HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 09/08/2021 South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee
Wednesday, September 8, 2021 @ 5:30 p.m.
City Hall, 180 Market Street, Board Room, Room 201 or Online
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/883654861
By telephone (audio only): 1-646-749-3122; Access Code: 883-654-861
In all cases, you will have the opportunity to both listen AND speak. Please note that the video option
may not work as the technology in the new building is not working consistently in all rooms.
AGENDA
1. Welcome and directions on emergency evacuation procedures – H. Gagne
2. Changes or additions to the agenda – H. Gagne (5:35 p.m.)
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda (5:40 p.m.)
4. Consideration of minutes from the August 2021 meeting (5:50 p.m)
5. Review & Discuss Preliminary Plan for the Multi-family lots in Hillside (Phase 1) – O’Brien
Development Team (6:00 p.m.)
6. Updates from the City – A. Parker (6:30 p.m.)
7. New City-wide Policy Priorities & Strategies Process – All (6:40 p.m.)
• Discuss the Bike/Ped Work Plan and How it Fits this new Process
8. CIP Updates & Committee Scoping/Project Priorities – Britt, Holland, Anderson, Gagne (7:00
p.m.)
9. Review Draft Transportation Impact Fee Project List – Britt (7:30 p.m.)
10. Nominate one member to serve on the Council’s Climate Action Task Force - Gagne (7:40 p.m.)
11. Spear Street Project Phase 1 Recommendation - Britt (7:50 p.m. - 10min)
12. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, October 13, 2021 @ 5:30pm
13. Adjourn (by 8:00 p.m.)
South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee
Regular Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, August 11, 2021 @ 5:30 p.m.
New City Hall
Committee Attendees: Shawn Goddard (Chair), Cathy Frank (Vice-Chair) – Via phone, Nic Anderson
(Clerk), Bob Britt, Donna Leban, Dana Farr, Amanda Holland, Havaleh Gagne, Matty Larkspur
Other Attendees: Ashley Parker (City Liaison)
Public: Kathy Alarie, Barbara Sirvis, Dalila Hall (City Staff), Jason Charest, Sai Sarepalli
1. Welcome and directions on emergency evacuation procedures
2. Changes or additions to the agenda
a. Moving public comments up
3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda
a. Barbara Sirvis - Lives off Patchen Road. Would encourage to have hybrid meetings.
Noticed on agenda the work plan. Perception that this is the bike committee and walks
a lot and notice a lot of people riding on sidewalk and not using the bike lanes on
Williston Road. Should start educational program about how to ride on the sidewalk and
be thoughtful of pedestrians. Most don’t say “on you left”. Vast majority are kids. See
adults on Williston Road and Hinesburg Rd sidewalks. Peds frequently have earbuds.
Would like to figure out a way to do a campaign in the cycling community about
pedestrians have priority. Asked to do a campaign or program about wearing helmets
too. Worried about the kids and need them to see that it really is important. E-Bikes are
here and not sure they fit within this issue. They belong on the street not the sidewalk.
Need to help those on the pedestrian side feel safe. Would be the first one to support
protected bike lanes on Williston Road. Would help people feel safer to ride on road.
Donna asked if they have ever done front porch forums or other outreach? Needs to
come from the public more than from the committee. Needs much bigger support.
Asked if there are ways to have schools help us with helmet use. Shawn – in the right
place. Is the committee’s primary focus. No rules right now that we know of prohibiting
bikes on sidewalks. Barbara - Its about the peaceful coexistence. Matty – Think it’s an
important challenge. Have also had interactions as a pedestrian of being buzzed.
Amanda – Would encourage more people to visit the committee and bring up these
things. All about etiquette. Can only go so far as a committee. Need help spreading the
word. Havaleh – Have a really good bell and it creates good exchanges. Bells are better
than calling out. Would like to see a culture of bell use.
b. Kathy Alarie – Lives next door. More and more people on Market Street. Lots of bikes on
sidewalk. Nic – The construction of Market St is anticipated for bikes and peds to use the
same facilities. Concerned about the electric or powered things like scooters and
skateboards. Have had close calls with cars traveling through Market Street too. Speed
is an issue. Have had many emails with Kevin Dorn and Justin Rabidoux. Cars are way
worse than the walkers and bikers. Concern of the no-exit sign from the school lot has
50 cars a day come out of there regardless of the sign. Sign is too high. Have been told
not to but people don’t care. Arrows in the pavement. Sign could be changed to be a
better standard. Asked for a flashing light at Mary and Market crosswalk. Shawn – Have
discussions regularly with Justin so this could be one we discuss.
4. Orientation for new member-Matty Larkspur (refresher for others)
a. Introductions from all committee members and Ashley Parker of who they are, what
they do, their role on the committee and mode of transportation.
b. Open Meeting Law – Committee members expected to refresh themselves on the law
each year. Detailed Quorum.
c. Meeting Schedule – Monthly on the second Wednesday at 5:30pm
d. Online Agendas/Meetings Minutes/Etc
e. Google Drive& Laserfiche – Google Drive great resource for sharing but not for working
at the same time. Laserfiche has all the documents for all committees.
f. Committee Structure & Charge
5. Election of New Officers
a. Post-election the appointed Chair will convene the meeting
b. The appointed Clerk will begin taking minutes.
c. Chair – Shawn not running for chair.
d. Clerk – Nic nominated himself.
e. Havaleh would be excited to share a role. Could do either or.
f. Chairs main role is the agenda. And running a meeting.
g. Havaleh is OK with being chair.
h. Bob would be OK with Vice Chair.
i. Nic asked if virtual is OK for the future.
j. Ashley – Hard for virtual. City still working out a lot of kinks.
k. Havaleh nominated herself for Chair.
l. Cathy – Noted that DRB meeting worked well as hybrid.
m. Ashley – Only in Auditorium
n. Shawn – This meeting is where we hear input. Offering virtual will allow more potential
public to participate. Need multiple locations because there could be overlap.
o. Ashley – This is the feedback Jesse is looking for. Need time and patience. Could be
p. Havaleh – Seconded by Shawn - All in favor but Matty abstained.
q. Bob – Seconded by Amanda - All in favor but Matty abstained.
r. Nic – Seconded by Dana - All in favor but Matty abstained.
6. Consideration of minutes from the June, 2021 meeting
a. Nic mentioned that there are edits that were sent to committee members via email for
version 2.
b. Motion from Donna to accept. Seconded by Shawn. All in favor except Matty abstain.
7. Updates from the City
a. Ashley read through comments posted in packet.
b. Bob – Sub group working on CIP priorities and can send to Ashley.
c. Nic – Has been working on the Annual Report already. Will provide final draft soon.
d. Ashley continued packet comments
e. Underwood now renamed for Tom Hubbard as Hubbard Recreation & Natural Area
f. Ashley asked about having Spear Street path on the east instead of the west.
g. Cathy thinks the East side is great and could connect with new development that is
coming in opposite the forest service which is already having a crosswalk as part of the
plan.
h. Havaleh would need decent crossings. We do not maintain paint well in this City.
i. Shawn – Seems like you are on the wrong side of the road. Spear Street is a corridor and
the path on the west already has a lot of traffic. Would have a lot of use.
j. Amanda – Are you asking for a decision? Will they be doing an evaluation?
k. Ashley – Will need to discuss at the kickoff meeting. Want to do the one that makes the
most sense for that space.
l. Donna – The west side is much steeper on the sides and the east would be cheaper for
construction. Should also make sure we connect Songbird across Dorset. Ashley – out of
scope of this study but can have in CIP.
m. Hinesburg Rd crosswalks have received state permit.
n. Shawn asked where we can track to show how Penny For Paths funds have helped us to
leverage much more grant funding to show our return on investment.
o. Ashley – Doesn’t have that in a spreadsheet but could be good for the committee to
track.
p. Bob asked if there is wiggle room in Williston Rd crosswalks to keep Mills instead of Pine
Tree.
