Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 06/16/2014 (2)CITY COUNCIL 16 JUNE 2014 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 16 June 2014, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: P. Mackenzie, Chair; H. Riehle, C. Shaw, M. Emery ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; J. Barlow, City Attorney; D. Rugh, Attorney; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; Rep. M. Kupersmith; S. Dooley, R. Greco, M. Lipson, T. Ryan, J. Kochman, S. Quest, l. Bresee, S. Magowan, B. Goldberg, D. Cummings, G. Sproul, B. Melizia 1. Agenda Review: Mr. Shaw asked to postpone item #13 as the position had not been posted. 2. Examination of Premises for the proposed extension of Holmes Road (Town Highway 112) to be held at intersection of Holmes Road and the railroad right-of-way: Ms. Mackenzie advised that City Council members would travel two by two to Holmes Road and meet with the attorney whowould lead them through the process. Members then viewed the site of the proposed extension of Holmes Road. No testimony was taken. They returned to City hall at 7:15 p.m. As the necessity hearing had been warned for 7:30, other agenda items were considered until that time. 3. Announcements & City Manager's Report: Council members reported on meeting and events they had attended. 4. Consent Agenda: a. Sign disbursement b. Approve Minutes from the 2 June 2014 meeting c. Appointment of Assistant Zoning Administrator d. Approval submittal of the GUEP application e. Entertainment Permits: 1. Shelburne Vineyard-special events (2), 28 June and 29 August 2014 ' 2. Chase Away 5K (entertainment) 12 October 2014 3. Magic Hat (6 permits) 4. Magic Hat (outside consumption permit) Ms. Riehle moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Shaw seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Financial Report -May: Mr. Hubbard reported that expenditures are at 83.8% of what was budgeted. Refunds will be coming from ADP due to their error. These will be distributed to various departments. Higher expenses are offset by higher revenues including fire inspection fees which are 200% over budget projections. The painting of City Hall and the repaving of the parking lot and other building work ($76,000) will begin in mid-July. The pension payment was made this month. Merchant's Bank will allow the city to make an extra months payment of principle only. The city is working with the Dorset Park Skating Association for them to take over their insurance costs. This will save the city about $23,000. Building permits are at 150% of the estimate. Police revenue remains down, although there is a $100,000 reimbursement coming at the end of the year. The city received some FEMA money for the White Street project. This resulted from storm damage during the May and June storms of 2012 and 2013. 6. Necessity Hearing for the proposed extension of Holmes Road (Town Highway 112) to be held at City Hall: The Chair declared the hearing open. Mr. Rugh explained that this is a statutory process related to the extension of Holmes Road across Vermont Railroad property. The hearing will determine whether this is in the public good. Mr. Rabidoux said he had culled from a file going back to June 2011 any documents related to public good and necessity. These establish a time-line of public will for this project to happen and the City Council's determination that this should happen. He gave the file to the Council. Rep. Kupersmith said it has been apparent for a long time that there were only 2 possible solutions for homeowners on the other side of the railroad tracks: a private solution with the state for each home involved or a city takeover of the road. Rep. Kupersmith added that a city takeover of the road was the only viable solution and, in her opinion, a perfect solution. Mr. Lipson, Holmes Road resident, thanked the Council for its support. He then reviewed the history as far back as February 2011 when residents were told their deeded rights-of-way were not legal. At least one homeowner could then not sell their home. Insurance companies researched this and sent letters to the state supporting the homeowners; the state said they were wrong. There has been silence from the state from then on. Mr. Lipson said the only solution was for the city to municipalize a portion of the road. He felt that if the city did not act, homeowners might not have been able to sell or refinance their properties. Title insurance companies and banks are also anxious for this to be solved. Mr. Rugh then reviewed the process that will follow this hearing. The city will send out a Notice of Intent to survey the right-of-way. The survey will follow and an opinion of record title will be given. Residents can inspect this survey. The city has 60 days in which to return its Order of Necessity to the City Clerk. This will then go to the Transportation Board in Montpelier for a hearing. When this is approved, the road will be laid out. Ms. Emery asked about liability the city might incur. Mr. Rugh said nothing is changing as of now. This is in a "quiet zone" of the railroad. Maintenanceof the crossing is set out, and the state maintains the railway and gates; the city maintains signage and road markings. Ms. Emery then moved to close the hearing. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Comments & Questions from the public not related to Agenda items: Mr. Ryan asked the status of late filing of homestead declarations. Ms. Mackenzie said the City Council has set a 2% penalty. Mr. Ryan felt this was just another way to "grab money" from taxpayers and is not fair. He added that the ones who get hurt are the poorer people who do their own taxes. He also noted that some towns charge a flat $50.00 penalty. 8. Formal Expression of Thanks to the Open Space Committee, receipt of South Burlington Open Space Report, and Conclusion of Committee Service: Ms. Riehle read comments from Cathy LaRose. She noted that the report is available to the public on the city's website. 9. Update on MS4 Permit: Mr. Rabidoux said this report is apreview for more involved discussion later this summer. He noted that the city has a projected stormwater rate to fund $40,000,000 worth of stormwater work. The city could get involved in the ownership/maintenance of commercial stormwater facilities in any of 3 ways: a. The city could take over ownership and all permitting (the city does not support this) b. The city could remove itself from the equation have the understaffed State Agency of Natural Resources take over commercial stormwater permits (the city does not support this option) c. The city could take over monitoring of commercial waterways. Commercial businesses would have to do maintenance, labor, etc. Staff will work with Attorney Barlow to redraft the ordinance, possibly just removing the words "...residential property only." The city must tell the state what it will do by 30 September 2014 and must notify property owners by the end of October. Ms. Mackenzie asked what other like-size communities are doing. Mr. Rabidoux said other similar sized communities don't have a stormwater utility. Mr. Shaw asked if other communities are complying with MS4. Mr. Rabidoux said they are. This includes the Airport and UVM. He noted that with similar problems there is the opportunity for communities and entities to work together on solution. Members favored option #c. 10. Update from Representative to CCTA Board and interview for appointment: Mr. Magowan advised the CCTA is forming an Operations Committee to get more involved in understanding the day-by-day operations (e.g., scheduling, allocation of funds, etc.). This committee will be chaired by the Shelburne representative. Mr. Magowan noted that he voted against having this committee as he felt the charter should have required membership of drivers on the committee instead of only Board members. Mr. Magowan said he is interested in continuing to serve on the CCTA Board. He stressed the need to decide how to fund and support transportation in Vermont communities. Federal money is mostly a year-to-year grant that can't be counted on. He added that he would love to see CCTA become a jointly administered organ with drivers who do the day-to-day work. This would take commitment from member communities and some expense to bring in people to build confidence between the two bodies. Ms. Riehle said she has trouble equating the value of CCTA to South Burlington. She had no idea how many of the city's residents CCTA serves and often sees empty buses driving around. She noted the city has no control over the money it is assessed, and she was not sure it was spent as it should be. Mr. Magowan said he was troubled that the Council hasn't gotten this information as it is available. He suggested there is value in bringing UMall employees from Burlington to the Mall. It keeps cars off the road. He said there is information as to where people get on and off buses and the numbers of people going to businesses in South Burlington. Mr. Shaw asked about the viability of a gas tax to support CCTA. Mr. Magowan said 8 years ago he would said yes. Now, CCTA is providing service to 6 other counties, and it would be unfair to Chittenden County residents to have to support that. He added that his main question is whether CCTA should be a directly elected authority. He felt that what exists may be a dated model. Members agreed to make an appointment to the CCTA Board after the position is advertised. 11. Consideration of Ordinance Regarding Licensure and Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals and Shows; first reading of draft and consideration of public hearing warning for 21 July 2013 or another date as directed: Mr. Dorn reviewed the history and current process for events in the city. His recommendation is to delegate authority for approval of such events to the City Manager's office. He noted that sometimes, when time is of the essence, a special City Council meeting is now needeq. The new ordinance will enable the city to act more quickly. Ms. Riehle moved to warn a public hearing on Licensure and Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals and Shows for Monday, 21 July 2014, at 7 p.m. at City Hall. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Shaw moved the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Members considered a First Class Liquor License for TILT, LLC, at 7 Fayette Drive. The owner of the business explained the nature of the business. Mr. Shaw moved to approve the First Class Liquor License for TILT as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Emery moved to reconvene as City Council. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 13. Public Hearing on Report of Committee Task Force: Ms. Mackenzie reviewed the history and invited interested parties tospeak. Ms. Dooley said she wasn,t sure the proposed system would enhance volunteerism. She also thought there should be a better name for the proposed Transportation Committee. She suggested tying the 3 committees to chapters in the Comprehensive Plan and also revisiting the number of yearly meetings for those committees. She was concerned with disbanding the Rec Path/Pedestrian Committee and the Energy Committee. She suggested delineating responsibilities for city staff with regard to committees and also attaching minutes of committee meetings to the City Council agenda package and providing them to department heads. Ms. Dooley felt the city might not be as "future-orientedJl as it should be, especially with regard to global warming, attracting young families and serving an aging population. Ms. Goldberg said she agreed with most of the proposal. Her one concern was with committees that would have no city staffing. She felt it was important for committees with the cit{s endorsement to be served by city staff. Ms. Greco said she agreed with Ms. Dooley. She felt reducing city staff support was important but she wasn't sure the proposal was "there yet.II She was concerned with losing public enthusiasm and also felt quarterly meetings of the 3 committees wasn't enough. Mr. Cummings agreed with the need to be more frugal with staff time and also with the need to address transportation, which has no representation today. He was concerned with committees operating outside of the city structure, especially with regard to the application for the Georgetown prize. He proposed that the Energy Committee remain a city committee until 2017; the Committee in turn would minimize the use of city staff as much as possible. Mr. Sproul felt the Recreation/Leisure Arts committee needs a clear mandate. He felt some form of oversight of recreation is important as is the general oversight of parks. He also thought there should be a formalized process for recreation space in new developments. Ms. Quest said she realizes how hard staff works and cited receiving e-mails sent at midnight. She felt this should not be happening. She agreed with the Energy Committee that they should remain a city staffed committee. Ms. Milizia felt consolidation seemed the natural thing to do. She felt having quarterly meetings seems to eliminate decision making from committees. Following the public comment period, Ms. Emery said she heard the need to reallocate staff time. She felt that moving too hastily would lose something. She also read comments from a resident who felt it was unwise to disband committees that have done well. Ms. Riehle said she agreed with a lot of comments. She is concerned with maintaining the energy and enthusiasm that citizens bring to multiple committees. She added that the city probably doesn't have enough staff to carry out the city's vision. Ms. Mackenzie said the most difficult thing is to manage change. She cited the need to continue to honor volunteerism. She suggested consolidating comments and then making some hard choices at a work session. Ms. Dooley suggested soliciting public comment on the web site. 14. Other Business: Mr. Shaw noted the "posted" sign is still on the Underwood property. Mr. Dorn said that will be taken care of. