contribute funds to offset the additional costs of expanded fare- free service to the facility,and would require the expansion of the complementary paratransit service area-resulting in a loss of paratransit revenue and increased costs to Burlington and South Burlington. ■ Unclear where funding would come from to construct and operate the facility: FHWA funds of this magnitude would likely be hard to come by and would likely not cover ongoing maintenance and operation of the facility. If CCTA does not provide service to the facility,then FTA funds would not be available to fund construction or operation of the facility.CCTA also expressed concern that FTA funding for the facility would potentially reduce available funds for their operations and improvement priorities. The Steering Committee's recommendation to not select a preferred alternative at this time was then presented to the Stakeholder Committee on 29 November 2013 and the Burlington Transportation,Energy,and Utilities Committee on 12 December 2012. 28 February 2012 Page 64 JLadd From: Bob Rusten Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:54 AM To: JLadd Subject: FW: access Let's talk. Bob Rusten Deputy City Manager City of South Burlington Notice- Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error,please not'us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: donna Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:01 PM To: Bob Rusten Subject: RE: access Bob, I am trying to work with you on this but the big issue I have is how can I be accountable with no ability to control who, when or why someone needs access. This is not a control issue but one of accountability. I am the one who is on the hot seat if someone comes into the office after hours and accesses information they have no right to. With the solution you have suggested if something were to happen and I was asked how it happened and I explained our policy, I can see the citizens questioning why I did not tighten up the key access before it became a problem. I hope you see my dilemma. I don't think that the council or management want to take on the responsibility for the security of the records kept in the clerk's office. That being said I am thinking of the following (although I am not fond of the idea but working under a compromise) would you consider the following: Place a key lockbox outside the clerk's office door and assign passcodes to certain individuals (passcodes given out by the clerk only) and which would leave an audit trail (sent to me and others if necessary). That way we would be able to track who goes in and out of the office and when. I know-- $$$. I am looking into the cost and may be able to code it under restoration/protection of the land records or even computerization. As to the work outside of hours, I would like it to be that the clerk must be aware of all work that needs to be completed during and after hours and if after hours they must have at least 24 hours' notice before the work is done. If at all possible, I would be here while the work was being performed after hours to protect the records. Thoughts before I go to the resolution and attempt to make these changes? Donna Do-vwwt/KM'wil le' City Clerk Notice-Under Vermont's Public Records Act,all e-mail,e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business,concerning a City official or staff,or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request,unless otherwise made confidential by law.If you have received this message in error,please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Bob Rusten Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 7:57 AM To: donna; JLadd Subject: RE: access HI Donna. I hope everything goes well with your daughter today. Attached please see my suggestions to your initial Resolution. One question is whether the Police will want to take on the responsibilities you defined in your proposal. But, let's first see where we go with your thoughts on my suggestions. Thanks. Bob Rusten Deputy City Manager City of South Burlington Notice- Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please note us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: donna Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:40 PM To: Bob Rusten; JLadd Subject: access Bob, I've done a lot of thinking about this issue since our meeting yesterday and I feel very strongly about being able to limit access to the clerk's after hours. This is something that we have been able to work around in the past and has only become an issue in the past few years. Therefore I have drawn up a resolution following these thoughts. It all revolves around being held accountable yet having no control over access. I tried to look at a way that would allow access without causing an issue in a year or two or five if the process we discussed was violated. It would once again become a finger pointing and possibly cause strife once more. Donna Dann cvK(vwalei City Clerk 2 Notice-Under Vermont's Public Records Act,all e-mail,e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business,concerning a City official or staff,or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request,unless otherwise made confidential by law.If you have received this message in error,please notify us immediately by return email Thank you for your cooperation. 