8. Review options for Swift/Spear intersection& provide committee recommendations to the
Planning Commission –Dalila Hall (City Zoning Administrative Officer), Sai Sarepelli (CCRPC), &
Jason Charest (CCRPC)
a. Dalila introduced. Planning Commission asked them to present to our group. Jason
introduced.
b. Sai did presentation.
c. Jason detailed differences between roundabouts and rotaries.
d. Donna concerned about when the roundabout would reach capacity.
e. Dalila the task right now is to get the alternative decided to move forward as the
preferred option so that more analysis could be done.
f. Cathy did note that Spear Street is not always busy.
g. Donna noted that a lot of riders on Spear do not use the path and use the road instead.
h. Dalila wanting to make sure to have facilities for those cyclists that are not comfortable
as more confident would do what they want.
i. Sai continued with presentation
j. Amanda asked about crossing distances between shifted and roundabout and if they
played into the safety considerations.
k. Bob asked about when people cross at RRFB that traffic would back up into the
roundabout.
l. Jason – yes it would slow all users potentially. Also noted that the Shelburne Road
roundabout is started construction now so there would be a real world example of
RRFB’s at a roundabout.
m. Shawn – Seems like from an engineering standpoint that the roundabout was far
superior.
n. Dalila – Based on the criteria, roundabout ticks all the boxes aside from price. It is one
million more.
o. Matty asked about maintenance needs for roundabouts
p. Jason – Signals may need to be replaced at some point so signalized may have more
maintenance
q. Matty – What about plowing
r. Jason – Standard width of lanes so plowing would not be a problem.
s. Dalila – DPW did not flag it as a concern
t. Donna asked about truck traffic
u. Dalila – Being designed for safety of people who live in South Burlington, not through
traffic.
v. Bob – Traffic light right now gives breaks. Concerned that having steady flow through
roundabout may make it less gaps. Concerned about the 2.8 million price tag and would
rather do that at Lime Kiln if we were going to pick a roundabout.
w. Dalila – Justin is on the planning team so has the ability to discuss. Roundabout has least
amount of land acquisition.
x. Bob doesn’t think that the roundabout would fit. Concerned about how many cars can
fit before blocking
y. Jason – Depends on how far driveways are from roundabout on if there is constant flow.
z. Cathy – Moved to endorse roundabout
aa. Matty - Seconded
bb. Vote: 7 in favor – 2 opposed (Bob and Donna)
9. Update on the O’Brien Development -bike/ped connector to Hinesburg Rd
a. Cathy gave update about Old Farm Road. Not officially part of O’Brien Development.
Neighbors really against shared use path. Don’t want anything. Planning looked at west
side which may be restricted to 8ft and on east side the path would be significantly
closer to houses. Bob and Cathy walked last Friday with Marla. O’Brien’s current
proposal goes to Tilley along the back of the hill. Less steep on Old Farm Road than path
further to the east. Bike Ped Committee should support having a path on the east side
of Old Farm Road.
b. Bob – Biggest sticking point is neighbors’ trees which he thinks could be placated.
c. Donna asked if it was City ROW and why we should not just say we should do it.
d. Matty – Is it possible to reduce the width of the road?
e. Bob – Road is too narrow. There is 22ft of ROW on both sides.
f. Nic – Would not want to make entire path 8ft wide. Should still do 10ft wide with
narrower sections as needed.
g. Amanda – Does the DRB need an official motion?
h. Ashley – Stronger if we have a motion.
i. Donna – If there is ROW why cant we just do it?
j. Motion by Shawn recommend that it be on the east side of Old Farm Road and be 10ft
path with reasonable accommodation to be no less than 8ft as necessary.
k. Nic Seconded
l. All in favor
m. Bob asked if we should say in our recommendation why the other option is
unacceptable.
n. Ashley – In the minutes too if you want.
10. Initial planning for revised Work Plan & Annual Report
a. Addressed already. Running out of time so planning on skipping.
11. E-bike safety discussion (prompted from a concerned resident)
a. Skipped until next month
12. Review/Approve final Committee “City Council Charge” wording
a. Ashley had two comments from staff
i. Acknowledging role in reviewing studies
ii. Clarifying DRB role is done consistently with council or DRB policy. Add small
part
b. Bob added new and future paths
c. Shawn moved to approve new City Council charge wording with two additional notes
from Ashley and one from Bob.
d. Seconded by Amanda.
e. All in favor
f. Ashley noted would need council review and approval and may need a member to
present.
13. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, September 8, 2021 @ 5:30pm
14. Adjourned 8:02pm
Date: August 31, 2021
To: Andrew Gill, Director of Development, O’Brien Brothers
From: Corey Mack, PE
Subject: Hillside PUD at O’Brien Farm: Transportation Infrastructure Review
WCG has reviewed the proposed transportation network around lots 12, 13, and 17 of the
Hillside PUD at O’Brien Farm in South Burlington, VT. This memorandum reviews the March 6,
2020 site plan and transportation network, identifies potential conflicts in the design, and
recommends conceptual modifications to maximize the safety of people walking, biking, driving,
and otherwise traveling through the proposed development.
Background
The Hillside Planned Unit Development (PUD) at O’Brien Farm is a phased development with
Phase 1 under construction and partially occupied. The overall PUD has been permitted most
recently under South Burlington land use permit SD-20-40 and Act 250 permit 4C1106-4. The
site plan from March 6, 2020 is illustrated in Figure 1.
Lots 12, 13, and 17 are served by two Town Highways: O’Brien Farm Road (OFR), and Two
Brothers Drive (TBD).
A traffic impact assessment (TIA) for the development was prepared by Lamoureux &
Dickenson, dated June 16, 2020. The TIA did not evaluate internal traffic volumes within the
development. While the estimated average annual daily traffic (AADT) and design hour volume
(DHV) along OFR and TBD is not known, vehicle traffic circulating along these roads is
expected to primarily serve the local development traffic. With low traffic speeds, stop controlled
intersections, and indirect routes, these roadways are not expected to provide a time saving
short cut route or serve background (non-development) traffic.
The City of South Burlington has identified both OFR and TBD as bicycle boulevard routes, with
the intention to provide off-road bicycle infrastructure along both routes. The design presented
in Figure 1, dated March 6, 2020, continues the existing 8-foot wide bituminous asphalt shared
use path along O’Brien Farm Road along the proposed higher density, mixed use lots 12, 13
and 17. The shared use path is widened to 10-feet adjacent to on-street parallel parking.
While not depicted in the plans, the City has identified a similarly designed bituminous asphalt
shared use path facility as preferable on the northeast side of Two Brothers Drive.
Hillside PUD at O’Brien Farm: Transportation
Infrastructure Review
2
Figure 1: Hillside Phase 2 site plan and detail, dated March 6, 2020
Hillside PUD at O’Brien Farm: Transportation
Infrastructure Review
3
Identified Potential Concerns
Upon review of the current design of the bituminous asphalt shared use path, two potential
concerns have been identified.
Figure 2: Identified potential conflicts
1. High conflict mixing zones. The two-way shared use path is intended to serve both
people walking and people riding bicycles. In the area surrounding lots 12, 13, and 17,
the adjacent land use and streetside activity is different than other sections along OFR
or TBD. The shared use path is adjacent to parallel on-street parking, building
entrances, and mingling plazas. Through-bicyclists and the growing number of electric
assist bicycles are expected to be traveling at a relatively high speed. These higher-
speed cyclists will be in conflict with people loading and unloading cars, crossing the
path, and accessing and enjoying the buildings and streetscape.
2. Poor definition through commercial drives. The wide expanses of asphalt across the
commercial drives poorly define the shared-use walking / bicycling nature of the path
with the crossing traffic. There does not appear to be any texture or color treatments to
indicate vehicle / pedestrian / cyclist crossing conflicts.
Hillside PUD at O’Brien Farm: Transportation
Infrastructure Review
4
Figure 3: Conceptual cross section of March 6, 2020 proposed bituminous asphalt shared use path
Potential solutions may include a combination of:
• Change of surface material of shared use path. By placing a different material, the
contrast in texture, color, and joints may cue bicyclists to the different, higher density and
more urban land use. This option could be combined with ramps and appropriate
markings and sigs in advance of Lots 12, 13, and 17 to allow through- and more
confident cyclists onto the low volume and slow speed street.
• In addition, provide a buffer zone for pedestrian loading and unloading into the
parallel parking aisle. This buffer zone will allow people to load and unload into
vehicles without cluttering or blocking the through path. The buffer zone should be
marked or contrasting to identify it separately from the shared-use path. The zone may
also be used for street furnishings or landscaping, such as streetlights, benches, trash /
recycling / compost collection bins, or other appropriate furnishings.