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Ms. Emery moved to adjourn. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 06/17/14 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 6/17/2014 2566 Champlain Water District 51,412.19 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/31/2014 VI-13383 SBWD-289 51,412.19 51,412.19 6/17/2014 2567 Champlain Water District 127,653.57 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/31/2014 VI-13377 SBWD-281 410.07 410.07 5/31/2014 VI-13378 MAY CONSUMPTION 127,243.50 127,243.50 6/17/2014 2568 E.J. Prescott, Inc. 6,460.07 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/27/2014 VI-13379 4803074 37.09 37.09 5/28/2014 VI-13380 4803491 217.42 217.42 5/29/2014 VI-13385 4796543 4,930.47 4,930.47 5/27/2014 VI-13386 4803247 1,275.09 1,275.09 6/17/2014 2569 City Of South Burlington 158.23 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/10/2014 VI-13387 MAY SEWER 158.23 158.23 6/17/2014 2570 City Of South Burlington 1,878.56 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 6/10/2014 VI-13388 MAY STORMWATER 1,878.56 1,878.56 6/17/2014 2571 Ti-Sales Inc. 6,953.00 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 5/28/2014 VI-13381 INV0037464 3,143.00 3,143.00 5/28/2014 VI-13382 INV0037463 952.50 952.50 6/2/2014 VI-13384 INV0037672 2,857.50 2,857.50 Total Amount Paid: 194,515.62 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Printed: June 12, 2014 Page 1 of 1 CITY COUNCIL JUNE 2, 2014 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 2 June 2014, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: P. Mackenzie, Chair; H. Riehle, P. Nowak, C. Shaw, M. Emery Also Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; J. Simson, S. Dooley, E. Farrell, R. Farnham, G. Calcagni, J. Knapp, L. Michaels, R. Greco, M. Holt . 1. Agenda Review: Ms. Emery asked to add a discussion of a proposal for the Underwood property to Other Business. 2. Comments and Questions from the public, not related to Agenda items: Ms. Dooley and some of her neighbors noted they had met twice with the City Manager, Director of Planning & Zoning and Police Chief regarding neighborhood concerns. They focused on a proposal regarding possible changes to the number of unrelated adults living in a house. They asked to hold this discussion with the Council on 16 June. Ms. Mackenzie asked that the Council be given a paragraph of the neighbors’ expectations prior to the Council meeting. She also noted that 16 June may not be ideal and suggested the next meeting after that. 3. Announcements & City Manager’s Report: Mr. Dorn: Community Gardens have been plowed and made available to the public. The new playground at Dorset Park is going up today. On 19 June, the city will host a meeting with potential investors for City Center. This will include a short bus tour of the area. He attended the DARE graduation at Orchard School Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended. Ms. Mackenzie also noted that the state is doing emergency exercises this week including some at the Airport. 4. Consent Agenda: A. Sign Disbursements B. Approve Minutes of 19 May 2014 C. Receive Unlicensed Dog & Cat Report D. Approve Amendment to South Village Communities, LLC, Development Escrow Agreement E. Entertainment permit: American Cancer Society, October 19, 2014 Mr. Shaw asked to remove the Unlicensed Dog & Cat Report from the Consent Agenda. CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 2, 2014, PAGE 2 Ms. Nowak moved to approve the Consent Agenda minus the Unlicensed Dog & Cat Report. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consider and Accept Report of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Feasibility Committee: Mr. Simson introduced committee members Eric Farrell, Sandy Dooley, Gretchen Calcagni, Larry Michaels, Jim Knapp, and Helen Riehle. Ken Schatz was not present. He also thanked Mr. Dorn and staff for their support and wise counsel. The Committee is recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Mr. Simson noted that finding a funding source will take effort and commitment. In this regard, it is important to understand the linkage of affordable housing to jobs, etc. Mr. Simson stressed that this needs to become a public effort. Mr. Simson then outlined some suggestions for funding, including a one cent property tax, which would be a reliable and constant source that could produce $290,000 a year. There might also be a Charter change to add one cent to the Rooms and Meals or Sales tax. The preference here would be the Rooms and Meals Tax as this is collected in large part from “people from away.” Mr. Farrell noted that Burlington has a “payment in lieu” element, but the rate is so prohibitive that nobody uses it. It also needs DRB approval. It was also noted that Charlotte collects money from developers and Montpelier has a ½ cent on the property tax. Burlington also does one cent on the property tax and has some funding from block grants. Ms. Nowak asked about the cost of administering the fund. Mr. Simson said it would be minimal, just covering the time of the City Manager and another staff person. Ms. Emery asked what Champlain Housing would do. Ms. Dooley said they would propose a project and identify potential funding sources, tax credits, etc. If the Council approved it, Champlain Housing would go forward with the proposal. Ms. Riehle directed attention to the “next steps” section of the report and the need for a good educational outreach as to what affordable housing is and isn’t. Mr. Simson suggested a “gathering/event” with people who could participate and then form an organization to make it happen. Ms. Nowak asked about other funding sources. Mr. Farrell said he felt it was important to create the trust fund even without funding. The conversation should be about the goal. Ms. Mackenzie said she would like to see a job description for trust fund people. The Council asked the City Manager to prepare a Resolution to create a South Burlington Affordable Housing Trust and to create a citizen committee to review and research potential funding options and an educational outreach plan and then report back to the Council. CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 2, 2014, PAGE 3 6. Consider and possibly approve Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington/Rice Memorial High School Bond Allocation Request: Mr. Holt noted that Rice High School is beginning a significant renovation of the building including heating, electric system, windows, ADA compliance, etc. They have had a good capital campaign but have not raised enough money. They are now securing funding through VIDA and are asking for the city’s cooperation regarding bonding authority. There would be no cost to the city, but it would reduce the interest rate for the school. The bonding amount would be $8,500,000. Ms. Riehle asked about any implications for city bonding in 2015. Mr. Holt said they would use all the bonding in 2014. Mr. Dorn said he would like to run this by the City Attorney. He will come back with a response at the next meeting (16 June). 7. Public Comment Session on changing the name of Dorset Park to Veterans Memorial Park: Mr. Farnham apologized to the Village at Dorset Park and other citizens for not previously publishing this idea. He said the concept is to have a place to honor citizens of the community. Renaming the park would enhance the tribute to veterans. There are other such parks including one in Brattleboro, VT. There would be signs to direct people to other park uses. Ms. Nowak, Ms. Riehle and Ms. Mackenzie supported the idea. Ms. Emery felt veterans deserve more funding to the VA Hospitals rather than a park. Mr. Shaw suggested a name such as Dorset Veterans Park as “Dorset” is an identifying name for the city. After a brief discussion, Mr. Shaw moved to change the name of Dorset Park to Veterans Memorial Park. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Authorize the City Manager to sign Georgetown University Energy Prize Letter of Support: Mr. Dorn said the letter specifies where the money will go when the city wins. Ms. Emery moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the Georgetown University Energy Prize Letter of Support as presented. Ms. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: A. Item held from Consent Agenda: Mr. Shaw suggested the Council accept the report. He didn’t accept that it would now be in the City Council’s hands to deal with it. He felt there should be more effort to get to those who haven’t registered animals, possibly a post card asking the status of the animal. Ms. Mackenzie agreed. She suggested that next year the city get email addresses in order to save money. She also noted that one person told her that the fee was too high. This was set by the Council a few years ago. CITY COUNCIL, JUNE 2, 2014, PAGE 4 Mr. Dorn will take this guidance back to the City Clerk. Ms. Nowak moved to accept the Unlicensed Dog and Cat Report as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. B. Underwood planting proposal: Ms. Emery noted that Robert Mack has offered to plant sunflowers on the Underwood property to help keep the soil rich. This needs to be done before June 12. Mr. Dorn suggested a special meeting on this as it is not warned for tonight’s meeting. Members agreed to this. A date will be set. As there was no further business to come before the City Council, Ms. Nowak moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. _____________________________, Clerk 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com   MEMORANDUM    TO:    Kevin Dorn, City Manager    FROM:  Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning     SUBJECT:  Appointment of Jen Le as an Assistant Zoning Administrator pursuant to City  Charter, Chapter 13, Section 301 (2)    DATE: June 9, 2014      Annually in March the City Council considers and appoints individuals to a series of positions  listed within the City Charter. This year, as with the past few, Ray Belair was appointed as  Zoning Administrator and Cathyann LaRose was appointed as Assistant Zoning Administrator.    Respectfully, I am requesting Jen Le also be appointed as an Assistant Zoning Administrator by  the City Council for the remainder of this the current one‐year term. Ms. Le has demonstrated  the abilities to undertake this role. She would work closely with and under the guidance of Mr.  Belair and department staff.    The appointment of a second Assistant Zoning Administrator is not new to the City. In the past,  the person serving as Planning & Zoning Assistant had the same authority.    Thank you for your consideration. This appointment would be a help to the internal workload  within our department as well as enhancing customer service to the community.  