3 south AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT Executive Session 4:30 P.M. Tuesday,March 26,2013 Consider entering executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations and litigation. Regular Session 6:300P.M. Tuesday,March 26,2013 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.` _-- Formatted:No underline 3 numbberingering :a.Update on nutritional grant for the school nor List Paragraph, No bullets or l 4. Consent Agenda: Formatted 3 A. "`Sign Disbursement B. "' Approve Minutes for March 11,2013 C. "'Review February Financials(Bob Rusten, Interim City Manager). 5. Discussing charging for Public Records Request. I 6. Discuss the former City Manager, Sandy Miller's benefits. -- Formatted:List Paragraph, No bullets or 7. Determination of Sandy's benefits and Public Records Request. numbering S. 9 Discuss what Council wants to do at Homestead at Wheeler Park regarding Burlington Garden Club and possibly other entities wishing to use grounds for gardening. 10. "'Interview candidates for the Planning Commission and DRB. 11. Discuss and possible approve the Resolution regarding keys to the City Clerk's Office(Donna Kinville,City Clerk). 12. Discuss Council's position on the three components of the voters approved Clerk's Office Charter changes so as to testify before the House Government Operations Committee. • -- Formatted:List Paragraph, No bullets or • numbering 671 1 • Joint meeting with Planning Commission(approximately 7:30)to hear Reports from the four Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.25", No bullets or (SuFBC,Affordable Housing,Open Space)IZ committees. numbering 14. Discuss the role of the liaison with IZ Committees and how the committees will report back to Council. rKinv+lie City Clerk. 11. Determination of Sandy's benefits and Public Records Request. (__._` 1-2-15. Presentation on final Intercept Facility scoping study(Justin Rabidoux,Director of Public Works). 1-3-16. Interim Zoning-Deliberative Session:(City Council-Deliberative session on applications closed or presently before the City Council. Deliberative sessions are not open to public comment). [Note:Deliberations will be in open session unless due to a legal issue it is voted by Council to deliberate in closed session] A. #IZ-13-01,Perkins Smith Design Build for Conditional use review to construct a 768 square ft.two-story addition to a single family dwelling, 15 Mayfair Street. . 15.17. piscuss Burlington Garden Club response. __--{Formatted:Strikethrough 1&18. Discuss Holmes Road and the Railroad crossing issue and direction Council wishes to take. 4.?19. . • 1&20. Discuss what date for the VLCT Training(April 22 or 29). 20v21. Discuss when to schedule the final Legislative Breakfast. 24-22. Other Business: A. Items held from the Consent Agenda B. Bike Rack—items Council may wish to place on a future agenda: i. Traffic Lights and sequencing. ii. City Street Lights(adequacy/number)at various locations. iii. Dorset Park Solar Array. iv. Advertising logos or names on City Property v. Taser Policy vi. East Terrance Ordinance vii. Policy regarding landscaping City-owned land and Request from Hadley Road vii-- C. Other? 22.23. Consider entering executive session for discussion of personnel matters,negotiations,real estate and litigation. 1. Adjourn Respectfully Submitted: Bob Rusten,Interim City Manager ***Attachments Included South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines City Council meetings are the only time we have to discuss and decide on City matters. We want to be as open and informal as possible;but Council meetings are not town meetings. In an effort to conduct orderly and efficient meetings,we kindly request your cooperation and compliance with the following guidelines. 1. Please be respectful of each other(Council members,staff,and the public). 2. Please raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. Once recognized please state your name and address. 3. Please address the Chair and not other members of the public,staff,or presenters. 