Figure 4: Conceptual cross section of O'Brien Farm Road with contrasting shared use path and parallel parking
loading zone buffer with on-road shared lanes, within the existing right-of-way
Hillside PUD at O’Brien Farm: Transportation
Infrastructure Review
5
WCG considered alternatives that provide separate raised dedicated two-way bicycle lanes
(cycle track) in addition to pedestrian sidewalk. These alternatives would also require distinct
surface treatments to indicate walking / directional cycling, and loading zones at adjacent
parallel parking. The additional width required for the two-way bicycle lanes could come from
parking aisle for no change to the overall hardscape width.
Since the right-of-way for the street system has been dedicated, two-way protected bicycle
lanes would require removal of one or both lanes of on street parallel parking. It is our
professional opinion that on-street parking is an important feature in the Hillside neighborhood
for this roadway classification. Removal of the parallel parking lane is not preferable to the
overall character of the street:
• The parked vehicles in the parallel parking lane provides texture to the street, creating a
more active streetscape and providing visual cues to motorists to slow down.
• The parallel parking lane provides on-street support for residential and commercial
parking demands, allowing more frequent turn-over parking demand to avoid internal
parking lot circulation.
Recommended Modifications to the March 6, 2020 Design
The alternative surface treatment described on page 4 is recommended with the following
features:
1. In advance of the parallel parking aisle on the northwest side of O’Brien Farm Road,
recommend the surface material transition from bituminous asphalt concrete to a
preferred 10-foot (minimum 8-foot) wide Portland cement concrete (PCC) sidewalk
material in a traditional grey color with broom finish, with a consistent and visible control
joint pattern.
2. Adjacent to the parallel parking aisle, recommend placing a minimum 3-foot wide
pedestrian loading buffer zone. Buffer zone should be a contrasting color, preferably
integral to the material (e.g. colored concrete). Buffer zone should be integrated with
street lighting and landscaping, if possible; landscaping should be appropriate for the
location and not encourage root heaving. Separately poured concrete surfaces should
be doweled into the broom finished concrete to ensure uniform settling.
3. Recommend the PCC shared use path surface includes regularly spaced contrasting
colored bands (same color and material as the pedestrian buffer zone), doweled into the
traditional broom finished panels; the contrasting color and surface roughness will
provide additional queues to wheeled travelers of the pedestrian / cycling mixing zone.
4. Recommend the preferred 10-foot width (minimum 8-foot width) of the concrete walk
with contrasting bands are consistently applied along the length of the walk adjacent to
Lots 12, 13, and 17; and along Two Brothers Drive in front of the plaza entrance to Lot
12.
Hillside PUD at O’Brien Farm: Transportation
Infrastructure Review
6
5. Consider providing ramps and appropriate markings to allow higher speed and through
bicycles to transition to / from roadway prior to PCC banded walkway section.
Design Precedent Review
There are several installations of concrete shared use paths in the area, including in South
Burlington City Center and the UVM / UVM-MC campus.
Figure 5: Examples of concrete shared use paths, including along Market Street, South Burlington (left) and
Colchester Avenue, Burlington (right)
Hillside PUD at O’Brien Farm: Transportation
Infrastructure Review
7
Figure 6: Concrete shared use path along the north side (left) and south side (right) of Market Street in City Center,
South Burlington; note diagonal scoring
The recommended concrete shared use paths are consistent with local off-road shared use path
design precedents and national standards.
If ramps are provided to encourage higher speed cyclists to bike on the road in shared lanes,
the ramps should be integrated with appropriate markings and infrastructure to safely merge the
bicycles into the traffic stream.
KEY QTY. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING MATURE HTAR10Acer rubrum 'Redpointe'RED MAPLE2.5-3" CAL.AS SHOWN40'-70'CO4Celtis occidentalisHACKBERRY2.5-3" CAL.AS SHOWN30'-40'GT5Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Shademaster'SHADEMASTER HONEYLOCUST2.5-3" CAL.AS SHOWN45'GTb5Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Shademaster'SHADEMASTER HONEYLOCUST3"-3.5" CAL.AS SHOWN45'QR7Quercus rubraRED OAK2.5-3" CAL.AS SHOWN50'-60'UA5Ulmus 'Morton' AccoladeACCOLADE ELM2.5-3" CAL.AS SHOWN50'-60'DL19Diervilla lonicera 'Copper'COPPER DWARF HONEYSUCKLE#34' O.C.2'-3'PF25Potentilla fruticosa 'Abbottswood'ABBOTTSWOOD BUSH CINQUEFOIL#53' O.C.3'RA14Rhus aromatica 'Gro Low'GROW LOW SUMAC#34'' O.C.6" - 18" RR17Rosa rugosaRUGOSA ROSE#54' O.C.4'-6'HH186Hemerocallis 'Happy Returns'HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILY#112" O.C.24"-36"HR122Hemerocallis 'Rosy Returns'ROSY RETURNS DAYLILY#115" O.C.24"-36"HN51Hemerocallis 'Night Embers'NIGHT EMBERS DAYLILY#118" O.C.24"-36"P L A N T S C H E D U L ET R E E SS H R U B SP E R E N N I A L S
KEY QTY. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING MATURE HTAR10Acer rubrumRED MAPLE2.5-3" CAL.AS SHOWN40'-70'CO4Celtis occidentalisHACKBERRY2.5-3" CAL.AS SHOWN30'-40'GT5Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Shademaster'SHADEMASTER HONEYLOCUST2.5-3" CAL.AS SHOWN45'GTb5Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Shademaster'SHADEMASTER HONEYLOCUST3"-3.5" CAL.AS SHOWN45'QR7Quercus rubraRED OAK2.5-3" CAL.AS SHOWN50'-60'UA5Ulmus 'Morton' AccoladeACCOLADE ELM2.5-3" CAL.AS SHOWN50'-60'DL19Diervilla lonicera 'Copper'COPPER DWARF HONEYSUCKLE#34' O.C.2'-3'PF25Potentilla fruticosa 'Abbottswood'ABBOTTSWOOD BUSH CINQUEFOIL#53' O.C.3'RA14Rhus aromatica 'Gro Low'GROW LOW SUMAC#34'' O.C.6" - 18" RR17Rosa rugosaRUGOSA ROSE#54' O.C.4'-6'HH186Hemerocallis 'Happy Returns'HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILY#112" O.C.24"-36"HR122Hemerocallis 'Rosy Returns'ROSY RETURNS DAYLILY#115" O.C.24"-36"HN51Hemerocallis 'Night Embers'NIGHT EMBERS DAYLILY#118" O.C.24"-36"P L A N T S C H E D U L ET R E E SS H R U B SP E R E N N I A L S
Bike/Ped Staff Update – 9/8/2021
• Bike/Ped Improvements CIP: If the Committee has any recommendations for the Bike/Ped
Improvement CIP (P4P), please let staff know in the next month. Staff will be working on the CIP
and hoping to bring a draft to the Committee for review in October/November. Any Committee
requests need to be gathered and incorporated into the CIP before it is sent to Council, which is
currently looking to be December 3rd.
• Annual Report & Annual Work Plan: The Committee should begin planning for the completion
of its annual report and work plan. These should be submitted in the next month. The new
priorities and strategies planning process is going to replace the existing work plan, so
Committee recommendations for that process should be submitted to staff for incorporation
into the priorities spreadsheet.
• Climate Action Task Force: The Committee has been asked by Council to nominate someone to
serve on the Climate Action Task Force.
Penny for Paths Projects Updates – 9/8/2021
• Jug Handle Sidewalk: This project is now considered complete and will be removed from the
next version of the CIP.
• Allen Road Rec Path: Construction is almost completed. Paving is expected the week of 8/29.
Remaining work includes connection of pedestrian signals and crosswalk striping.
• South Dorset Street Shared Use Path: The preliminary plans received approval from VTrans, so
the engineer is engaged in drafting the Right-of-Way plan. Once VTrans approves the Right-of-
Way plans, the team can begin the Right-of-Way process, which will include conversations with
landowners about potential impacts to adjacent properties.
• Underwood Parcel Shared Use Path: The project team is preparing for a Public Forum on
September 23rd here at City Hall. This forum will have a hybrid option, and the in-person
location will now be the auditorium instead of the senior center. Please stay tuned for a formal
Committee invite to attend and participate in this forum. The goal of the forum is to gather
public feedback on the concept for the site. We would like to proceed with the permitting
process after the forum is complete.
• Kimball Culvert & Bike/Ped Infrastructure: Construction on this new infrastructure is underway.