Follow us: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn WHO CAN COMPETE?RULES & TIMELINE RESOURCES FOR COMPETITORS FAQS MEDIA ROOM SPONSORS ABOUT US To apply for the Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP), your community must submit detailed information to confirm your eligibility and begin preparing your community to compete. Any community (or communities) with populations between 5,000 and 250,000 may apply until June 30, 2014. Your community does not need to have previously submitted a Letter of Intent in order to apply. To apply, you must submit the information in the form below, along with the following additional documents: ● Document 1: Brief biographies of key community and municipal leaders of the GUEP prize effort. ● Document 2: Brief description, history, and current status of existing community energy-savings programs, if any. ● Document 3: Description of the process your community will use to develop the energy-savings Program Plan if your community is selected to participate in the Stage 2 Quarterfinals. The description of your planning process can address both existing efforts that you will focus on as well how you intend to determine new approaches. (Consider using the ACEEE Local Energy Efficiency Self Scoring Tool to assess opportunities for your community to save energy.) ● Document 4 (Not Required from Communities that Submitted an LOI): Brief description of your community ● Document 5 (Required only of Combined Communities): Description of 1) Evidence that the communities can work together successfully (ideally by citing previous cooperation); 2) An explanation of how the local governments, utilities, and relevant community organizations will work together on GUEP; and 3) A description of how the purse would be shared or jointly-used, if won. Finally, your community must also submit letters of commitment from municipal leaders, utility officials, and (optionally) other community organizations that will support the effort. ● Utilities - Standard form agreeing to provide timely, accurate, aggregate MOREINFO Before you submit an application, please familiarize yourself with the following pages on our website: Eligiblity Requriements - Who Can Compete? Competition Guidelines - Rules and Timeline Additional Information - Frequently Asked Questions If you have questions or need more immediate help, do not hesitate to email our team at energyprize@georgetown.edu or leave a message at (202) 687-5286. Complete Application Form http://guep.org/application 1 of 4 06/11/2014 09:13 PM effort in the competition. ● Community Organizations (at least one Community support letter is required, additional letters of support are optional): Additional letters from community organizations, businesses, and other organizations that will support the community's effort in the competition. After a review by the Prize team, all credible applications from eligible communities will be accepted as Quarterfinalists and invited to compete in Stage 2. * Indicates a required field Community Information Fields Community Name *South Burlington 2010 US Census Official Population * Not Sure? Click Here 17904 FIPS Code * Not Sure? Click Here 66175 List of US Postal Service Zip Codes In the Community * Not Sure? Click Here 05403 Contact Person for GUEP Effort First Name *Keith Last Name *Epstein Title *GUEP Co-Coordinator Organization *South Burlington Energy Committee Street Address *575 Dorset Street City *South Burlington State *Vermont Phone *802-777-0158 Email *keithepstein@gmail.com Authorized to speak to the press? * Each Community is required to have one authorized spokesperson, if the person aboveis not authorized to speak to the press, we will contact you to get the name and contactinformation of your Community's spokesperson. Yes No Municipality Information Type of Municipality City/Town Complete Application Form http://guep.org/application 2 of 4 06/11/2014 09:13 PM * Name of Top Municipal Official (Mayor, Manager, Supervisor, Chair, etc) Pam Mackenzie Title of Official City Council Chair Municipality Website www.sburl.com If this is a Combined Community, please provide names and titles of relevant municipal officials in Document 5 (attached) Uploads Doc 1: Bios * Please upload a .pdf with brief biographies of key community and municipal leaders ofthe GUEP prize effort. Browse…No file selected. Doc 2: Programs * Please upload a .pdf with a brief description, history, and current status of existingcommunity energy-savings programs, if any. Browse…No file selected. Doc 3: Next Steps * Please upload a .pdf with a description of the process your community will go throughto determine the design of the energy-savings program. Browse…No file selected. Doc 4: Description Please upload a .pdf with a brief description of the community. Not Required fromCommunities that Submitted an LOI. Browse…No file selected. Doc 5: Combined Comm. Please upload a .pdf with additional details required of combined communities (seeabove) Browse…No file selected. Letters of Commitment Municipal Leader Letter(s) * Please attach a standard form .pdf with letters of support from your top municipalofficial. Browse…No file selected. Utility Letter(s) * Please attach a standard form .pdf with letters of support from all utilities providingelectric and natural gas to residential and municipal customers serving yourcommunity. Browse…No file selected. Community Letter(s) * Please attach a .pdf with one or more letters from community organizations,businesses, and other entities supporting your community's Prize efforts. Browse…No file selected. Image Verification *Please type the phrase above into the box below Continue Complete Application Form http://guep.org/application 3 of 4 06/11/2014 09:13 PM WHO CAN COMPETE? RULES & TIMELINE RESOURCES FOR COMPETITORS FAQS MEDIA ROOM SPONSORS ABOUT USPROJECTBY Site design by Sisarina. Powered by picoCMS. Complete Application Form http://guep.org/application 4 of 4 06/11/2014 09:13 PM South Burlington Energy Committee  575 Dorset  South Burlington, VT 05403  (802) 846­4106  www.sburl.com        Georgetown University Energy Prize Document 1: Brief Biographies of key community and municipal  leaders of the GUEP prize effort    Keith Epstein, South Burlington GUEP co­coordinator    Keith is a founding member of the South Burlington Energy Committee, a volunteer citizen advisory  committee to the City Council on energy matters. He has worked on many of the energy efficiency,  conservation, and renewable energy projects the the committee has tackled. Prior to moving to South  Burlington, he was a member of the Energy Committee of the Tompkins County Environmental Management  Council in Ithaca, NY.    He has a bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University, and works as a Mechanical  Design Engineer at AllEarth Renewables and as Assistant Lab Manager at Aeolus Labs. Prior positions  include Applications Engineer and MEMS Design Engineer at Kionix. He enjoys bicycling to work  year­round, is passionate about the need to reduce our energy consumption, and is excited about the  possibilities that the GUEP brings.    Don Cummings, South Burlington GUEP co­coordinator    Don is a consultant with Decision Support specializing in project management and business process  improvement.    He worked 30 Years at IBM, with over 20 years as a systems analyst and project manager in software  development for manufacturing, planning, production control and administrative systems. Since 2001, he has  been a project management consultant for Decision Support with clients in manufacturing, education and  health care. His experience includes working with client management to develop project management  culture change programs, developing and providing project management training, and providing direct project  management services for specific client projects.    His experience includes work in business process analysis & improvement. He was an in­house consultant  at IBM working with executive management to structure and manage effective improvement teams. These  teams focused on reducing costs of their business areas, improving cycle times and reducing problems and  errors in their business processes, and increasing the output and quality of their work areas.    For the last 5 years Don has been a member of the S. Burlington Energy Committee. He has worked on  projects to improve lighting efficiency, weatherize buildings, develop renewable energy projects and to raise  awareness of economic benefits of reducing fossil fuel use and the dangers of climate change.      GUEP Application Document 1  South Burlington, Vermont  Page 1 of 3  Pam Mackenzie, City Council Chair    A South Burlington resident since 2009, Pam has served as the Chair of the South Burlington City Council  since 2013. In 2011, she was appointed by Governor Shumlin to serve as Chair of the Vermont  Telecommunications Authority. Pam also serves as Chair of Vermont Public Television, and on the Board of  Directors of the Chittenden County United Way and Mercy Connections.    Pam has over 25 years of leadership experience with a strong track record developing and implementing  strategic direction for public and private sector organizations. Prior to serving on the City Council, Pam  served as Area Vice President for Comcast Communications in Vermont and Connecticut. Before joining  Comcast, she held senior level positions within the cable telecommunications industry in California, Arizona,  West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York. She entered the cable telecommunications industry after  holding several posts at the White House during the Carter Administration.    Throughout her career, Pam has been involved in professional industry and community organizations. She  served on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee for Women in Cable & Telecommunications;  served as the Chapter Development Chair and as the New England Chapter Advisor for them as well.  Mackenzie was selected as a Betsy Magness Leadership Institute Fellow, and served on the Vermont  Business Roundtable Home Visiting Alliance Task Force, and Vermont Works for Women Financial Literacy  Task Force. She served as the President of the United Way of Monongalia and Preston Counties, and on  the Board of Directors of the Cable Telecommunications Association of Arizona.    Patricia Nowak, City Council Vice­Chair    Pat was elected to the South Burlington City Council in 2013 and serves as Vice Chair of the council. With  her husband she is co owner of Nowak & Nowak Financial Services, in Williston, VT. Their 31 year old firm  specializes in financial and estate planning, risk management and investments for business owners and  individuals.    She grew up in a town north of Boston and graduated from Salem State University with a BS in education  and taught for a year before moving to Vermont. In Vermont she established a private school and taught for  the next 10 years before changing careers to the financial service industry.    In 2003, VT Governor James Douglas appointed Pat to the State Environmental Board, a quasi­judicial board  of 9 that hear appeals to the state's Act 250 law. Act 250 (Vermont Law), Vermont's Land Use and  Development Act, is a law passed in 1970 by the Vermont legislature, designed to mitigate the effects of  development through an application process that addresses the environmental and community impacts of  projects that exceed a threshold in size. This E Board became VT Natural Resources Board in 2005 and  she continued to serve until the end of her term in 2007.    She has taught continuing education classes for the financial service industry for over for 25 years , has  served on many Vermont and National boards, has received numerous industry awards and is currently is  vice chair of the VT Tax Seminar.    Pat resides in South Burlington with her husband Bob and has 5 adult children and 13 grandchildren.      Kevin Dorn, City Manager  GUEP Application Document 1  South Burlington, Vermont  Page 2 of 3    Kevin currently serves as City Manager of the City of South Burlington having been appointed to that position  by the South Burlington City Council in October 2013. Kevin was raised in the small rural town of Springfield  Minnesota, received a primary education from the Springfield Public School and graduated Magna Cum  Laude from Minnesota State University with a BA in Political Science and minor in Economics. Kevin served  two United States Congressmen and a United States Senator in staff positions in their Washington, DC  offices before moving on to government relations positions with Fairchild Industries and the General Aviation  Manufacturers Association. Upon moving to Vermont in 1988 Kevin became Government Affairs Director for  the Vermont Association of REALTORS® and then Executive Officer of the Home Builders and Remodelers  Association of Northern Vermont. In 2003 Kevin joined the administration of incoming Governor James  Douglas and served the State as Secretary of the Agency of Commerce and Community Development  throughout the Governor’s’ eight year tenure in office. Kevin is married, has two adult daughters and resides  in Essex Junction, Vermont.    Ara Hagan, Hagan Associates President/Creative Strategist    Ara provides the strategic leadership as well as the lead role in bringing projects and campaigns to fruition  for the firm. She provides the connectivity between clients, the creative side, and the strategic side of  marketing. After graduating from Rochester Institute of Technology, she managed interactive projects for  KelliherSametsVolk in Burlington before moving on to Paul Kaza Associates in 2007. She became a partner  in 2012 and is now the lead at the agency. She has worked on a variety of social projects over the years,  including TurnOffTexting.com in 2010, when the state of VT wanted to decrease the number of teens driving  and texting, and the Champlain Mini Maker Faire, which is now in it's third year at Shelburne Farms, VT.  The event is designed to foster innovative thinking and inspire youths. Ara resides in Essex Junction with her  husband and two small children.    Kristan Hatfield, Efficiency Vermont Project Manager    Kristan has more than 10 years experience in energy efficiency program implementation and support for the  commercial, municipal and school market sectors. He currently leads programs that support the company's  strategic vision and meet organizational goals.    During his time at VEIC he has helped 2,400 customers avoid 33,000 MWhs in energy costs. Kristan has  specialized in the program management of lighting and refrigeration retrofit programs. Kristan works within  the Program Management Team to incorporate lessons learned and best practices into Efficiency Vermont's  business processes. At home Kristan enjoys coaching the Morgan Street Youth Baseball Team, and  gardening.  Kristan is passionate about exploring the potential power of community involvement that this  competition has already begun to promote.      