4. Please abide by any time limits that have been set. Time limits will be used to insure everyone is heard and there is sufficient time for the Council to conduct all the business on the agenda. 5. The Chair will make a reasonable effort to allow everyone to speak once before speakers address the Council a second time. 6. The Chair may ask that discussion be limited to the Councilors once the public input has been heard. 7. Please do not interrupt when others are speaking. 8. Please do not repeat the points made by others,except to briefly say whether you agree or disagree with others views. 9. Please use the outside hallway for side conversations. It is difficult to hear speaker remarks when there are other conversations occurring. JLadd From: Bob Rusten Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:57 AM To: JLadd Subject: add to bike rack Hi Janice. Please add to bike rack: Discuss policy regarding landscaping City-owned land and request from Hadley Road group Bob Rusten Deputy City Manager City of South Burlington Notice- Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error,please notes us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. 1 t gi„00.0-.." south .. y � VERMONT .._. AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL City Hall Conference Room 575 Dorset Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Executive Session 5:15 P.M. Monday, March 18, 2013 Consider entering executive session to discuss personnel, contract negotiations and litigation. Regular Session 6:00P.M. Monday, March 18, 2013 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. A. ***Community Gardeners at Wheeler Homestead 4. Consent Agenda: A. ***Sign Disbursement B. *** Approve Minutes for February 19&26th C. ***Weatherization Proclamation (Energy Committee). D. ***Consider approval the following Annual Event Permits: • Sheraton Burlington Hotel, Live Entertainment 5. *** Public Hearing of Land Development Regulations. Second reading of the same. (Paul Conner, Planning &Zoning Director). 6. Return from Public Hearing to discuss qoupcil actin on the Lai�d Development Regulations. , ,,net, t /wtc i2.-/ 4,dstI. s rxthi. l/'d,u",y L//%S. 7. *** Public Hearing of Fire Ordinance. Second reading of the same. (Terry Francis, Deputy Fire Chief). )V Return from Public Hearing to discuss Council action on Fire Ordinance. 9. Discuss status of Interim Zoning Application#IZ-12-06, John Larkin, 40 unit PUD (phase 1 of 71 unit project), 201 Allen Road, and co •,- whether to rescind decision to reopen hearing on Application #IZ-12-06. If Council does not r-scind •ecision then set date for new hearing (Amanda Lafferty, City Attorney). ' o9} 10. If Council votes to rescind decision to reopen hearing on Application#IZ-12-06, then Council proceeds with deliberative session on Interim Zoning Application#IZ-12-06, John Larkin, 40 unit PUD (phase 1 of 71 unit project), 201 Allen Road : Deliberative sessions are not open to public comment). [Note: Deliberations will be in open sessiop,uOss due to a legal issue it is voted by Council to deliberate in closed session] AK(-(00k, A. Interim Zoning Application#IZ-12-06, John Larkin, 40 unit PUD (phase 1 of 71 unit project), 201 Allen Road. (J&.111. '**Interview candidates for the Planning Commission and DRB. CA a " *** Discuss Signage at the Police Department. (Paul Conner, Director of Planning &Zoning) 7S Slg 0 t/ 3. *** Public Hearing on Interim Zoning Application: (Applicants&Councilors) d A. #IZ-13-01, Perkins Smith Design Build for Conditional use review to construct a 8 square `� ft. two-story addition to a single family dwelling, 15 Mayfair Street. qpri\i'Q c1 V� Discuss Council's position on the three components of the voters approved Clerk's Office Charter `?u changes so as to testify before the House Government Operations Committee. 1 1/4/ 5. Discuss and consider possible approval of a Resolution for staff and keys in the City Clerk's Office. O'S'Kt 16. *** Discuss and consider possible approval of a full road closure for a State culvert replacement on RT 116 (Hinesburg Rd.) (Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works). in Zf 15 k.Qi" 17. Discuss how Council wishes to proceed with the issues of Noise Abatement at the Burlington ‘Q� 71 International Airport and the creation of a Regional Airport. °N4o� tl` 18. Discuss what Council would like to be the role of the Forms Base Code consultant in assessing future_EC � ;/ t Interim Zoning applications and appoint the Chair of the Form Base Code Committee. �,j i(/S,y i1 c('--1- risr\AN v'' 19. Discuss whether to have each Interim Zoning Committee giving a progress report to Council,what date for these reports and what specifics Council would like included in the reports.