• RRFB Upgrades & Dorset Street Barriers: DPW is still moving both of these projects forward.
New RRFBs have all been purchased for installation.
• Twin Oaks/Kennedy Drive Crosswalk: The City is poised to put this project out to bid over the
winter, with the expectation that it is built in the spring/summer of next year. We have until
October to complete this project.
• Spear Street Phase 1: Staff will be sending a memo to Counil on 9/7 to authorize negotiation and
signature of a contract with Hoyle Tanner to begin design/engineering work for this project. The
hope is they can get going on this work by mid/end of September. As we embark on this
project, it would be helpful if the Committee could give feedback regarding the placement of the
shared use path along Spear Street. There is significantly more room on the east side of the
street than the west. The scoping study preferred alternative indicated a path on the west side.
Staff would appreciate any feedback from the Committee on the location of the path by the end
of the meeting tonight.
• Hinesburg Road Crosswalks: As noted at the last meeting, staff received the 1111 permit from
VTrans for crosswalks to be implemented at Ruth Street, Prouty Parkway, and the Awasiwi Trail
Crossing. The DPW is putting these crosswalks into their schedule for implementation, and
construction is still likely this fall.
• Williston Road Crosswalk Project: Staff will be discussing how best to move this forward in the
coming weeks. It is likely that we will need a design/engineering team to put the details
together that we need to implement any crosswalks here.
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
To: South Burlington City Council
From: Jessie Baker, City Manager
Leadership Team
Date: August 10, 2021
Re: Policy Priorities and Strategies Process Planning
In a council-manager form of government, staff must implement the City Council’s policies and priorities. I
recommend that annually staff and Council spend time together ensuring that we are all making clear and
intentional decisions about the policy priorities of the City and the implementation strategies we will use to
achieve this vision. This should include engagement of the City’s professional staff (“Leadership Team”), the
City’s policy boards and commissions, and the Council. My understanding is that the commissions are familiar
with annual workplans and in previous years the Council has done its own workplan. The goal is to build upon
these past models in order to produce a city-wide workplan for the Council, staff, and commissions.
In this document, I will review some concepts, review the resources already in place, and outline a process we
could use to come to a shared workplan over the next few months. Over time, I recommend we undertake
this process annually (in June) to ensure that the Council, staff, and commissions’ work is best aligned to meet
community goals.
Roles and Responsibilities
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
Current Policy Direction
The Council has already approved a series of policy documents for the City. Primarily, those include the
annual budget and the City’s Comprehensive Plan as well as ongoing resolutions and active votes. This
process is not meant to rehash past policy positions but organize and prioritize them with other positions and
articulate concrete steps towards implementation.
As an organizing principle, I recommend we start with ensuring we maintain our core government services and
look to the principles outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The City's 2016 Comprehensive Plan lays out four
guiding principles (or policy statements) for the community. It states:
Here and into the Future, South Burlington is...
• Affordable and Community Strong - Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for our
residents and visitors.
• Walkable - Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure.
• Green & Clean - Emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability of a clean and green South
Burlington
• Opportunity Oriented - Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and
statewide community.
As the Leadership Team puts together a set of recommendations for the Council to consider, we will also take
into consideration:
• Policy directions provided through past Council Resolutions
• The objectives and strategies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan
• Regulatory requirements we know are on the horizon for specific service areas
• The Annual Workplans developed by the committees and commissions. As we get up to speed this
year, this will be reviewed during committee meetings in August and September.
Prioritization Process and Timeline
There are almost unlimited ways municipal government (elected official and professional staff) can positively
impact community. Therefore, with these policy priorities in place, it’s imperative that we think strategically
about how best to implement these and how we allocate our finite resources to those ends. I recommend we
work together to build out a shared workplan that follows this model:
Role of Council
"This is the vision for our community"
Policy Area Description Related Policy Statement Source
Role of City Manager and Leadership Team
"This is how we are accomplishing this vision."
Implementation Strategy Description Responsible Teams Timeline
Role of City Committee
"This is how our resident committees can help."
Committee Action
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
The full workplan will be organized horizontally. See the attached pdf for a full spreadsheet in an easier to
view format.
Once built-out and approved by the Council, staff would provide monthly updates to the Council and use this
as a foundation for the annual budget process. Each year, Commission’s workplans would be aligned to these
priorities and, annually, the Council and Leadership Team would come back together to check-in and update
these shared expectations. To start this process, I recommend the following timeline:
Date Task Responsible Party
August 4, 2021 Leadership Team reviews process Jessie & Leadership Team
August 17, 2021 Council reviews process and provides
feedback to the City Manager
Council & Jessie
August 18 –
September, 2021
Leadership Team builds out FY22 Policy
Priorities & Strategies Recommendations
Jessie & Leadership Team
September 7, 2021 Council approves process and requests
Commissions provide feedback
Council & Jessie
August, September
and early October
2021
Commissions discuss past and future work
and provide summaries to the Council – This
will also serve as Annual Report submittals
and CIP requests.
Staff Liaisons &
Commissions
Mid October 2021 Proposed Policy Priorities and Strategies
Recommendations finalized
Jessie & Leadership Team
End of October 2021
(10/23? 10/30?)
Council & Leadership Team Retreat to review
and prioritize policy priorities and strategies
for FY22.
Agenda for the day to include:
• Welcome and overview – Jessie
• Representation of the community we serve
– Jessie
• Area review by policy – Leadership Team
• Brainstorming exercise – All
• Prioritization exercise – Council
• Wrap up and Gratitude – Jessie
Council & Leadership Team
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
Date Task Responsible Party
November 15, 2021 FY22 Policy Priorities and Strategies approved
by Council
Jessie & Council
Starting in January Monthly updates on Priorities to Council Jessie & Leadership Team
April 2022 Process starts again
June 2022 FY23 Policy Priorities and Strategies are
approved by Council
Policy Implementation Strategy
Area Description Related Policy Statement Source Description Responsible Teams Timeline FY22 Reporting Committee Action
Affordable and Community Strong Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity
for our residents and visitors.
Comp Plan
Walkable Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe
transportation infrastructure.
Comp Plan
Green & Clean Emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability of
a clean and green South Burlington
Comp Plan
Climate Change Resolution Resolution
Opportunity Oriented Being a supportive and engaged member of the
larger regional and statewide community.
Comp Plan
Role of City Committee
"This is how our resident committees can inform policy
and help implement policy."
City of South Burlington
FY22 Policy Priorities & Strategies
IN PROGRESS *** DRAFT ** DRAFT ** DRAFT*** IN PROGRESS
Role of Council Role of City Manager and Leadership Team
"This is the vision for our community""This is how we are accomplishing this vision."
Policy Implementation Strategy
Area Description Related Policy Statement Source Description Responsible Teams Timeline FY22 Reporting Committee Action
Role of City Committee
"This is how our resident committees can inform policy
and help implement policy."
City of South Burlington
FY22 Policy Priorities & Strategies
IN PROGRESS *** DRAFT ** DRAFT ** DRAFT*** IN PROGRESS
Role of Council Role of City Manager and Leadership Team
"This is the vision for our community""This is how we are accomplishing this vision."
Core Municipal Services FY22 Budget
FY22 Budget
Administration
GENERAL FUND
BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURE
BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTS CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:STATUS: Part of FY'19 UPWP CCRPC scoping study. Review by Bike/Ped Committee delayed due to COVID-19. An application for the Vtrans Transportation Alternatives grant is being prepared and will be submitted November 2020. If this project is awarded funding, the timeline will shift up.Total Estimated Revenues:
Total Estimated Savings:
Department Contact:Ashley Parker
Changes from FY 2019-2028 CIP:
SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 30 FY 31 Total:
Allen Rd. Shared Use Path (Upper)270 - - - - - - - - - 270
Airport Parkway (Phase 1)186 - - - - - - - - - 186
Kimball Avenue Shared Use Path (Phase 1)180 - - - - - - - - - 180
Williston Road Crosswalk Locations 150 100 - - - - - - - - 250
S. Dorset Street Shared Use Path 80 350 360 - - - - - - - 790
Hinesburg Road Crosswalk Locations 60 - - - - - - - - - 60
Kennedy Dr/Twin Oaks Crosswalk 40 - - - - - - - - - 40
City Rec Path Wayfinding Project 10 - - - - - - - - - 10
Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements (Phase 1)- 200 250 200 - - - - - - 650
Queen City Park Road Sidewalk - 50 50 - - - - - - - 100
Kimball Avenue Shared Use Path (Phase 2)- - 60 240 100 - - - - - 400
Hinesburg Rd Bike Facilities - - 50 50 150 250 - - - - 500
Shelburne Rd Crosswalk Imp - - 23 93 - - - - - - 116
Allen Rd. Sidewalks (Lower)- - - 167 140 - - - - - 307
Vale to Spear/Swift Streets Path - - - - 558 - - - - - 558
Airport Parkway (Phase 2)- - - - 100 100 300 300 - - 800
Shelburne Road Ped/Bike Facilities - - - - 58 289 231 - - - 578
Queen City Park Road Shared Use Path - - - - 50 250 - - - - 300
Spear Street/UVM Bike/Ped Infrastructure - - - - - - 150 300 340 - 790
Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements (Phase 2)- - - - - - 50 100 300 - 450
-
TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:976 700 793 750 1,156 889 731 700 640 - 7,335
The BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENT CIP projects (not including those listed as part of the City Center, Open Space and Roads CIP that are listed separately)
address identified facility needs in the City's bicycle and pedestrian transportation and recreational infrastructure.