GUEP Application Document 1  South Burlington, Vermont  Page 3 of 3  South Burlington Energy Committee  575 Dorset  South Burlington, VT 05403  (802) 846­4106  www.sburl.com        Georgetown University Energy Prize Document 2: Brief description, history, and current status of  existing community energy­savings programs, if any    South Burlington Energy Committee (SBEC)    The Energy Committee was formed in 2008 by the City Council with a mission "to promote energy  efficiency, affordable energy, and lessen our reliance (per capita) on non­renewable energy resources.” Our  role has been to develop and implement programs that promote conservation, efficiency, and renewable  energy resources among the city's residents, businesses, and in municipal operations. We have 10  members, who apply to the City Council for 3­year terms. As we have completed projects that save  residents, businesses, and municipal operations energy and money, we have developed a trusting, working  relationship with City staff, City Council, residents, and businesses.    Here are highlights of the projects and programs that the South Burlington Energy Committee has  undertaken recently.    ●Incandescent Bulb Project ­ Worked with Efficiency Vermont, our local newspaper and 3 local  businesses to develop and implement a program to increase replacement of incandescent bulbs  with Compact Fluorescent (CFL) bulbs that resulted in 40,000 CFLs sold in 10 months.   ●LED Streetlight Replacement – Worked with the City, Green Mountain Power and Efficiency  Vermont to replace current streetlight with LEDs. This resulted in replacement of 80% of the lights  with a 56% reduction in the total kwh for street lighting.  ●Condo Weatherization Project – Obtained a grant and worked with a consultant and Vermont  Gas on a program to weatherize condominiums. 24 condos were weatherized. Vermont Gas has  continued the weatherization program.  ●Municipal Building Lighting Upgrade ­ Worked with Efficiency Vermont and a local contractor to  upgrade the office lighting in all the municipal buildings resulting in a $17,000 reduction in the city’s  power bill.  ●Renewable Energy Projects – Supported City solar projects including the development of the  Dorset Park Solar Array (60 kW City­owned) and the Claire Solar project (2.2 MW private  ownership).  ●Building Energy Code Compliance – Worked with the City to develop a process to improve  communication to builders and owners about the State’s energy code. As a result, the City now  hands out Energy Code Compliance brochures with an explanatory letter when building permits are  issued for applicable construction. Met with Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and  Efficiency Vermont concerning strengthening compliance throughout the state.  ●Energy Ambassador Program ­ Worked on an Efficiency Vermont program that offered lighting  upgrade assessments to small businesses throughout South Burlington. The city received a $3,000    GUEP Application Document 2  South Burlington, Vermont  Page of 1 of 3  performance award from Efficiency Vermont for the electricity savings experienced by businesses  that had taken SBEC­Ambassador­initiated efficiency actions.  ●Vermont Home Energy Challenge – Developed a residential weatherization campaign, (as part of  Efficiency Vermont’s 2013 statewide Energy Challenge), distributed weatherization pamphlets to  neighborhoods, and hosted energy efficiency open houses. Promoted program at the South  Burlington Farmer's Market, in the local newspaper and in a local web service call Front Porch  Forum.  http://efficiencyvermont.com/homeenergychallenge  ●Municipal Capital Program – Supported the development and approval of the City’s capital  program items related to municipal energy efficiency improvements.  ●Draft Comprehensive Plan – Provided detailed energy efficiency and renewable­energy­related  recommendations to all sections of the Plan. Worked with the Form Based Code Committee to try  to ensure that the new Form Based Code framework serves Plan energy goals.  ●Interim Zoning (IZ) Committees – Attended IZ committee meetings to increase awareness and  collaboration regarding important energy issues. Collaborated and advocated for change in the draft  Form Based Code street typologies to promote better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Made  recommendations to the Affordable Housing Committee to include stronger energy efficiency  requirements.  ●New City Center primary thoroughfare, Market Street – Worked with other City committees to  try to guarantee public transit best practices and energy efficient transportation options (e.g.,  bicycles) that would safely accommodate all users of all abilities and ages along Market Street.  ●Go Vermont Commuter Challenge Grant – Applied for and completed the requirements for the  Go Vermont Commuter Challenge Grant ($500 for promoting alternative transportation)  http://www.connectingcommuters.org  ●Button Up workshop ­ Hosted Home Weatherization Button Up workshops in South Burlington.  http://buttonupvermont.org  ●Traffic light timing ­ Worked with an interested resident and Public Works Director to explore  changing some traffic signal timings to improve traffic flow and reduce idling time.  ●Park and Ride ­ Advocated for Shelburne Road corridor park and ride lot during the Shelburne  Road corridor study that was organized by the Regional Planning Commission.  ●Vermontivate! ­ Promoted participation in (and won) Vermontivate!, an award­winning community  sustainability game that brings fun, imagination, and collaborative competition to the serious work of  addressing the global climate crisis. Because it’s designed to appeal to a wide range of both ages  and experience levels, Vermontivate! is a powerful tool for raising public awareness about climate  change and sustainable living, and helps strengthen and unify communities in their journey to a  healthy and just post­carbon world.  http://www.veic.org/our­results/success­stories/vermontivate­a­game­based­approach­to­addressing­ climate­change and http://vimeo.com/63563386  ●Energy Efficiency Policy ­ Worked with City Manager to develop an energy efficiency policy for the  city, that was unanimously approved by the City Council. The policy directs the City Manager to  develop and periodically update a plan to identify cost­effective energy efficiency and conservation  measures that can be implemented throughout City government, and requires the City Manager to  report annually to City Council on progress towards improving energy efficiency and conservation.  The complete resolution can be found in the 3­17­2014 City Council minutes on the City’s web site  http://www.sburl.com            GUEP Application Document 2  South Burlington, Vermont  Page of 2 of 3  Efficiency Vermont    Efficiency Vermont (EVT) has a mission to improve Energy Efficiency throughout the State of Vermont.  Efficiency Vermont provides technical assistance, rebates, and other financial incentives to help Vermont  households and businesses reduce their energy costs with energy efficient equipment, lighting, and  approaches to construction and major renovation. Additionally, they partner extensively with contractors,  suppliers, and retailers of efficient products and services throughout the state.    EVT is operated by a private nonprofit organization, the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC),  under an appointment issued by the Vermont Public Service Board. Residential offerings include:  ●Maintains a list of certified home energy auditors and qualified weatherization contractors.  ●Offers substantial home weatherization incentives.  ●Technical assistance for energy efficient new construction.  ●Incentives for upgrading to more energy efficient lighting and appliances, and equipment.    Details of Efficiency Vermont’s programs can be found at http://efficiencyvermont.com    Vermont Gas Systems    Vermont Gas is the Natural Gas utility in South Burlington. As part of its commitment to the efficient use of  energy, Vermont Gas has offered  “Demand­Side Management” (DSM) programs to both residential and  commercial customers since 1992. In 2013, Vermont Gas invested over $1,884,000 in energy­efficiency  projects. Residential offerings include:  ●Free home energy audits for houses that use at least 0.5 CCF per square foot annually, plus  rebates of ⅓ of the retrofit cost and interest rate reductions. Currently, customers are offered loans  at 0% interest for up to 3 years, 2% interest for up to 5 years, or 4% interest for up to 10 years.  ●New construction incentives for highly efficient new homes in their service territory.  ●Equipment replacement program, that helps pay for efficient equipment replacement including  furnaces, boilers, hot water heaters, and drain water heat recovery.    Details of Vermont Gas residential programs can be found at:  http://www.vermontgas.com/efficiency_programs/res_programs.html    2013 Vermont Gas Demand Side Management (DSM) annual report:  http://www.vermontgas.com/pdf/VGS 2013 Annual report.pdf    GUEP Application Document 2  South Burlington, Vermont  Page of 3 of 3  South Burlington Energy Committee  575 Dorset  South Burlington, VT 05403  (802) 846­4106  www.sburl.com        Georgetown University Energy Prize Document 3: Description of the process your community will use  to develop the energy­savings Program Plan       Background    The South Burlington Energy Committee has implemented many projects that have made our residents,  businesses, and our municipality more energy efficient. We have learned that this is not as easy as we  thought when we first started. Changing behaviors is challenging, especially if the change involves a lot of  time or money.    When we became aware of the GUEP, we immediately recognized the opportunity to focus our efforts and  engage our entire community to become more energy efficient and to move away from fossil fuels. The  prospect of the $5 million prize to improve South Burlington’s energy efficiency was tantalizing!    Building Partnerships / Developing Strategic Focus Areas    It was clear to us from the beginning that strong partnerships with people and organizations that can help us  execute would be essential. Since that time we have had conversations with and received commitments of  support from our gas and electric utilities (Vermont Gas and Green Mountain Power) and from Efficiency  Vermont, our statewide Energy Efficiency Utility (see document 2 for information on Efficiency Vermont and  their programs). Our conversations have helped us form several of our Strategic Focus Areas and these  utilities will be instrumental in helping us implement them.    We have fully engaged our city government with the City Council having unanimously approved two key  steps: commitments to participate in “The Prize” and to implement a formal Energy Efficiency Policy to help  drive conservation and efficiency within city operations. Further, our in­process City Comprehensive Plan  spells out energy goals and strategies to help meet them. Our City Manager has been extremely helpful in  discussions with our utilities. We envision continuing to work with our City Councilors and City Manager to  build more partnerships and to drive implementation of municipal efficiency improvements.    Last winter, we began talking with the South Burlington School District Superintendent, facilities staff, the  director of learning, and teachers. Although the district has made strides in reducing the energy use, there  are a lot more opportunities ahead that we are identifying. In addition, we plan to engage our students by  integrating energy issues into the curriculum and by involving them in hands­on energy projects that will give  firsthand experience in problem analysis, research of potential solutions, project planning, and  implementation. Other programs will be developed where students can bring home messages about  conservation, efficiency and renewable energy to engage their whole family.    We have held “Win the Prize” pizza parties and brainstorming sessions in our community. From these  sessions we gathered over 200 ideas that we are integrating into our 9 Strategic Focus Areas. We will reach  GUEP Application Document 3  South Burlington, Vermont  Page 1 of 7  out to our list of potential citizen volunteers for planning, organizing, leading, and implementing projects. We  plan to continue these types of outreach to raise awareness of “The Prize”, our activities to reach our goals,  and to engage more members of the community.    Getting people to stop, contemplate, and then act to reduce energy waste may be the most crucial issue of  the project. We have developed a unique partnership with a local marketing firm and a University of Vermont  professor of Behavioral Psychology. The common approach of explaining financial benefits and offering  financial incentives for energy efficiency projects seems to have its limits. Vermont has had good incentives  for a number of years but the response has been relatively low. We need to find better ways to make the  case to our residents, so we plan to work with the professor and others to use the most current research  about motivating people to act and our marketing partner to develop clever, funny, bright, emotional, quirky,  engaging messages across many media platforms to engage a broad audience.  There are other areas that we are investigating and partners in the business community that we are planning  to engage. Although we have a list of what we believe to be strong initiatives, this list will continue to evolve  as new ideas arise and partnerships develop.    