- (fir/ /=/ ��,)D� 20. Discuss ideas concerning a Blue Ribbon Hiring Committee for the City Manager position, creating a ��" ►3 charge for such a committee and appointing Lisa Ventrisss as its Chair. 0-1 21. *** Discuss and consider possible approval of modifications to previously Council approved Pension 6) Advisory Committee Resolution and make any appoint based on approved modifications to the Ir`,\) Resolution. 22. *** Discuss and consider possible approval of the modified Council Meeting Procedures. �y (0 23. Convene as the Liquor Control Board to approve the following Liquor Licenses: _a r *Rite Aid#10318 *Hudson News *Queen City Coins Inc *Skinny Pancake@Airport �1` *Walgreen's *Zen Garden *Bourne's Service Ctr *Champlain Farms/1118 Williston Rd *Champlain Farms/801 Williston Rd *Champlain Farms/1800 Williston Rd *Chicken Charlie's *Chipotle Mexican Grill *Eagles Order#793 *Gracey's Liquor Store *Green Mountain Suites Hotel *Kmart#7039 *Maplefield's *Marco's Pizza *Olive Garden *Osaka Hana Inc *Outback Steakhouse *Short Stop#105 *Silver Palace *Sugarsnap LLC *Van Phan Sports Inc *Windjammer Restaurant *Vermont Sportsgrill *Sheraton Vermont Corp *Lakeview Bar&Grill/Lakeview House *Vermont National CC Pour House Holiday Inn 24. Other Business: A. Items held from the Consent Agenda Ca�u1_ B. Bike Rack—items Council may wish to place on a future agenda: ,(„ 1 1 i. Traffic Lights and sequencing. ^ ii. City Street Lights (adequacy/number) at various locations. �' ` iii. Dorset Park Solar Array. \ °t) iv. Advertising logos or names on City Property of` v. Taser Policy Ptq vi. East Terrance Ordinance vii. t C. Other? 25. Consider entering executive session for discussion of personnel matters, negotiations, real estate and litigation. 26. Adjourn Respectfully Submitted: Bob Rusten, Interim City Manager ***Attachments Included South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines City Council meetings are the only time we have to discuss and decide on City matters. We want to be as open and informal as possible; but Council meetings are not town meetings. In an effort to conduct orderly and efficient meetings, we kindly request your cooperation and compliance with the following guidelines. 1. Please be respectful of each other(Council members, staff, and the public). 2. Please raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. Once recognized please state your name and address. 3. Please address the Chair and not other members of the public, staff, or presenters. 4. Please abide by any time limits that have been set. Time limits will be used to insure everyone is heard and there is sufficient time for the Council to conduct all the business on the agenda. 5. The Chair will make a reasonable effort to allow everyone to speak once before speakers address the Council a second time. 6. The Chair may ask that discussion be limited to the Councilors once the public input has been heard. 7. Please do not interrupt when others are speaking. 8. Please do not repeat the points made by others, except to briefly say whether you agree or disagree with others views. 9. Please use the outside hallway for side conversations. It is difficult to hear speaker remarks when there are other conversations occurring. JLadd From: Bob Rusten Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 7:52 AM To: JLadd Subject: FW: Resignation Please put on 3/26 agenda. Bob Rusten Deputy City Manager City of South Burlington Notice,- Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. !f you have received this message in error,please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Bill Tegtmeyer [mailto:billteg@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 4:04 PM To: Bob Rusten; Martin Kenny; Rep. Helen Head; Senator Sally Fox Subject: Resignation Dear Mr. Rusten, It is with regret that I must resign from the Chittenden Correnctional Facility Liason Committee. I will be moving out of state in April 2013 and will no longer be able to serve on this committee. I regret that the city management has not found the time to meet with this Committee in quite awhile. Perhaps it's usefulness is outdated,but I believe anytime City officials are able to meet with community members willing to spend time to serve the city, they should be able to meet. It is due to a lack of City official's spending time with the average citizens of our community that has brought about the divisiveness we saw in the recent city election. I hope future city management will see fit to meeting with citizen's interested in service to their community. Thank you for the opportunity to serve our City. Very truly yours, William "Bill" Tegtmeyer i