Puplic Hearing FY 2022-2031 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT Page 68 of 144
DRAFT - Project Priority Review - Draft updated 09-01-21.xlsx
Project Name Ranking Description
Planned
"Spending"
Start Per CIP
Expected
Completion
Date
Scoping
Study
Completed
Present
Cost
Estimate
CIP Projects - Currently in Process:
Allen Rd. Shared Use Path (Upper)Can be
deleted Connect Baycrest Rec Path to South Village Rec Path including Spear crosswalk 2021 season Yes
Kimball Avenue Shared Use Path (Phase 1)Can be
deleted
Rec Path over Muddy Brook conduit at Williston town line to connect to Technology
Park Rec Path 2021 season Yes
Williston Road Crosswalk Locations - Elsom & Davis
Pkwys May be combined with Davis Parkway 2022 season Yes
Williston Road Crosswalk Locations - near Mills Ave Connects to shared-use path to Chamberlain neighborhoods and elementary school
on north side and to pharmacy, shops and restaurants on south side.2022 season Yes 125K
S. Dorset Street Shared Use Path Parallel to Dorset St between Old Cross Rd and Sadie Lane filling the gap in the existing
path system 2023 season Yes
Hinesburg Road Crosswalk Locations Includes crosswalks at Ruth, Prouty Pkwy & the Awasiwi Trail 2021 season Yes
Kennedy Dr/W. Twin Oaks Terrace Crosswalk Connects to bus stops and The Edge Sports facility across busy road 2021 season Yes
City Rec Path Wayfinding Project Design and installation of wayfinding signage 2021 season?N/A
Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements Shared-use Path
(Phase 1)
Connects the rec path at the U.S. Forest Service to the rec paths at Songbird Rd and
Swift St FY 2021 2024 season? Yes
Thomas H. Hubbard (Underwood) Recreation & Natural
Area Listed in Open Space CIP - Rec Path between South Pointe and Nowland Farm FY 2021?2022 season? N/A $90K of P4P
RRFB Upgrades Review if project can be completed by target date with City resources or if it should
be subcontracted out and if additional funding would be needed.2022 season N/A
Review if project can be completed by target date with City resources or if it should Dorset Street Barriers Review if project can be completed by target date with City resources or if it should
be subcontracted out and if additional funding would be needed.2022 season N/A
FY 22 Listed CIP Projects & New Projects - Not yet in Progress:
Crosswalk on Dorset Street at Songbird Road 1
Critical link for planned rec path on Spear from US Forest Service path to Swift Street
for people to use the Songbird Road path to get to City Center, the middle and high
schools & Veterans Memorial Park.
FY 2023 FY 2024
No - but may
not need one $35K
Intersection Improvements to the Airport Parkway/Lime
Kiln Intersection (Road Project)N/A Project from Roads CIP - Overall intersection improvements per 2006 Road Safety
Audit Review and 2014 Sidewalk Gaps Study FY 2023 FY 2025 Yes $70K of P4P
Queen City Park Road Sidewalk 2
Add about 600 feet of sidewalk along Queen City Park Road, connecting the Water
District with Central Ave. (Based on outcome of scoping study, this may end up
being combined into the shared-use path project - See next project)
FY 2023 FY 20245 In Process $100K
Queen City Park Road Shared-use Path 2 Construction of a shared use path from the Shelburne Road to the entrance of the
Burlington Shared Use Path.FY 20263 FY 20275 In Process $3200K
Shelburne Rd Crosswalk Imp at Queen City Parkway Can be
deleted
Relocate and mark new crosswalk, and install new signaling at the intersection of
Queen City Park Rd. and Shelburne Rd. (This project is supposed to be completed as
part of the VTrans Lighting Project in Septerber of 2021 based on information
received from CCRPC and VTrans and may not need to be on the CIP list.)
FY 2024 FY 2025 In Process $116K
Page 1 of 4
DRAFT - Project Priority Review - Draft updated 09-01-21.xlsx
Project Name Ranking Description
Planned
"Spending"
Start Per CIP
Expected
Completion
Date
Scoping
Study
Completed
Present
Cost
Estimate
Kimball Avenue Potash Brook "Bridge" and Shared-use
Path Connections (Phase 2)3
Originally to construct rec path between Technology Park path and Kennedy Drive
path, but due to O'Brien Eastview Development, City only needs bridge over Potash
Brook to connect Technology Park Path to the O'Brien Path.
FY 2024 FY 2026 No ~$200K
Crosswalk on Shelburne Rd at Brewer Parkway & New
Hannaford Entrance 4 Need east/west facing, pedestrian-activated, crosswalk across busy Shelburne Rd.
Distances between nearby crosswalks are too far. Will need VTrans approval, etc.FY 2024 FY 2025
No - but may
not need one $50K
Crosswalk on Patchen Rd 4
Priority crosswalk at south end of Jaycee Park stemming from 2016 Chamberlin
Neighborhood Study. Not sure if the "Study" would serve as a sufficient scoping
report for grant purposes. If not, one should be done.
FY 2024 FY 2025
No - but may
not need one $35K
Crosswalk on Spear Street at South Pointe Dr and
Sidewalk to Pheasant Way 5
This crosswalk links neighborhoods together including the new Long Family property
development. It also provides residents living on and off of Pheasant Way a
connection to the south side of the new Thomas Hubbard Park (formerly
Underwood Park). This project includes a 350' length of sidewalk on west side of
Spear.
FY 2025 FY 2026
No - but may
not need one $75K
Crosswalk on Dorset St. at Park Rd and Sidewalk to
connect to Nicklaus Circle 5 Needs foot path or sidewalk to connect with Nicklaus Circle. May require
partnership with HOA for funding trail/ sidewalk.FY 2025 FY 2026
No - but may
not need one $75K
Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg Road Shared-
use Path 6
Path needed to connect to Hinesburg Road either directly or via Landon Road
or Fox Run Lane. All three alternatives and perhaps others should be
analyzed.
FY 2025 FY 2028 No $700K
Vale to Spear/Swift Streets Path through Spear
Meadows to Elm/Spear Street Intersection N/A This is the Developer funded path for the Spear Meadows housing development. This
path will not reach Swift Street. (see below) N/A FY 2025 N/A $0Meadows to Elm/Spear Street Intersection N/A path will not reach Swift Street. (see below) N/A FY 2025 N/A $0
Spear Street Shared-use Path - Connection from Swift
Street Shared Use Path to proposed Spear Meadows
Development
7
The Developer of Spear Meadows is breaking ground sometime this fall and there
will need to be a connection from this development's rec path to the ones at Swift
Street. Depending upon scoping results, this may be done via either the east side of
Spear Street down 1,000ft to the proposed entrance road (Elm Street) or by
circumnavigating the UVM corn field by running a path east on the south side of
Swift and then along the east border of the UVM field to meet up with the Spear
Meadow path behind the east most townhomes (or otherwise).
FY 2025 FY 2028 No $300K
Shelburne Road Ped/Bike Facilities Shared-use Path 8
Now being proposed to be an asphalt the east side of road along Shelburne Road
from Imperial Drive to MacIntosh Avenue to expand sidewalk similar to what was
done on Dorset Street by the High and Middle Schools. There may need to be some
utility work to be done prior to paving.