Developing our Program Plan    We are forming a Steering Committee to oversee our GUEP efforts that will be comprised of the South  Burlington Energy Committee, community volunteers, and key community members (like members of the  City Council, representatives of sponsoring businesses, etc.). One of the Steering Committee members will  take on the role of Volunteer Coordinator, recruiting and managing community volunteers. There are clear  partners with an established track record for most of the Strategic Focus Areas. These partners will take a  strong role in developing and implementing their section of the Program Plan.  Project teams will be  comprised of community volunteers, Energy Committee members, and employees of partners.    A member of the S. Burlington Energy Committee or a community volunteer will lead each of the Strategic  Focus Areas providing overall guidance to their team. Each team leader will work closely with the project  partner and their team members to define specific projects, develop project charters, plans, timelines,  budgets, and tasks. The team leader will coordinate activities within their team and with project partners.    Each of the Strategic Focus Areas may encompass several projects. Each of these projects will be  managed with a proven Project Management Methodology and with assistance of GUEP co­coordinator Don  Cummings, a professional Project Manager. This methodology will take us through the following steps for  each of those projects:    ●Project Definition (Project Charter)  ○Description ­ what we need to do  ○Objectives to be achieved  ○Major milestones/deliverables to be met  ○Key stakeholders  ○Project team members    ●Project Plan Development  ○Detailed tasks to be accomplished  ○Expected durations  ○Team member responsible  ○Dependencies with tasks and on other projects  GUEP Application Document 3  South Burlington, Vermont  Page 2 of 7    Managing Implementation    Each project that will be defined during our Program Planning phase needs to be monitored to ensure that it  is progressing smoothly. We will use another element of Project Management to do this.     ●Project Tracking and Reporting  ○Regular status meetings for each project will be held  ○Simple fixed reporting format for reporting status of each project  ○Problems will be identified and corrective actions developed at those  meetings  ○Monthly summary reporting of status to Steering Committee           GUEP Application Document 3  South Burlington, Vermont  Page 3 of 7      Currently Identified Strategic Focus Areas, Objectives, and Partners  To be refined over the next 5 months     Strategic Focus Areas Objective Partner  1 An overall Awareness / Marketing Outreach / Education  Project to raise understanding, commitment and participation  within the community to conserve energy, implement  upgrades to become more efficient and to seek out sources  of renewable energy.  Multifaceted program with traditional  media, social media, face­to­face communication, and  neighborhood­based events.  Residential  Electric & Gas  Ara Hagan  marketing & Diann  Gaalema UVM  Behavioral  Psychologist,  Potentially EVT,  GMP, VT Gas,  other local  businesses  2 Opower project for sample of residents comparing their  electrical usage neighbors and providing help to drive it down.  Providing special focus on top 20% residential electric users  and reach out with special offers of help. Reaching out to the  remaining residents to promote conservation and efficiency.  Develop special promotions for high efficiency equipment  replacements.  Residential  Electric    EVT & GMP        3 Opower like project for S.B. Gas residential customers.  Provide special focus on top 20% residential gas users.  Outreach/Support ­ to identify highest use customers and  reach out with special offers of help. Develop special  promotions for high efficiency equipment replacements.  Residential  Gas  VT Gas  4 Project to Reduce Municipal Electricity Use – Work with staff  and department heads to identify top uses, seek support from  EVT and elsewhere for fixes  Municipal  Electric  EVT, S.B. Staff,  Department Heads,  Potentially GMP  5 Project to Reduce Municipal Gas Use – Work with staff and  department heads to identify top uses, seek support from VT  Gas, EVT and elsewhere for fixes  Municipal Gas VT Gas, S.B. Staff,  Department Heads,  Potentially VT Gas   6 School Project: Work with Teachers & Admin to integrate  energy into the curriculum. Identify top energy uses (Gas &  Electric) and opportunities for improvement as well as identify  potential solar opportunities. Implement all projects using  students, teachers and facility staff and partners.  School  Electric & Gas  S.B. School  Admin, Staff,  Teachers, VEEP  (see VEEP.org),  EVT, VT Gas,  Potentially GMP  GUEP Application Document 3  South Burlington, Vermont  Page 4 of 7  7 Municipal planning: Ensure energy policy(s) are developed  and department. and committees are aware. Ensure that the  Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations are  developed to encourage future energy conservation, efficiency  and renewable generation.  Residential &  Commercial  Electric & Gas  Planning  Commission, City  Council, Experts in  the field   8 Continue to develop municipal Solar Generation capabilities  to offset municipal electric usage: Landfill 1+WW Solar Array  and other projects.  Municipal  Electric  S.B. Staff, Encore  Renewables,  School Admin  9 Residential Solar projects: develop a consortium of installers  that will develop an intensive cooperative marketing program  for residential solar. Investigate the development of a  Community Solar Array where residents who cannot host an  array themselves can sign­up for solar electricity.  Residential  Electric  Solar Developers &  Installers          GUEP Application Document 3  South Burlington, Vermont  Page 5 of 7  Project Charter Form ­ to be completed for each project      Project Name:    Project Manager:    Project Sponsor:   Creation Date:       Project Description:  [Briefly describe the project and why it is important to the community]     Project Objectives:  [State the objectives of the project]     Key Milestones and Deliverables:  [Define the specific and measurable milestones. Milestones are usually associated with completion of a  major phase/project step or deliverable. Each phase or step usually has major deliverables that are  expected.]  Milestones Deliverables Expected  Completion Date                                 Major Risks:  [Project risks are circumstances or events that exist outside of the control of the project team and may have  an adverse impact on the project if they occur.]  ●   ●   ●   ●  Other Projects / Initiatives Dependent on this Project  [This project may be a prerequisite for other Key Projects.]  ●   ●   ●   ●     GUEP Application Document 3  South Burlington, Vermont  Page 6 of 7    Project Stakeholders:  [Identify the major stakeholders for the project.]  Name Position                    Project Team:  [Identify the key roles that exist for the project and who is assigned to the roles.]  Name Role Description                                Project Budget:  [Identify the budget line items (e.g. resources, equipment, vendors, computers, software) and total. ]  Project Budget   Item Amount              Total      GUEP Application Document 3  South Burlington, Vermont  Page 7 of 7  May 21, 2014 Dear South Burlington Energy Committee, Efficiency Vermont is pleased to offer this letter in support of your energy efficiency and conservation efforts as you compete in the Georgetown University Energy Prize. We have already learned from your proposed strategies and envision this project providing learning opportunities, in the application of community efforts in energy reduction, which will benefit all Vermont cities and towns. We are excited to offer the following services to support South Burlington: We will provide you energy data points that we have in our system for tracking against energy reduction goals. We will assist with the prioritization of your extensive potential project list Through the standard custom project process Efficiency Vermont will provide energy and financial analysis for investments in improving the efficiency of your municipal buildings. We look forward to discussing additional ways to partner and support your efforts. Sincerely, Jim Merriam Efficiency Vermont Director 128 Lakeside Avenue 802-860-4095 www.efficiencyvermont.com Suite 401 888-921-5990 Burlington, VT 05401-5095 fax: 802-658-1643 Expenditure Report-May 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Total CITY COUNCIL $177,050.00 $229,990.10 129.90% ($52,940.10) $3,600.00 Total ADMINISTRATIVE INSURANCE $3,740,890.00 $2,720,066.86 72.71% $1,020,823.14 $153,504.84 Total CITY MANAGER $526,609.00 $434,137.67 82.44% $92,471.33 $50,464.57 Total LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, ACTUARY $310,500.00 $244,106.46 78.62% $66,393.54 $13,336.15 Total ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES $957,990.00 $634,800.33 66.26% $323,189.67 $50,912.86 Total INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $181,000.00 $110,925.16 61.28% $70,074.84 $10,742.92 Total CITY CLERK $196,916.00 $181,762.21 92.30% $15,153.79 $19,721.58 Total GENERAL LEDGER/PAYROLL $71,502.00 $74,443.47 104.11% ($2,941.47) $9,302.99 Total ASSESSING/TAX $128,075.00 $126,115.80 98.47% $1,959.20 $13,271.94 Total PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW $318,427.00 $270,242.11 84.87% $48,184.89 $28,471.48 Total NATURAL RESOURCES $2,900.00 $1,125.47 38.81% $1,774.53 $363.20 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT $543,700.00 $543,700.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP. $7,155,559.00 $5,571,415.64 77.86% $1,584,143.36 $353,692.53 Total FIRE DEPARTMENT $2,152,702.00 $2,196,526.35 102.04% ($43,824.35) $206,054.65 Total AMBULANCE $855,228.00 $673,782.87 78.78% $181,445.13 $63,120.79 Total POLICE DEPARTMENT $4,116,532.00 $3,631,134.62 88.21% $485,397.38 $353,963.79 Total PUBLIC SAFETY $7,124,462.00 $6,501,443.84 91.26% $623,018.16 $623,139.23 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT $1,388,000.00 $335,000.00 24.14% $1,053,000.00 $0.00 Total HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT $2,356,605.00 $2,342,276.42 99.39% $14,328.58 $127,894.98 Total RECREATION ADMINISTRATION $241,698.00 $197,473.63 81.70% $44,224.37 $23,897.22 Total PROGRAMS $16,857.00 $12,826.35 76.09% $4,030.65 $2,892.44 Total RED ROCKS PARK $15,800.00 $10,444.56 66.10% $5,355.44 $1,568.61 Total FACILITIES $147,148.00 $90,136.03 61.26% $57,011.97 $8,181.29 Total LEISURE ARTS $16,159.00 $10,591.38 65.54% $5,567.62 $441.75 Total SPECIAL ACTIVITIES $114,136.00 $126,936.29 111.21% ($12,800.29) $4,218.71 Total COMMUNITY LIBRARY $432,645.00 $349,379.77 80.75% $83,265.23 $42,414.79 Total CAPITAL/PARK MAINTENANCE $199,431.00 $172,825.71 86.66% $26,605.29 $19,761.15 Total CULTURE AND RECREATION $1,183,874.00 $970,613.72 81.99% $213,260.28 $103,375.96 Total OTHER OPERATING ENTITIES $642,525.00 $643,042.34 100.08% ($517.34) $0.00 Total CURRENT PRINCIPAL, BONDS $966,512.00 $966,563.00 100.01% ($51.00) $262,974.00 Total CURRENT INTEREST, BONDS $751,768.00 $750,196.03 99.79% $1,571.97 $397,974.13 Total All Funds $21,569,305.00 $18,080,550.99 83.83% $3,488,754.01 $1,869,050.83 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP. CITY COUNCIL General Expenses $2,743.00 $4,300.83 156.79% ($1,557.83) $0.00 Interim Zoning $95,230.00 $57,770.27 60.66% $37,459.73 $0.00 Contractual Expenses $0.00 $89,242.00 100.00% ($89,242.00) $0.00 G.B.I.C. $5,000.00 $5,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 V.L.C.T. $19,037.00 $19,037.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Chamber of Commerce $4,000.00 $3,600.00 90.00% $400.00 $3,600.00 Social Services $36,300.00 $36,300.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 CCTV-Clickable Meetings $5,000.00 $5,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Councilors $5,480.00 $5,480.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Liquor Control $300.00 $300.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Front Porch Forum $3,960.00 $3,960.