FY 2026 FY 2028 Yes? $578K???
Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements (Phase 2) - This
project may not need to be listed as the widening was
listed as a Complete Streets Road Project in FY22 CIP
9?
Design and construct a sidewalk Widen Spear St to allow for 6-foot, on-road, bike
facilities with 1-foot (double yellow), vehicle lane separation from the Swift Street
intersection to the Shelburne Town line.
FY 20285
Matched to
Road Project
Timing
FY 203027 Yes $450K
Hinesburg Rd Bike Facilities Shared-use Path 10 Rec path on west side of road to replace sidewalk between Williston Road and
Kennedy Drive FY 20246 FY 2027 Yes $500K
Page 2 of 4
DRAFT - Project Priority Review - Draft updated 09-01-21.xlsx
Project Name Ranking Description
Planned
"Spending"
Start Per CIP
Expected
Completion
Date
Scoping
Study
Completed
Present
Cost
Estimate
Airport Parkway Sidewalk (Phase 1) - Deferred Due to
High Cost to Benefit Ratio
11 or When
Large
Grant
Avail.
Extend the existing sidewalk just past Kirby Road to the intersection of Berard Drive
and Airport Parkway. Phase 1 also includes adding on-road bike lanes along Airport
Parkway through the same project area.
FY 2027 FY 2029 Yes ~562K
Lower Allen Rd. Sidewalk or Narrow Shared-use Path 12 Preliminarily agreed to be a asphalt path wider than a sidewalk FY 20257 FY 20269 Yes $307K
Airport Parkway Sidewalk (Phase 2)13
Phase 2 is a continuation of the work completed in the Phase 1 Airport Parkway
project. This will connect existing sidewalk along Airport Parkway at Berard Drive with
existing infrastructure at Lime Kiln Road. It will also look at how to incorporate
bike/ped infrastructure at the intersection of Airport Parkway, Lime Kiln, and Ethan
Allen Dr.
FY 20268 FY 202930 Yes $800K
Spear Street/UVM Bike/Ped Infrastructure Shared-use
Path
Can be
deleted
Design and construction of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along Spear Street,
between UVM's Athletic Facility and Route 2.FY 2028 FY 2030 Yes $790K
Crosswalk on Hinesburg Rd. at Dubois Dr/Butler Dr 14
Already has sidewalks on both sides. Easy in terms of engineering, but speed limit is
currently 45MPH. Needs state review and RRFB at least!FY 2029 FY 2030
No - but may
not need one $15K
Crosswalk on Allen Road at Ascension Church 15
Connect church entrance to sidewalk near the Harbor Village Senior Community
buildings. Need RRFBs and landings. Will ultimately intersect with Lower Allen
Road path/sidewalk project.
FY 2029 FY 2030
No - but may
not need one $25K
Additional Shared-use Paths to be Considered for Future CIP:Additional Shared-use Paths to be Considered for Future CIP:
Hinesburg Road (Phase 2)Don't List From Kennedy Drive south to Cheesefactory Road No ~$3 MM
Airport Drive/Airport Parkway Don't List From Williston Road out to Route 15 at Colchester Town Line Yes ~$2.8MM
Additional Crosswalks to be Considered for Future CIP:
St John Vianney When-
ever*State recommending better signage in lieu of RRFBs that BPC wanted N/A $15K
Wright Court When-
ever*Left out of 2021 build above Yes $25K
Cider Mill Dr Where rec path crosses road near mail boxes. Just needs paint
Done by DPW
Spring 2021!!N/A
Davis Parkway/Pine Tree Terrace Don't List Maybe done in conjunction with Elsom Parkway crosswalk Yes
Crosswalks on Laurel Hill Dr. & Hannaford Drive at
Shelburne Road
When-
ever*
These crosswalks are presently on the Safety Recommendations list and on the
Scoping priority List ???????????No
Crosswalks on UMall South Entrance & Garden St. at
Dorset Street
When-
ever*
These crosswalks are presently on the Safety Recommendations list and on the
Scoping priority List ???????????No
Additional Sidewalks to be Considered for Future CIP:
Page 3 of 4
DRAFT - Project Priority Review - Draft updated 09-01-21.xlsx
Project Name Ranking Description
Planned
"Spending"
Start Per CIP
Expected
Completion
Date
Scoping
Study
Completed
Present
Cost
Estimate
Proctor Ave around to Fairmont Place When-
ever*
On north side of Proctor across from entrance to Rice High School to protect
pedestrians walking around this dangerous curve. The preset south-side sidewalk
veers towards the high school and does not carry around the curve to Fairmont Place.
No
Williston Road When-
ever*
Three short sections of 500, 850 and 370ft = 1720ft create gaps in the full length of
sidewalk east of the end of Kennedy Drive in front of Manny's Auto body, Vibrant
Church and PJ Mazda.
No
Allen Road (Lower) - see above
Don't List -
Hoping for
Narrow
Rec Path
A 500ft length of sidewalk on lower Allen Road could link the end of the sidewalk at
Harbor Village Senior Facility to the sidewalk in front of the apartment building at 152
Allen Road
No, only
scoped as a
path
Kimball Avenue When-
ever*
A 720ft gap in the sidewalk on the north side of Kimball Ave from the U.S. Citizen and
Immigration Building east to a spot across from the start of the shared-use path at
Technology Park
No
*Whenever - Meaning that project to be completed when DPW staff can build it themselves
Page 4 of 4
09-01-21 Draft – For Discussion Purposes Only
Notes to Changes for FY23-32 CIP Project List from
Project Priority Review Subgroup – Also See Accompanying Spreadsheet
Remove from the FY22-31 CIP Listing:
• Allen Rd. Shared Use Path (Upper) – construction anticipated to be complete
• Kimball Avenue Shared Use Path (Phase 1) – construction anticipated to be complete
• Shelburne Road Crosswalk Improvement – supposed to be done as part of the VTrans
Lighting Project this year based on information received from CCRPC and VTrans.
• Spear Street/UVM Bike/Ped Infrastructure – no longer seen as necessary in light of all
the other more important projects and the fact that there is an acceptable workaround,
shared-use path for student and UVM Medical Center staff to bike to the north side of
Williston Road.
• Spear Street Widening Bike Lane Project (Phase 2) – now that this project no longer calls
for a sidewalk, it may not be needed as this now becomes a “Complete Streets” Road
project and is already listed in the Roads CIP “owned” by Justin Rabidoux.
Changes to the Projects Listed on the FY22-31 CIP Listing that are Currently in Progress:
• Add a separate project for the crosswalk near Mills Ave. across Williston Road to be
built in FY22
• Rename Spear Street Phase 1 project to be more descriptive as shown
• Move the Airport Parkway sidewalk start date back to FY 2027 and end date to FY 2029
as the project’s cost/benefit is seen as less favorable than other projects. This will be
funded opportunistically when a large grant opportunity arises and there are no other
more important projects to be funded at the time.
• Change the name of the Underwood Project in the Open Space CIP and confirm start
and completion dates
• Determine if extra funding is needed to pay for subcontracting if the DPW is unable to
staff the safety projects for the RRFB Upgrades and Dorset Street Barriers
• Overall, check costs, funding sources and timing of all these projects based on recent
actual costs and engineering design cost estimates
FY 22 Listed CIP Projects & New Projects that are not yet in Progress:
• The subcommittee next ranked the project listed in the FY 22-31 CIP listing that had yet
to start with new projects that had yet to be included in the CIP and ranked them in
order of the subcommittee’s perceived priority.
• The projects that are new to the CIP are listed entirely in red font.
09-01-21 Draft – For Discussion Purposes Only
• The projects that had been on the previous year’s CIP list are shown in black font except
where the subcommittee wanted to make changes to the previous year’s Project Name,
Description and Dates.
• Insert a crosswalk across Dorset Street at Songbird Rd. to be timed to be completed
when the Spear Street Phase 1 project is completed if not before.
• Combine the two Queen City Park Road projects into one project stating
Sidewalk/Shared-Use Path as it may be a combination of the two. Change the start
funding date until 2023 and the end date to 2025
• The #3 priority project, Kimball Ave Potash Brook “Bridge” with Shared-use Connections,
assumes that we no longer need to list the portion of the Kimball Ave Shared-use Path
being built by the O’Brien Brothers from the eastern border of their land near the
Potash Brook west to Kennedy Drive. Paul Conner should have input on this.