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total CITY COUNCIL $177,050.00 $229,990.10 129.90% ($52,940.10) $3,600.00 ADMINISTRATIVE INSURANCE Payment to Sickbank Fund $200,000.00 $200,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Fringe Benefits $33,000.00 $7,591.23 23.00% $25,408.77 $354.87 FICA/Medicare $12,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $12,000.00 $0.00 Non-Taxable Fringe Benefi $10,000.00 $80.00 0.80% $9,920.00 $0.00 Vision Plan $12,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $12,000.00 $0.00 Vision Plan Sick Bank $350.00 $0.00 0.00% $350.00 $0.00 Short Term Disability Pla $19,000.00 $13,652.28 71.85% $5,347.72 $1,247.48 Long Term Disability $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $10,000.00 $0.00 Group Health Insurance $1,420,000.00 $1,330,348.43 93.69% $89,651.57 $125,588.80 Health Sick Bank $70,000.00 $56,155.57 80.22% $13,844.43 $5,373.25 Group Life Insurance $17,000.00 $25,987.55 152.87% ($8,987.55) $2,470.13 Group Dental Insurance $120,000.00 $113,443.70 94.54% $6,556.30 $9,555.06 Dental Sick Bank $6,000.00 $3,796.36 63.27% $2,203.64 $307.92 Pension $822,000.00 $33,867.85 4.12% $788,132.15 $44.99 ICMA Match $80,000.00 $55,518.97 69.40% $24,481.03 $8,562.34 Workers Comp Insurance $448,470.00 $428,373.98 95.52% $20,096.02 $0.00 Property Insurance $408,950.00 $395,297.15 96.66% $13,652.85 $0.00 VLCT Unemployment Insuran $15,000.00 $11,788.42 78.59% $3,211.58 $0.00 Deductibles/Coinsurance $10,000.00 $21,045.93 210.46% ($11,045.93) $0.00 Employee Payouts $17,120.00 $23,119.44 135.04% ($5,999.44) $0.00 COBRA $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $10,000.00 $0.00 Total ADMINISTRATIVE INSURANCE $3,740,890.00 $2,720,066.86 72.71% $1,020,823.14 $153,504.84 CITY MANAGER City Mgr.Salaries-Perm. $430,284.00 $364,218.91 84.65% $66,065.09 $42,250.01 City Mgr.Salaries-Other $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,500.00 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $34,200.00 $37,412.35 109.39% ($3,212.35) $5,094.26 Office Supplies $4,000.00 $3,806.35 95.16% $193.65 $567.23 Advertising $8,000.00 $10,391.26 129.89% ($2,391.26) $740.16 Telephone $3,625.00 $3,818.84 105.35% ($193.84) $378.97 Postage $3,500.00 $3,039.56 86.84% $460.44 $0.00 1 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Dues and Subscriptions $3,500.00 $2,852.82 81.51% $647.18 $241.60 Printing $8,000.00 $4,869.80 60.87% $3,130.20 $0.00 Consulting Fees $2,000.00 $238.81 11.94% $1,761.19 $0.00 Travel & Training $15,000.00 $3,488.97 23.26% $11,511.03 $1,192.34 Harvard Kennedy School $12,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $12,000.00 $0.00 Total CITY MANAGER $526,609.00 $434,137.67 82.44% $92,471.33 $50,464.57 LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, ACTUARY Hiring-required testing $1,000.00 ($63.00) -6.30% $1,063.00 $0.00 Payroll Processing Fees $10,500.00 $12,606.06 120.06% ($2,106.06) $1,468.97 Appeals/Abatements $7,000.00 $54,705.86 781.51% ($47,705.86) $0.00 Gen Govt. Actuaries/Pensi $95,000.00 $13,226.00 13.92% $81,774.00 $0.00 Gen Govt. Audit/Accountin $22,500.00 $18,200.00 80.89% $4,300.00 $0.00 Background Checks $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 Legal Costs $171,500.00 $145,431.54 84.80% $26,068.46 $11,867.18 Total LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, ACTUARY $310,500.00 $244,106.46 78.62% $66,393.54 $13,336.15 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Muni Bld Cleaning Supplie $1,750.00 $1,015.83 58.05% $734.17 $0.00 Natural Gas Car-Parts $100.00 $333.70 333.70% ($233.70) $0.00 2nd Floor Copier $8,000.00 $7,990.64 99.88% $9.36 $0.00 Muni Bld Cleaning Service $15,000.00 $17,690.23 117.93% ($2,690.23) $372.65 City Hall Maintenance $60,000.00 $56,128.78 93.55% $3,871.22 $4,671.58 Contingency Fund-Infrastr $200,000.00 $122,493.29 61.25% $77,506.71 $20,167.49 Energy Efficiency $36,000.00 $9,389.00 26.08% $26,611.00 $0.00 Facilty Signage $18,000.00 $5,121.95 28.46% $12,878.05 $0.00 Facilities Assessment $40,000.00 $6,907.60 17.27% $33,092.40 $0.00 Positive Pay Fee $1,440.00 $498.83 34.64% $941.17 $0.00 Training Fees-Boards $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Electricity-City Hall $43,000.00 $17,243.22 40.10% $25,756.78 $167.48 Utilities-City Hall $21,000.00 $22,591.13 107.58% ($1,591.13) $1,805.99 Street Lights $170,000.00 $123,710.08 72.77% $46,289.92 $11,777.51 Stormwater User Rent $287,000.00 $218,216.88 76.03% $68,783.12 $5,407.92 Urban Art Project Park $3,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,500.00 $0.00 Health Officer Reimbursem $100.00 $0.00 0.00% $100.00 $0.00 Emergency Mgmt Center $8,000.00 $1,431.00 17.89% $6,569.00 $0.00 Generator Prevent Maint. $1,100.00 $1,354.30 123.12% ($254.30) $829.30 Council/Board Secretary $8,000.00 $11,925.61 149.07% ($3,925.61) $1,644.46 Possible Additional Staff $35,000.00 $10,758.26 30.74% $24,241.74 $4,068.48 Total ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES $957,990.00 $634,800.33 66.26% $323,189.67 $50,912.86 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IT Staff $80,000.00 $22,368.02 27.96% $57,631.98 $4,203.01 IT-Overtime $0.00 $46.01 100.00% ($46.01) $0.00 FICA/Medicare $0.00 $2,351.03 100.00% ($2,351.03) $304.97 Health Insurance $0.00 $4,505.98 100.00% ($4,505.98) $0.00 2 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Computer Software $25,000.00 $25,315.96 101.26% ($315.96) $3,044.85 Assess digital integratio $20,000.00 $5,080.36 25.40% $14,919.64 $0.00 Computer Hardware $41,000.00 $38,977.65 95.07% $2,022.35 $1,674.60 IT Service $15,000.00 $12,280.15 81.87% $2,719.85 $1,515.49 Total INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $181,000.00 $110,925.16 61.28% $70,074.84 $10,742.92 CITY CLERK City Clerk Salaries-Perm. $149,605.00 $149,463.52 99.91% $141.48 $16,568.03 Leave Time Turn-In $3,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,500.00 $0.00 Overtime $1,000.00 $749.72 74.97% $250.28 $12.34 FICA/Medicare $12,500.00 $16,123.89 128.99% ($3,623.89) $2,099.15 General Supplies $2,500.00 $2,048.96 81.96% $451.04 $290.72 Animal Control $6,400.00 $3,577.45 55.90% $2,822.55 $52.42 Election Expenses $3,200.00 $1,742.43 54.45% $1,457.57 $0.00 School Election Expenses $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Telephone $650.00 $276.12 42.48% $373.88 $25.47 Postage $2,300.00 ($2.28) -0.10% $2,302.28 $0.00 Dues and Subscriptions $300.00 $125.00 41.67% $175.00 $0.00 Printing $375.00 $72.89 19.44% $302.11 $72.89 Board of Civil Authority $1,045.00 $684.25 65.48% $360.75 $0.00 Election Workers $1,200.00 $755.75 62.98% $444.25 $0.00 BCA Appeals/Abatements $1,500.00 $1,381.06 92.07% $118.94 $240.00 Office Equip Maintenance $3,749.00 $161.01 4.29% $3,587.99 $6.64 Travel & Training $4,700.00 $3,223.97 68.60% $1,476.03 $226.41 Photocopier Lease Prin $1,392.00 $1,378.47 99.03% $13.53 $127.51 Total CITY CLERK $196,916.00 $181,762.21 92.30% $15,153.79 $19,721.58 GENERAL LEDGER/PAYROLL G.L./Pyrl.Salaries-Perm. $61,802.00 $66,197.05 107.11% ($4,395.05) $8,455.20 FICA/Medicare $4,900.00 $6,177.07 126.06% ($1,277.07) $832.53 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $300.00 $0.00 0.00% $300.00 $0.00 Office Supplies $800.00 $854.28 106.79% ($54.28) $0.00 Telephone $220.00 $93.43 42.47% $126.57 $8.62 Postage $2,305.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,305.00 $0.00 Dues & Memberships $250.00 $190.00 76.00% $60.00 $0.00 Printing $425.00 $425.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Equipment Contracts $0.00 $6.64 100.00% ($6.64) $6.64 Travel & Training $500.00 $500.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total GENERAL LEDGER/PAYROLL $71,502.00 $74,443.47 104.11% ($2,941.47) $9,302.99 ASSESSING/TAX Assessing/Tax Sal.-Perm. $106,625.00 $103,826.36 97.38% $2,798.64 $11,216.00 Overtime $500.00 $167.55 33.51% $332.45 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $8,410.00 $11,259.99 133.89% ($2,849.99) $1,352.52 Office Supplies $1,000.00 $905.30 90.53% $94.70 $54.53 Tax Sales Advertising $1,000.00 $1,936.50 193.65% ($936.50) $0.00 3 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Telephone $440.00 $186.96 42.49% $253.04 $17.25 Postage $4,200.00 $2,787.00 66.36% $1,413.00 $0.00 Dues and Memberships $600.00 $400.00 66.67% $200.00 $350.00 Printing $2,000.00 $2,778.76 138.94% ($778.76) $0.00 Equipment Maintenance $0.00 $6.64 100.00% ($6.64) $6.64 NEMRC/APEX $1,300.00 $1,266.88 97.45% $33.12 $275.00 Travel & Training $2,000.00 $593.86 29.69% $1,406.14 $0.00 Total ASSESSING/TAX $128,075.00 $126,115.80 98.47% $1,959.20 $13,271.94 PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW Planning Salaries-Perm. $227,027.00 $219,939.96 96.88% $7,087.04 $25,231.75 Leave Time Turn-In $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 Overtime $4,500.00 $5,194.63 115.44% ($694.63) $411.92 Fringe Benefits $750.00 $300.00 40.00% $450.00 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $18,500.00 $18,660.70 100.87% ($160.70) $2,321.53 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $300.00 $0.00 0.00% $300.00 $0.00 Office Supplies $4,000.00 $1,471.82 36.80% $2,528.18 ($199.59) Public Meeting Advertisin $3,500.00 $3,476.30 99.32% $23.70 $95.60 Telephone $650.00 $276.12 42.48% $373.88 $25.47 Postage $1,500.00 $24.51 1.63% $1,475.49 $0.00 Dues and Subscriptions $1,200.00 $960.00 80.00% $240.00 $340.00 Document Printing $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,000.00 $0.00 Maps $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,500.00 $0.00 Consultants $5,000.00 $6,045.16 120.90% ($1,045.16) $0.00 Payment for GIS Services $2,500.00 $2,500.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 PC/DRB Stipends $9,000.00 $8,322.96 92.48% $677.04 $0.00 Travel & Training $4,500.00 $3,069.95 68.22% $1,430.05 $244.80 Legal Permit Review $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 Independent Technical Rev $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $10,000.00 $0.00 Reimbursable grant expend $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $15,000.00 $0.00 Total PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW $318,427.00 $270,242.11 84.87% $48,184.89 $28,471.48 NATURAL RESOURCES Dues and Subscriptions $700.00 $0.00 0.00% $700.00 $0.00 Educational Programs $200.00 $176.00 88.00% $24.00 $176.00 Special Projects Material $1,700.00 $809.47 47.62% $890.53 $187.20 Printing $100.00 $0.00 0.00% $100.00 $0.00 Travel & Training $200.00 $140.00 70.00% $60.00 $0.00 Total NATURAL RESOURCES $2,900.00 $1,125.47 38.81% $1,774.53 $363.20 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT Ambulance Department $155,000.00 $155,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Fuel Pump Reserve Fund $8,200.00 $8,200.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Open Space Reserve Fund $285,000.00 $285,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Reappraisal Fund $95,500.00 $95,500.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 4 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Total OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT $543,700.00 $543,700.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP. $7,155,559.00 $5,571,415.64 77.86% $1,584,143.36 $353,692.53 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Salaries-Permanent $1,096,326.00 $1,095,564.61 99.93% $761.39 $121,697.00 Fire Salaries-On Call $7,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $7,500.00 $0.00 Leave Time Turn-In $8,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $8,000.00 $0.00 Holiday Pay $133,364.00 $139,364.30 104.50% ($6,000.30) $9,528.44 Fair Labor Standard O/T $87,284.00 $49,369.37 56.56% $37,914.63 $0.00 F/D Overtime - Fill-In $50,000.00 $129,055.75 258.11% ($79,055.75) $21,871.43 F/D Overtime - Training $25,000.00 $47,141.94 188.57% ($22,141.94) $7,627.39 F/D Overtime - Emerg Call $15,000.00 $8,830.03 58.87% $6,169.97 $805.31 Wellness/Fitness $9,500.00 $6,575.00 69.21% $2,925.00 $6,575.00 Fire-Off Duty Outside Emp $3,000.00 $2,130.00 71.00% $870.00 $280.00 Swing Fire Fighter $45,000.00 $45,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Fringe Benefits $30,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $30,000.00 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $113,500.00 $148,126.16 130.51% ($34,626.16) $15,635.05 Office Supplies $2,000.00 $2,517.72 125.89% ($517.72) ($49.99) Vaccinations-HEP $1,000.00 $988.50 98.85% $11.50 $0.00 REHAB Supplies $300.00 $271.51 90.50% $28.49 $0.00 Station Operating Supply $4,500.00 $3,025.25 67.23% $1,474.75 $46.92 Maintenance Tools $420.00 $277.32 66.03% $142.68 $37.25 Uniforms-Career $11,150.00 $10,792.98 96.80% $357.02 $24.10 Firefighting Clothing $5,000.00 $6,173.58 123.47% ($1,173.58) $1,739.53 Vehicle Tools $1,000.00 $823.42 82.34% $176.58 $0.00 Gas Chief's vehicle & rei $2,800.00 $6,730.96 240.39% ($3,930.96) $2,296.25 Diesel Fuel $28,000.00 $24,877.26 88.85% $3,122.74 $469.12 Oil $600.00 $155.56 25.93% $444.44 $0.00 Films and Books $1,100.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,100.00 $0.00 Fire Prevention Materials $3,000.00 $2,759.17 91.97% $240.83 $0.00 Fire Extinguishers $600.00 $316.50 52.75% $283.50 $60.00 Airpacks Maintenance $8,000.00 $3,079.30 38.49% $4,920.70 $686.88 Telephone $13,000.00 $11,540.39 88.77% $1,459.61 $836.19 Postage-Tool Shipping $400.00 $158.03 39.51% $241.97 $59.14 Dues and Subscriptions $1,350.00 $854.00 63.26% $496.00 $379.00 Fire Station Maintenance $14,000.00 $17,610.12 125.79% ($3,610.12) $1,571.74 Laundry and Bedding $900.00 $229.42 25.49% $670.58 $0.00 Radio Repair $2,500.00 $2,230.39 89.22% $269.61 $205.00 Vehicle Maintenance $8,000.00 $7,537.07 94.21% $462.93 $2,311.44 Vehicle Repair $15,000.00 $20,594.01 137.29% ($5,594.01) $1,954.00 Equipment R & M $4,000.00 $4,615.96 115.40% ($615.96) $0.00 Computers Contract ACS $2,500.00 $1,594.92 63.80% $905.08 $6.64 Conferences $1,500.00 $194.56 12.97% $1,305.44 $113.20 Training Schools $4,000.00 $3,439.57 85.99% $560.43 $100.00 Training Equipment $750.00 $474.19 63.23% $275.81 $0.00 Recruiting & Testing $500.00 $870.00 174.00% ($370.00) $0.00 Fire Station #2 Heat/Elec $12,500.00 $9,555.70 76.45% $2,944.30 $990.82 5 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Fire Safety Equipment $109,500.00 $113,498.89 103.65% ($3,998.89) $8,197.80 F/D Furniture/Equipment $2,500.00 $2,399.00 95.96% $101.00 $0.00 Firefighting Equipment-ho $10,000.00 $8,410.74 84.11% $1,589.26 $0.00 Note on Quint Fire Truck $152,658.00 $152,645.60 99.99% $12.40 $0.00 Copier $4,200.00 $4,127.60 98.28% $72.40 $0.00 F/D Equipment Trsf Out $100,000.00 $100,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total FIRE DEPARTMENT $2,152,702.00 $2,196,526.35 102.04% ($43,824.35) $206,054.65 AMBULANCE Permanent Salaries $504,025.00 $369,132.27 73.24% $134,892.73 $37,937.62 EMT Pay $65,003.00 $64,507.67 99.24% $495.33 $6,864.55 Holiday Pay $50,936.00 $30,773.98 60.42% $20,162.02 $0.00 Fair Labor Standard OT $45,614.00 $26,837.34 58.84% $18,776.66 $3,232.00 Overtime Fill-In $20,000.00 $31,502.29 157.51% ($11,502.29) $2,477.38 Overtime - Training $12,900.00 $8,880.22 68.84% $4,019.78 $503.45 Overtime - Emergency Call $5,000.00 $2,416.24 48.32% $2,583.76 $421.13 Wellness $1,500.00 $120.00 8.00% $1,380.00 $0.00 FICA/MEDI $52,500.00 $49,113.91 93.55% $3,386.09 $5,522.84 Doctor Service Stipend $2,400.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,400.00 $0.00 Office Supplies $2,000.00 $1,482.61 74.13% $517.39 $47.98 Medical Supplies-Disposab $19,000.00 $25,404.53 133.71% ($6,404.53) $3,740.08 Medical Supplies-Oxygen $4,000.00 $1,673.30 41.83% $2,326.70 $164.33 Medical Equipment Replace $3,500.00 $6,861.69 196.05% ($3,361.69) $0.00 Uniforms-Career $6,000.00 $4,903.43 81.72% $1,096.57 $386.00 Diesel Fuel $7,500.00 $6,947.72 92.64% $552.28 $668.06 Training Films and Books $750.00 $341.20 45.49% $408.80 $341.20 Telephone $3,250.00 $1,621.72 49.90% $1,628.28 $221.61 Billing Postage $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 Dues & Subscriptions $500.00 $135.00 27.00% $365.00 $120.00 Radio Repair $1,750.00 $357.00 20.40% $1,393.00 $0.00 Vehicle Maintenance $2,500.00 $890.99 35.64% $1,609.01 $2.70 Vehicle Repair $3,000.00 $4,822.59 160.75% ($1,822.59) $469.86 Equipment R&M $1,250.00 $1,235.16 98.81% $14.84 $0.00 Billing Software/Upgrades $4,000.00 $3,449.53 86.24% $550.47 $0.00 Med Equipment Maintenance $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Training Programs $5,850.00 $5,806.00 99.25% $44.00 $0.00 Training Equipment $500.00 $132.68 26.54% $367.32 $0.00 To Reserve Fund-Training $10,000.00 $10,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 EMS Patient Care Discript $16,000.00 $14,433.80 90.21% $1,566.20 $0.00 Total AMBULANCE $855,228.00 $673,782.87 78.78% $181,445.13 $63,120.79 POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Salaries-Permanent $2,456,961.00 $2,288,757.90 93.15% $168,203.10 $256,871.16 Police Salaries-Other $15,000.00 $14,760.53 98.40% $239.47 $2,898.32 Leave Time Turn-In $12,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $12,000.00 $0.00 Police Salaries-Overtime $220,000.00 $286,703.73 130.32% ($66,703.73) $22,340.58 Holiday Pay $223,539.00 $149,884.26 67.05% $73,654.74 $1,975.74 6 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Automatic Corporal $12,419.00 $1,364.80 10.99% $11,054.20 $0.00 Shift Differential $36,480.00 $21,231.34 58.20% $15,248.66 $2,909.56 Drug Task Force Personnel $45,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $45,000.00 $0.00 Off-Duty Police Salary $22,000.00 $4,298.75 19.54% $17,701.25 $940.00 Fitness $24,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $24,000.00 $0.00 Reparative Board Grant Ac $100,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $100,000.00 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $225,500.00 $278,940.69 123.70% ($53,440.69) $36,177.15 Office Supplies $10,500.00 $8,986.61 85.59% $1,513.39 $363.91 Range Supplies $11,500.00 $11,283.22 98.11% $216.78 $0.00 Radio Equipment-Supplies $800.00 $0.00 0.00% $800.00 $0.00 Investigative Supplies $8,000.00 $1,766.92 22.09% $6,233.08 $109.51 Youth Services Supplies $6,000.00 $2,824.66 47.08% $3,175.34 $0.00 Traffic Unit Supplies $2,000.00 $2,258.47 112.92% ($258.47) $0.00 K-9 Supplies $3,000.00 $2,021.44 67.38% $978.56 $140.96 Janitorial Supplies $3,000.00 $2,544.20 84.81% $455.80 $221.80 Uniform Supplies $34,000.00 $34,262.90 100.77% ($262.90) $4,802.95 Tires $10,200.00 $4,820.12 47.26% $5,379.88 $0.00 Gas and Oil $77,500.00 $71,393.68 92.12% $6,106.32 $6,816.49 Telephone $27,500.00 $26,930.54 97.93% $569.46 $1,717.75 Postage $2,800.00 $1,428.42 51.02% $1,371.58 $0.00 Dues and Subscriptions $2,774.00 $996.76 35.93% $1,777.24 $99.00 Towing Services $1,000.00 $996.62 99.66% $3.38 $326.12 Crime Prevention Supplies $4,500.00 $2,734.82 60.77% $1,765.18 $0.00 Building Repairs $3,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,500.00 $0.00 Building Maintenance $12,000.00 $3,003.86 25.03% $8,996.14 $289.00 Uniform Cleaning $15,000.00 $13,347.90 88.99% $1,652.10 $1,086.75 Office Equip. Contract $5,000.00 $3,589.59 71.79% $1,410.41 $6.64 Generator Prevent Maint $700.00 $635.00 90.71% $65.00 $0.00 Radio Equip. Maintenance $10,000.00 $12,869.50 128.70% ($2,869.50) $5,330.00 Vehicle Repair $40,800.00 $33,246.03 81.49% $7,553.97 ($2,134.58) Computer Connections Syst $18,339.00 $16,437.00 89.63% $1,902.00 $0.00 Equipment Maintenance $3,000.00 $2,682.26 89.41% $317.74 $2,240.06 Records Management System $10,000.00 $2,770.00 27.70% $7,230.00 $0.00 Consulting Services $6,840.00 $5,371.00 78.52% $1,469.00 $0.00 Tower Lease $300.00 $300.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Animal Control Contracts $21,000.00 $5,816.56 27.70% $15,183.44 $433.45 Conferences $6,600.00 $2,314.71 35.07% $4,285.29 $0.00 In-Service Training $28,380.00 $25,910.95 91.30% $2,469.05 $393.44 Recruiting & Testing $2,500.00 $2,571.05 102.84% ($71.05) $188.50 Tuition Reimbursement $6,800.00 $0.00 0.00% $6,800.00 $0.00 Electric-Police Dept. $56,000.00 $35,473.70 63.35% $20,526.30 $0.00 Heat/Hot Water $13,000.00 $5,311.64 40.86% $7,688.36 $638.78 Radio Installation Utilit $500.00 $327.40 65.48% $172.60 $0.00 Building Common Area Fees $43,000.00 $52,337.77 121.72% ($9,337.77) $4,292.75 Cleaning/Building Service $34,200.00 $29,234.00 85.48% $4,966.00 $2,488.00 Vehicles and Equipment $148,000.00 $149,231.71 100.83% ($1,231.71) $0.00 Office Equipment $6,300.00 $219.99 3.49% $6,080.01 $0.00 Radio Equipment $21,000.00 $1,380.00 6.57% $19,620.00 $0.00 Taser Replacement $5,800.00 $5,561.62 95.89% $238.38 $0.00 7 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Total POLICE DEPARTMENT $4,116,532.00 $3,631,134.62 88.21% $485,397.38 $353,963.79 Total PUBLIC SAFETY $7,124,462.00 $6,501,443.84 91.26% $623,018.16 $623,139.23 OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT To undesignated reserve f $75,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $75,000.00 $0.00 Market St./City Center $978,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $978,000.00 $0.00 To Capital Improvements $335,000.00 $335,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT $1,388,000.00 $335,000.00 24.14% $1,053,000.00 $0.00 STREETS & HIGHWAYS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Highway Salaries-Perm. $640,575.00 $670,461.20 104.67% ($29,886.20) $70,077.39 Leave Time Turn-In $8,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $8,500.00 $0.00 Highway Salaries-Overtime $30,000.00 $21,513.49 71.71% $8,486.51 $395.21 On-Call Pay $18,700.00 $325.00 1.74% $18,375.00 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $55,000.00 $73,413.35 133.48% ($18,413.35) $8,920.55 Drug/Alcohol/Phys.Testing $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 Office Supplies $2,500.00 $2,436.51 97.46% $63.49 $163.88 Traffic Light Supplies $25,000.00 $22,472.06 89.89% $2,527.94 $1,106.70 Sign Supplies $6,000.00 $6,399.90 106.67% ($399.90) $496.77 City Highways Material $21,000.00 $26,188.80 124.71% ($5,188.80) $1,510.37 Road Striping $15,000.00 $7,261.18 48.41% $7,738.82 $255.40 Winter Salt $86,000.00 $121,861.83 141.70% ($35,861.83) $0.00 Winter Sand $1,500.00 $742.72 49.51% $757.28 $0.00 Winter Liquid Deicer Addi $14,000.00 $18,066.76 129.05% ($4,066.76) $0.00 Building Supplies $2,500.00 $1,434.21 57.37% $1,065.79 $12.98 Uniforms $13,000.00 $13,211.18 101.62% ($211.18) $536.56 Vehicle Repair Parts $85,000.00 $91,782.25 107.98% ($6,782.25) ($277.27) School Bus Parts $32,500.00 $32,155.44 98.94% $344.56 $1,055.96 Gasoline $21,000.00 $24,848.72 118.33% ($3,848.72) ($4,334.50) Oil $5,000.00 $7,111.93 142.24% ($2,111.93) ($12.33) Diesel Fuel $68,500.00 $49,116.28 71.70% $19,383.72 $8,212.68 Diesel/Gasoline Non City $130,000.00 $190,810.74 146.78% ($60,810.74) $20,078.09 Advertising $0.00 $1,500.00 100.00% ($1,500.00) $0.00 Telephone/Internet $8,800.00 $8,428.58 95.78% $371.42 $642.89 Building Maintenance $30,000.00 $24,061.90 80.21% $5,938.10 $1,295.89 Generator Prevent Maint $630.00 $630.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Tree Care $8,000.00 $5,129.34 64.12% $2,870.66 $1,926.63 Equipment Rental/Purchase $3,500.00 $549.27 15.69% $2,950.73 $237.90 Office Equipment Maintnce $3,500.00 $2,444.35 69.84% $1,055.65 $499.00 Travel & Training $5,400.00 $5,777.02 106.98% ($377.02) $52.03 Utilities - Garage $16,000.00 $12,745.07 79.66% $3,254.93 $0.00 Utilities-Garage Heat $15,000.00 $15,365.21 102.43% ($365.21) $1,612.09 Traffic Lights $34,000.00 $28,598.84 84.11% $5,401.16 $1,762.82 Vehicle Replacement $360,000.00 $352,324.51 97.87% $7,675.49 $0.00 Highway Paving $575,000.00 $498,621.16 86.72% $76,378.84 $11,433.77 8 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Curbs and Sidewalks $15,000.00 $4,487.62 29.92% $10,512.38 $233.52 Total HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT $2,356,605.00 $2,342,276.42 99.39% $14,328.58 $127,894.98 Total STREETS & HIGHWAYS $2,356,605.00 $2,342,276.42 99.39% $14,328.58 $127,894.98 CULTURE AND RECREATION RECREATION ADMINISTRATION Rec.Admin.Salaries-Perm. $198,891.00 $159,793.50 80.34% $39,097.50 $19,009.34 Leave Time Turn-In $9,279.00 $2,672.40 28.80% $6,606.60 $0.00 Taxable Fringe Benefits $603.00 $0.00 0.00% $603.00 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $16,000.00 $18,299.18 114.37% ($2,299.18) $2,524.48 Office Supplies $2,900.00 $2,888.40 99.60% $11.60 $307.07 Telephone $875.00 $1,033.40 118.10% ($158.40) $381.15 Postage $600.00 $23.68 3.95% $576.32 $0.00 Dues and Subscriptions $650.00 $923.33 142.05% ($273.33) $250.00 Scholarships $1,000.00 $1,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $500.00 Printing $3,600.00 $3,600.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Software/Printer Contract $3,900.00 $3,904.82 100.12% ($4.82) $6.64 Travel & Training $3,400.00 $3,334.92 98.09% $65.08 $918.54 Total RECREATION ADMINISTRATION $241,698.00 $197,473.63 81.70% $44,224.37 $23,897.22 PROGRAMS Salaries-Programs $9,900.00 $7,052.63 71.24% $2,847.37 $1,413.22 FICA/Medicare $757.00 $1,234.85 163.12% ($477.85) $160.92 General Supplies $3,000.00 $2,415.87 80.53% $584.13 $1,318.30 Advertising $2,200.00 $2,123.00 96.50% $77.00 $0.00 School Wage Reimbursement $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Total PROGRAMS $16,857.00 $12,826.35 76.09% $4,030.65 $2,892.44 RED ROCKS PARK Red Rocks Park Salaries $10,400.00 $9,247.60 88.92% $1,152.40 $1,347.60 FICA/Medicare $800.00 $803.28 100.41% ($3.28) $198.93 General Supplies $3,500.00 $129.80 3.71% $3,370.20 $0.00 Printing $400.00 $0.00 0.00% $400.00 $0.00 Utilities $700.00 $263.88 37.70% $436.12 $22.08 Total RED ROCKS PARK $15,800.00 $10,444.56 66.10% $5,355.44 $1,568.61 FACILITIES Park Salaries $3,900.00 $4,914.00 126.00% ($1,014.00) $0.00 FICA/Medicare $298.00 $760.24 255.11% ($462.24) $0.00 Supplies $5,500.00 $2,510.68 45.65% $2,989.32 $242.06 Fuel-Gas $2,700.00 $2,810.17 104.08% ($110.17) $144.29 Recreation Path Committee $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 Electric-Jaycee Park $1,400.00 $1,325.36 94.67% $74.64 $96.28 Electric-Dorset Park $3,200.00 $1,656.49 51.77% $1,543.51 $140.25 9 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Electric-Overlook Park $500.00 $262.50 52.50% $237.50 $25.11 Electric-Tennis Courts $650.00 $396.59 61.01% $253.41 $33.30 Facilities Improvements $32,500.00 $32,500.00 100.00% $0.00 $7,500.00 Capital Items $96,000.00 $43,000.00 44.79% $53,000.00 $0.00 Total FACILITIES $147,148.00 $90,136.03 61.26% $57,011.97 $8,181.29 LEISURE ARTS Playground Director $2,000.00 $2,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Arts & Crafts Instructors $1,000.00 $765.00 76.50% $235.00 $0.00 Adult Programs Supplies/I $3,000.00 $2,769.82 92.33% $230.18 $441.75 FICA/Medicare $459.00 $130.00 28.32% $329.00 $0.00 Kids Playground Supplies $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 Kids Arts & Crarts Materi $400.00 $399.62 99.91% $0.38 $0.00 Senior Club Contract $3,800.00 $2,326.94 61.24% $1,473.06 $0.00 Reimbursement-Bus Drivers $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Artists-Contracts $400.00 $400.