• The subcommittee listed two crosswalks each for priority #4 and #5 as it was thought
that two crosswalks would be a reasonably sized project for a contractor to bid upon.
Perhaps, it should be all four of these projects as a bundle.
• The Vale to Spear project is developer funded and therefore is not ranked. The Planning
Department anticipates that they will break ground in September 2021 and the timing
of this project should be driven by the developer’s estimate. However, it may not need
to be listed at all in the CIP as it is no longer a project that falls under the proposed
Transportation or Recreation Impact Fees funding mechanism (i.e., we do not list this
O’Brien paths). Paul Conner should have input on this.
• The #9 priority project entitled Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements (Phase 2) may no
longer need to be listed now that the Committee and Justin agreed that there would be
no sidewalk on the full length of Spear from Swift Street to the Shelburne town line.
Justin has the widening listed in his Road Projects CIP. Need to confirm with Justin.
Additional Shared-use Path, Crosswalk and Sidewalk Projects to be Considered for a Future
CIP:
• To be completed internally by DPW staff as available or to be added to a future CIP
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Priority Scoping Projects Updated 09-01-21
Location Detailed Description Priority
(Please note that some of the projects listed below may not need a Scoping Report to proceed)
(Note: Some Projects are Grouped by Color for Scoping Efficiency)
Kimball Avenue Potash Brook
"Bridge" Shared-use Path
Path on south side of Kimball over Potash Brook that connects the west end of Technology Park shared-use path to the
east end of the path planned by O'Brien Brothers that will lead to Kennedy Drive. 1
Swift Street Extension Shared-
use Path
Path needed to connect to Hinesburg Road either directly or via Landon Road or Fox Run Lane. All three alternatives and
perhaps others should be analyzed.2
Crosswalk on Dorset Street at
Songbird
Critical link for planned rec path on Spear from US Forest Service path to Swift Street for people to use the Songbird Road
path to get to City Center, the middle and high schools & Veterans Memorial Park.3
Crosswalk & Sidewalk on Spear
Street at South Pointe
This crosswalk links neighborhoods together including the new Long Family property development. It also provides
residents living on and off of Pheasant Way a connection to the south side of the new Thomas Hubbard Park (formerly
Underwood Park). This project includes a 350' length of sidewalk to connect to Pheasant Way.
3
Crosswalk on Patchen Rd at
south end of Jaycee Park
Priority crosswalk stemming from 2016 Chamberlin Neighborhood Study. Not sure if the "Study" would serve as a
sufficient scoping report for grant purposes. If not, one should be done.3
Crosswalk & Sidewalk on Dorset
St at Park Rd to connect to
Nicklaus Circle
Needs foot path or sidewalk to connect with Nicklaus Circle. May require HOA to fund trail/sidewalk on private property 3
Crosswalk on Shelburne Rd at
Brewer Parkway & New
Hannaford's Entrance
Need east/west facing, pedestrian-activated, crosswalk across busy Shelburne Rd. Distances between nearby crosswalks
are too far. Will need Vtrans approval, etc.4
Crosswalks on Laurel Hill Dr. &
Hannaford Drive at Shelburne
Road
Need north/south facing, pedestrian-activated, crosswalks on both sides of Shelburne Rd. to get pedestrians safely across
Hannaford Drive from the Burger King side to the People's United Bank Side and across Laurel Hill Dr. from the Burlington
Bagel Bakery side to the Credit Union side. May need Vtrans approval.
4
Crosswalk on Hinesburg Rd. at
Dubois Dr/Butler Dr
Already has sidewalks on both sides of intersection. Easy in terms of engineering but speed limit is currently 45 mph in
this area. Will need Vtrans approval, RRFBs, etc.4
Crosswalks on UMall South
Entrance & Garden St. at Dorset
Street
Need north/south facing, pedestrian-activated, crosswalk lights to safely cross from Healthy Living to Trader Joe's on east
side of Dorset St. and from former Sears Auto Center to Xfinity/Comcast on west side of Dorset St.4
Page 1 of 2
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Priority Scoping Projects Updated 09-01-21
Location Detailed Description Priority
Sidewalk on Kimball Avenue
To close a 720' gap in sidewalk on the north side of Kimball Ave. starting at the end of the sidewalk at the US Citizenship
and Immigration Service building running east to the point across from the current entrance to the shared-use path at
Technology Park.
5
Sidewalk Sections on Williston
Road
Three short sections of 500, 850 and 370ft = 1720ft create gaps in the full length of sidewalk east of the end of Kennedy Drive in
front of Manny's Auto body, Vibrant Church and PJ Mazda.5
Spear Street Shared-use Path
(Phase 2)
Path is needed to connect the shared-use path at the Swift and Spear intersection to the proposed Spear Meadows
neighborhood. This may be done via either the east side of Spear Street down to the proposed entrance road (Elm Street)
or by circumnavigating the UVM corn field by running a path east on the south side of Swift and then along the east
border of the UVM field to meet up with the Spear Meadows path behind the east most townhomes (or otherwise).
6
Hinesburg Road Shared-use Path
(Phase 2)From Kennedy Drive south to Cheesefactory Road 7
Crosswalk on Allen Road at
Ascension Church
Connect church entrance to sidewalk near the Harbor Village Senior Community buildings. Need RRFBs and landings. Will
ultimately intersect with Lower Allen Road path/sidewalk project.8
Sidewalk on Proctor Ave around
to Fairmont Place
Add ~280' of sidewalk on south side of Proctor that runs from current sidewalk across the entrance to Rice High School
and up the east side of Fairmont Place to protect pedestrians walking around this dangerous curve. The present south-
side sidewalk veers towards the high school and does not carry around the curve to Fairmont Place. Includes perhaps
adding a stop sign at the end of Fairmont Place to slow traffic and prevent drivers from speeding into school parking lot.
9
Page 2 of 2
Outstanding Questions on the Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Changes
Bob Britt <brittvtbiz@msn.com>
Wed 9/1/2021 9:48 PM
To: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>
Cc: Havaleh Gagne <taralovers@netzero.net>; Ashley Parker <aparker@sburl.com>; Jessie Baker <jbaker@sburl.com>
2 attachments (2 MB)
Preliminary Expected Funding Calculations.pdf; SBBPC Recommended Changes to Proposed Transportation Impact Fee
Project List - Draft Updated 08-31-21.pdf;
Hello Paul,
I hope you and your family are doing well and geƫng some sleep. I’m not sure whether or not you
are back in the office full Ɵme or sƟll enjoying your family leave Ɵme. I am wriƟng you because I am
not clear as to what the next step is to finalize the changes to the TransportaƟon Impact Fee that
JusƟn and you proposed to City Council back in December 2020 and February 2021. Do you have a
date yet when you are going back to the City Council for their final approval of the changes assuming
that is the next step? I am going to be on vacaƟon starƟng on September 9th through October 30th
so I am hoping to get answers to some quesƟons so that the CommiƩee knows if it should have any
concerns about the proposed TransportaƟon Impact Fee in case it moves forward while I am out of
town.
As you know, the CommiƩee did not iniƟate the Penny for Paths tax because we wanted the City to
reduce our funding allocaƟon from developer impact fees whether they are called TransportaƟon
Impact Fees or RecreaƟon Impact Fees. However, that looks like what is happening through the
current proposal. We have $8+ million of projects that we are trying to get built and the Penny for
Paths’ funding is only going to cover about $3.8 million of those costs even with the benefit of the
property revaluaƟon. We were relying on a combinaƟon of grants, developer funding and RecreaƟon
Impact Fees to fund the rest.
Penny for Paths projects per the FY22-31 CIP were supposed to receive $1,041,000 in RecreaƟon
Impact Fees (please see the aƩach analysis of Page 9 of your proposal). Under the new proposal, the
CommiƩee’s projects are only esƟmated to receive $560,000. In your opinion, was it a pipe dream
that the CommiƩee's projects would have received the full $1,041,000 that was in built into the
FY22-31 CIP?
I noted that the City Center bike and pedestrian projects are geƫng $545,000 of funding from your
proposal. I know that Ilona’s City Center projects are important projects with citywide benefits and
deserve to be allocated TransportaƟon Impact Fees, but did it have to come out of Penny for Paths
projects? I thought the City Center projects were to be funded through TIF financing. However, if
they need addiƟonal funding, I agree they should get it.
In light of the walkable and bikeable, safe transportaƟon and climate change goals in the City’s
Comprehensive plan, I would have thought the funding for City Center bike and pedestrian projects
may have come from Road Project funding instead of out of the CommiƩee’s projects as Road
Projects stand to receive over $3.8 million in funding from the proposed TransportaƟon Impact Fee
changes.
Firefox https://outlook.live.com/mail/inbox/id/AQMkADAwATczZmYBLTgxY...
1 of 2 9/1/2021, 9:50 PM
The CommiƩee’s other quesƟons about the proposal include the following:
Why are Road projects geƫng a higher percentage of their costs paid for on average by the
TransportaƟon Impact Fee than Bike & Ped Projects (27.9% vs. 15.4%)?
What is each project on the proposed project list geƫng in dollar terms? Are the P4P bike &
pedestrian projects geƫng the same % of funding as the City Center “bike & pedestrian”
projects?
Will other Penny for Path projects sƟll get some funds from the RecreaƟon Impact Fee such as
the Thomas H. Hubbard RecreaƟon & Natural Area shared-use path project, the newly
proposed shared-use path to connect the SwiŌ Street path network to the Spear Meadows
shared-use path or other more recreaƟonal vs. transportaƟon oriented projects?
Paul, I’m not trying to be criƟcal of the proposal that was made to City Council. I just do not know
what I do not know yet about the proposal. I have also aƩached a draŌ of the CommiƩee’s
recommended changes to the proposed TransportaƟon Impact Fee project list. The Project Priority
SubcommiƩee will be geƫng approval for our recommended changes at the September 8th full
CommiƩee MeeƟng, but I wanted you to see the draŌ as it stands now for your feedback. We are
recommending that the project list eliminate some of the paths that we have either eliminated from
next year’s CIP or that are no longer a high priority or already have sufficient funding such as the
south Dorset Street Path Project.
Thanks in advance for your feedback and answers to the above quesƟons and all the work you and
your department do to support the CommiƩee’s bicycle and pedestrian safety and infrastructure
goals.
Best regards,
Bob Britt
802-338-6334 (cell)
Firefox https://outlook.live.com/mail/inbox/id/AQMkADAwATczZmYBLTgxY...
2 of 2 9/1/2021, 9:50 PM
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Recommended Changes to Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Project List Updated 08-31-21
Location Detailed Description
Prime
Funding Project Type Reason for Change
Airport Parkway from Kirby Rd to Lime Kiln.
Phase 1 from Kirby to Berard Rd. Phase 2
from Berard to existing sidewalk on Lime
Kiln Rd.
Install 5' wide sidewalk and bike lanes from Kirby Road to sidewalk on Lime Kiln Road.
Includes widening of cross section between Lime Kiln and top of the hill.P4P Bike Lane Missing wording for Phase 2 in "Location"
Allen Road / Harbor Heights Path:
Shelburne Rd to Baycrest. Shared-use
path on Queen City Park Road to connect
to entrance to Burlington Bike Path and
Red Rocks Park
10' recreation path; perhaps sidewalks instead in sections. Includes re-aligned
crosswalk over Shelburne Road to connect to Lindenwood Drive P4P Path
The substituted path benefits more residents
and it of a higher priority to be completed
sooner than the Lower Allen Road project
where a sidewalk will suffice.
Dorset Street: Old Cross Rd to Sadie Lane 10' shared use path.P4P Path
The Dorset project has been already funded
by a Federal grant, recreation impact fees and
Penny for Paths funding. Should the
Committee ask for this project to be removed
in favor of either another project (such as the
Kimball Potash Brook bridge project) or for a
higher % of funds to go to other Path
projects?
Garden Street North of Market St.
(1) connect existing Garden Street to Midas drive with 2-lane roadway, add 10' shared
use path, trees, lights - 450' length; (2) Midas Drive upgrade, sidewalk, street trees,
lights, 10' rec path - 500'; (3) correct Midas / Williston and Hinesburg / Williston Road
intersections and replace sidewalk with 12' recreation path and streetscape on south
side of the road.
City
Center Path
Hinesburg Rd / Tilley Drive Intersection
signalization Install signal and crosswalk at intersection. No lane re-alignments. Road Intersection
Hinesburg Road Shared Use Path Williston
Road to Kennedy Drive.Replace existing sidewalk (portions asphalt) with 10' recreation path. P4P Path
Kimball Avenue Muddy Brook crossing Includes a crossing of Muddy Brook Road Roadway
Kimball/Community Dr East Intersection
Improvements Traffic signal with mast arms, grading, crosswalks Road Intersection
Shelburne Road: Imperial to McIntosh both
sides on east side Shared-use Path P4P Path To clarify current scope of project
Shelburne Road: path connection from IDX
Dr. to Imperial Dr. on east side Shared-use Path connection P4P Path
To clarify current scope of project. The
reduction in scope and cost of this project and
the proposed use of asphalt to widen the
current sidewalk as was done on Dorset Street
may allow for the Allen Road / Harbor Heights
Path: Shelburne Rd to Baycrest project
deleted above.
Page 1 of 2
Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Recommended Changes to Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Project List Updated 08-31-21
Location Detailed Description
Prime
Funding Project Type Reason for Change
Spear Street Path jughandle to UVM
athletic facilities
6' sidewalk on east side and 10' recreation path on west side of Spear Street to
connect to existing path at southern end of playing fields.P4P Path
Changes are to clarify current scope of
project. However, this project may be
removed from the Penny for Paths CIP if
voted upon by full Bicycle & Pedestrian
Committee and should be replaced by the
Swift Street Extension to Hinesburg
Road/Landon Road/Fox Run Lane path or
some other project.
Spear Street Path: US Forest Service Bldg to
Swift Street (phase 1)10' recreation path. Path
Spear Street Path: Road Widening: Swift
St. to Shelburne Town Line and Shared-use
Path (phase 2)
Sidewalk and On-road bike lanes and a shared-use path connection to the proposed
Spear Meadow development (or its successor), or directly to Vale Drive.
P4P &
Road
Sidewalk Bike
Lane and Path
To clarify current scope of project. The
"widening" is a road project.
Tilley to Community Drive Road 2-lane roadway. Parallel to existing shared use path. Involes wetland / archeology
crossing. 850' total length Road Roadway
Williston Road Streetscape South Side Replace existing sidewalk with 12' wide shared use path, greenbelt, street trees,
pedestrian lighting. 2,000' length
City
Center Path
Williston Road: new Street on north side,
from Dorset to Patchen
Includes 2 sections, Dorset St to Windjammer front drive aisle (500') and Windjammer
access road to Patchen Rd (1,500'). 2 lanes, on-street parking, sidewalk, rec path,
street trees
City
Center Roadway
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION FOR POLICYMAKING TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS AND
COUNTERACT CLIMATE CHANGE
WHEREAS the City of South Burlington joined the State of Vermont and other communities and
businesses in the Vermont Climate Pledge Coalition and pledged to meet or exceed the
obligations for the United States in the Paris Agreement; and,
WHEREAS the City acknowledges the implications of CO2 emissions and their effect on
climate change and its consequent effects on its citizens’ quality of life, health, safety, and
economic well-being and,
WHEREAS it is in the City’s best interests to pursue energy efficiencies and reduce fossil fuel
consumption, and
WHEREAS, the City hired an energy projects manager and pursued a number of key projects
reducing our energy and carbon footprints.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Burlington City Council adopts the
reduction of South Burlington’s carbon footprint as an extremely important effort.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff and the Council will immediately task a
committee to work with the CCRPC and the Vermont Climate Council on the Climate Action
Plans and invite all members of the community to participate in creating a Plan with specific
actions for South Burlington that conform to current science in support of the City’s
commitments as set forth herein and as stated in the supporting documents.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City staff and the Council, with the help of its advisory
committees will strive to take actions based on the Climate Action Plan by preparing and
adopting regulations, preparing capital budgets and annual work programs, and forming citizen
committees as needed, to reflect this mission by accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and
climate impacts when making any significant decisions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City’s Chief Sustainability Officer will annually report
to the City Council on the progress that the City is making on enacting the Climate Action Plan
using standard tools and metrics and will verify that the City appropriately factors climate
impacts into all applicable actions and decisions.
Signed this 23rd day of July, 2021.
______________________________________
Helen Riehle, Chair
______________________________________
Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair
______________________________________
Tim Barritt, Clerk
______________________________________
Thomas Chittenden, Councilor
______________________________________
Matt Cota, Councilor