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Chorus Directors $3,600.00 $1,800.00 50.00% $1,800.00 $0.00 Total LEISURE ARTS $16,159.00 $10,591.38 65.54% $5,567.62 $441.75 SPECIAL ACTIVITIES Adult Programs $32,000.00 $26,592.85 83.10% $5,407.15 $3,708.00 Jazzercise of Shelburne $4,200.00 $2,896.00 68.95% $1,304.00 $0.00 Special Events $5,500.00 $5,490.84 99.83% $9.16 $0.00 Swim Lessons-Sport/Fit Ed $7,700.00 $2,280.00 29.61% $5,420.00 $1,070.00 Youth Programs $21,000.00 $48,333.75 230.16% ($27,333.75) ($420.00) Great Escape Tickets $15,000.00 $12,452.00 83.01% $2,548.00 $0.00 Afternoon Skiing-Middle S $6,000.00 $9,645.00 160.75% ($3,645.00) $0.00 Afternoon Skiing-Orchard $6,200.00 $2,705.00 43.63% $3,495.00 $0.00 Spec.Activities Salaries $7,000.00 $5,223.50 74.62% $1,776.50 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $536.00 $402.36 75.07% $133.64 $0.00 Supplies $7,500.00 $7,179.20 95.72% $320.80 $0.00 Track Meet (VRPA) $0.00 $2,205.04 100.00% ($2,205.04) $0.00 Telephone $1,500.00 $1,530.75 102.05% ($30.75) ($139.29) Total SPECIAL ACTIVITIES $114,136.00 $126,936.29 111.21% ($12,800.29) $4,218.71 COMMUNITY LIBRARY Library Salaries $271,909.00 $258,763.85 95.17% $13,145.15 $32,720.69 FICA/Medicare $21,500.00 $28,967.09 134.73% ($7,467.09) $5,227.46 Library Supplies $5,500.00 $5,399.12 98.17% $100.88 $397.48 Books - Adult $13,686.00 $13,452.87 98.30% $233.13 $1,317.69 Books - Children $7,550.00 $5,169.81 68.47% $2,380.19 $5.88 DVDs/CDs-Adult $4,500.00 $3,947.54 87.72% $552.46 $208.84 DVDs/CDs-Children $1,800.00 $1,608.94 89.39% $191.06 $26.36 Program Supplies-Arts/Cra $1,450.00 $815.16 56.22% $634.84 $41.49 Blanchette Expenditures $10,000.00 $8,012.07 80.12% $1,987.93 $1,279.92 Blanchette/Subscriptions- $6,000.00 $4,851.46 80.86% $1,148.54 $0.00 10 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Bookmobile Maintenance $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Postage $1,779.00 $192.76 10.84% $1,586.24 $31.78 Dues and Subscriptions $400.00 $100.00 25.00% $300.00 $0.00 Online & Print Subscripti $3,000.00 $1,632.81 54.43% $1,367.19 $0.00 School Use $56,287.00 $0.00 0.00% $56,287.00 $0.00 Community Programs $5,265.00 $5,134.99 97.53% $130.01 $304.99 Repair/Maintenance Librar $0.00 $390.62 100.00% ($390.62) $390.62 Bookmobile $1,500.00 $41.31 2.75% $1,458.69 $0.00 Computer Operations $3,092.00 $408.88 13.22% $2,683.12 $0.00 Travel & Training $2,500.00 $2,650.60 106.02% ($150.60) $75.00 Furniture $4,400.00 $6,172.32 140.28% ($1,772.32) $222.72 Computer Improvements $7,560.00 $0.00 0.00% $7,560.00 $0.00 C/L Photocopier Lease Pri $1,967.00 $1,667.57 84.78% $299.43 $163.87 Total COMMUNITY LIBRARY $432,645.00 $349,379.77 80.75% $83,265.23 $42,414.79 CAPITAL/PARK MAINTENANCE Park Maint.Salaries-Perm. $150,381.00 $138,827.01 92.32% $11,553.99 $15,092.25 Leave Time Turn-In $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Park Maint.Sal.-Overtime $8,000.00 $2,552.75 31.91% $5,447.25 $292.39 Parks On Call $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $12,750.00 $16,509.11 129.48% ($3,759.11) $2,466.97 Park Supplies $12,000.00 $8,711.56 72.60% $3,288.44 $1,139.83 Cemetery Supplies $300.00 $605.97 201.99% ($305.97) $305.97 Recreation Path Supplies $1,500.00 $35.19 2.35% $1,464.81 $0.00 Recreation Path Imprvmnts $7,500.00 $1,651.12 22.01% $5,848.88 $463.74 Homestead at Wheeler Park $5,000.00 $3,933.00 78.66% $1,067.00 $0.00 Total CAPITAL/PARK MAINTENANCE $199,431.00 $172,825.71 86.66% $26,605.29 $19,761.15 Total CULTURE AND RECREATION $1,183,874.00 $970,613.72 81.99% $213,260.28 $103,375.96 OTHER OPERATING ENTITIES County Court $123,700.00 $124,220.34 100.42% ($520.34) $0.00 Winooski Valley Park $54,000.00 $54,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 C.C.T.A. $429,347.00 $429,347.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Regional Planning $18,325.00 $18,322.00 99.98% $3.00 $0.00 Metropolitan Planning $17,153.00 $17,153.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total OTHER OPERATING ENTITIES $642,525.00 $643,042.34 100.08% ($517.34) $0.00 Total OTHER ENTITIES $642,525.00 $643,042.34 100.08% ($517.34) $0.00 CURRENT PRINCIPAL, BONDS Public Works Facility $98,568.00 $98,568.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Kennedy Dr Reconstrction $22,440.00 $22,508.00 100.30% ($68.00) $0.00 Lime Kiln Bridge $22,440.00 $22,508.00 100.30% ($68.00) $0.00 PENSION LIABILITY-PRINCIP $262,974.00 $262,974.00 100.00% $0.00 $262,974.00 F/D Building Improvements $30,090.00 $30,005.00 99.72% $85.00 $0.00 11 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 General Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Emergency Center $130,000.00 $130,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Police Headquarters $360,000.00 $360,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Parkland/Brand Farm $40,000.00 $40,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total CURRENT PRINCIPAL, BONDS $966,512.00 $966,563.00 100.01% ($51.00) $262,974.00 CURRENT INTEREST, BONDS Public Works Facility $40,670.00 $40,669.14 100.00% $0.86 $0.00 Kennedy Dr Recnstrction $11,955.00 $11,988.78 100.28% ($33.78) $0.00 Lime Kiln Bridge $11,955.00 $11,988.78 100.28% ($33.78) $0.00 PENSION LIABILITY-INTERES $397,975.00 $397,974.13 100.00% $0.87 $397,974.13 Sewer Fund Note $13,000.00 $12,004.68 92.34% $995.32 $0.00 F/D Building Improvements $16,030.00 $15,982.02 99.70% $47.98 $0.00 Emergency Center $2,405.00 $1,811.30 75.31% $593.70 $0.00 Police Headquarters $256,644.00 $256,644.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Parkland/Brand Farm $1,134.00 $1,133.20 99.93% $0.80 $0.00 Total CURRENT INTEREST, BONDS $751,768.00 $750,196.03 99.79% $1,571.97 $397,974.13 Total GENERAL FUND $21,569,305.00 $18,080,550.99 83.83% $3,488,754.01 $1,869,050.83 Total All Funds $21,569,305.00 $18,080,550.99 83.83% $3,488,754.01 $1,869,050.83 12 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 Sewer Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May W/POLLUTION CONTROL EXPS. Salaries-Permanent $369,000.00 $354,031.56 95.94% $14,968.44 $37,182.37 Payment to Highway-wages $257,434.00 $263,918.71 102.52% ($6,484.71) $911.50 Leave Time Turn-In $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $5,000.00 $0.00 Salaries-Overtime $45,000.00 $32,619.89 72.49% $12,380.11 $3,040.70 Payment to Sick Bank Fund $4,000.00 $4,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Payroll Svc & Testing to $700.00 $700.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 PAFO Certification $9,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $9,000.00 $0.00 Sick Bank Payouts $13,500.00 $9,106.30 67.45% $4,393.70 $0.00 Fringe Benefits $600.00 $540.40 90.07% $59.60 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $33,750.00 $37,553.55 111.27% ($3,803.55) $4,933.64 Payment to Highway-FICA/M $21,070.00 $21,070.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $300.00 $0.00 0.00% $300.00 $0.00 Vision Plan $800.00 $0.00 0.00% $800.00 $0.00 Disability Income $1,600.00 $1,054.13 65.88% $545.87 $95.83 Long Term Disability Insu $2,000.00 $1,832.71 91.64% $167.29 $166.61 Group Health Insurance $82,500.00 $89,444.53 108.42% ($6,944.53) $7,535.88 Benefit Reimbursed to Hig $70,431.00 $70,431.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Group Life Insurance $1,300.00 $1,051.05 80.85% $248.95 $95.55 Group Dental Insurance $7,000.00 $6,763.12 96.62% $236.88 $542.83 Pension $65,000.00 $24,137.70 37.13% $40,862.30 $0.00 ICMA Match $7,850.00 $3,648.14 46.47% $4,201.86 $388.10 Pension Payment to Highwa $81,640.00 $81,640.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Pension Note Payment $38,675.00 $38,675.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Office Supplies $2,000.00 $1,168.49 58.42% $831.51 $214.15 Plant Supplies-lights $60,000.00 $77,825.70 129.71% ($17,825.70) $6,629.17 Ferrous Chloride $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,000.00 $0.00 Polymer $76,000.00 $66,236.77 87.15% $9,763.23 $0.00 Sewer Line Maint/Supplies $15,000.00 $28,965.49 193.10% ($13,965.49) $0.00 Pumping Station Supplies $25,000.00 $18,812.06 75.25% $6,187.94 $3,231.91 Laboratory Supplies $10,000.00 $11,068.75 110.69% ($1,068.75) $82.16 Paint and Hardware $100.00 $0.00 0.00% $100.00 $0.00 Caustic Soda and Lime $36,000.00 $56,705.75 157.52% ($20,705.75) $5,512.03 Alum $18,000.00 $39,600.61 220.00% ($21,600.61) $0.00 Water-Airport-B/B-Pump $2,000.00 $2,552.99 127.65% ($552.99) $457.37 Generator Preventive Main $3,000.00 $4,785.24 159.51% ($1,785.24) $610.79 Clothing Supplies $2,500.00 $2,404.28 96.17% $95.72 $377.98 Truck Parts $8,000.00 $5,718.14 71.48% $2,281.86 $652.56 Gas - Diesel Fuel - Oil $20,000.00 $15,649.08 78.25% $4,350.92 $1,499.81 Fuel - Airport Parkway $40,000.00 $46,236.87 115.59% ($6,236.87) $2,477.51 Fuel - Bartlett Bay $6,000.00 $5,693.92 94.90% $306.08 $132.18 Advertising $0.00 $600.00 100.00% ($600.00) $0.00 Telephone and Alarms $5,700.00 $7,272.50 127.59% ($1,572.50) $567.03 Postage $100.00 $51.68 51.68% $48.32 $17.52 Memberships/Dues $300.00 $613.00 204.33% ($313.00) $196.00 1 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 Sewer Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May Discharge Permits $7,500.00 $8,384.51 111.79% ($884.51) $0.00 Workers Comp Insurance $16,000.00 $15,017.73 93.86% $982.27 $0.00 Property Insurance $46,700.00 $45,500.75 97.43% $1,199.25 $0.00 Unemployment Insurance $2,000.00 $1,571.79 78.59% $428.21 $0.00 Safety $10,000.00 $8,362.54 83.63% $1,637.46 $0.00 Billing Payment to CWD $33,880.00 $17,200.00 50.77% $16,680.00 $0.00 Soil/Sludge Management $150,000.00 $117,882.00 78.59% $32,118.00 $11,902.21 Discharge Water Testing $3,000.00 $547.00 18.23% $2,453.00 $49.00 Landfill Fees $5,000.00 $3,896.68 77.93% $1,103.32 $423.89 To GF-Audit/Actuary $5,315.00 $0.00 0.00% $5,315.00 $0.00 Auditing $6,214.00 $6,214.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Engineering/Consulting $7,500.00 $9,151.76 122.02% ($1,651.76) $5,856.72 Landfill Engineering $10,000.00 $2,814.80 28.15% $7,185.20 $1,615.00 PMT TO STORMWATER-GIS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Office Equipment Contract $1,000.00 $361.49 36.15% $638.51 $278.15 Wireless Communication $1,000.00 $555.89 55.59% $444.11 $51.99 Administrative Services $142,771.00 $143,800.00 100.72% ($1,029.00) $0.00 IT Service $0.00 $443.75 100.00% ($443.75) $0.00 Burlington Sewer Lines $208,532.00 $162,965.22 78.15% $45,566.78 $0.00 Travel & Training $3,000.00 $1,559.10 51.97% $1,440.90 $0.00 Utilities-Pumping Station $65,000.00 $47,268.80 72.72% $17,731.20 $5,650.46 Utilities--L/Fill Station $4,500.00 $10,404.63 231.21% ($5,904.63) $1,707.47 Electric-Airport Parkway $200,000.00 $188,013.93 94.01% $11,986.07 $20,565.38 Electric-Bartlett Bay $120,000.00 $91,269.72 76.06% $28,730.28 $9,237.87 Replacement-Vehicles $41,000.00 $26,872.00 65.54% $14,128.00 $0.00 Building Improvements $5,000.00 $3,986.50 79.73% $1,013.50 $0.00 Pumps Replacements $50,000.00 ($394.00) -0.79% $50,394.00 $0.00 Pump Repairs $50,000.00 $8,818.02 17.64% $41,181.98 $0.00 Landfill Leachate $0.00 $165.00 100.00% ($165.00) $0.00 Bartlett Bay Upgrades $0.00 $64,125.61 100.00% ($64,125.61) $0.00 Loan for Airport Parkway $1,272,060.00 $1,272,059.74 100.00% $0.26 $1,272,059.74 Bartlett Bay Bond Replace $245,000.00 $245,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Scope BTV/SB Sewer $15,000.00 $12,133.54 80.89% $2,866.46 $0.00 Total W/POLLUTION CONTROL EXPS. $4,180,822.00 $3,954,131.61 94.58% $226,690.39 $1,406,949.06 Total ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C. $4,180,822.00 $3,954,131.61 94.58% $226,690.39 $1,406,949.06 Total All Funds $4,180,822.00 $3,954,131.61 94.58% $226,690.39 $1,406,949.06 2 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 Stormwater Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May S/WATER UTILITIES EXPS Salaries-Permanent $211,750.00 $212,549.46 100.38% ($799.46) $24,952.04 Leave Time Turn-In $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 Salaries-Overtime $11,000.00 $23,439.36 213.09% ($12,439.36) $100.39 Payment to Sick Bank Fund $5,555.00 $5,555.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Payroll Svc & Testing to $480.00 $480.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 GIS Employee-PT $25,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $25,000.00 $0.00 Fringe Benefits $200.00 $63.97 31.99% $136.03 $0.00 FICA/Medicare $17,200.00 $25,601.62 148.85% ($8,401.62) $3,279.19 Nontaxable Fringe Benefit $600.00 $0.00 0.00% $600.00 $0.00 Vision Plan $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 Disability Income Insuran $1,000.00 $859.76 85.98% $140.24 $78.16 Group Health Insurance $43,500.00 $40,271.51 92.58% $3,228.49 $3,700.36 Reimburse to Highway Bene $9,125.00 $9,125.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Health Insurance FICA $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 Group Life Insurance $800.00 $889.35 111.17% ($89.35) $80.85 Group Dental Insurance $4,200.00 $3,435.84 81.81% $764.16 $278.68 Pension $22,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $22,000.00 $0.00 ICMA Match $8,600.00 $6,271.15 72.92% $2,328.85 $708.84 Pension Note Payment $26,510.00 $26,510.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Office Supplies $3,000.00 $1,566.22 52.21% $1,433.78 $158.30 Small Equipment/Tools $4,000.00 $4,218.35 105.46% ($218.35) $0.00 Uniforms/Supplies $3,885.00 $2,610.86 67.20% $1,274.14 $127.90 Gasoline $4,500.00 $3,475.29 77.23% $1,024.71 $299.96 Oil $350.00 $234.85 67.10% $115.15 $104.96 Diesel Fuel $8,500.00 $8,328.68 97.98% $171.32 $1,170.76 Permit Requirement-Educat $7,800.00 $8,542.00 109.51% ($742.00) $200.00 Telephone $2,850.00 $1,944.01 68.21% $905.99 $68.73 Postage $300.00 $60.85 20.28% $239.15 $54.21 Membership/Dues $500.00 $374.00 74.80% $126.00 $0.00 Discharge Permits Renewal $4,770.00 $1,789.22 37.51% $2,980.78 $0.00 Workers Comp Insurance $5,386.00 $7,874.13 146.20% ($2,488.13) $0.00 Property Insurance $17,990.00 $14,526.55 80.75% $3,463.45 $0.00 Unemployment Insurance $2,000.00 $1,571.79 78.59% $428.21 $0.00 GIS-Fees/Software $8,000.00 $5,243.00 65.54% $2,757.00 $843.00 Sediment & Depris Disposa $750.00 $304.00 40.53% $446.00 $304.00 Water Quality Monitoring $30,000.00 $6,032.24 20.11% $23,967.76 $0.00 Building/Grounds Maint $1,500.00 $1,000.00 66.67% $500.00 $0.00 Vehicle Maintenance $8,500.00 $7,217.44 84.91% $1,282.56 $1,494.20 Storm System Maint Materi $65,000.00 $18,478.51 28.43% $46,521.49 $2,500.00 Printing $100.00 $147.00 147.00% ($47.00) $45.00 Legal Services $15,000.00 $8,917.44 59.45% $6,082.56 $0.00 1 Expenditure Report-May, 2014 Stormwater Fund Year-to-Date % Budget FY 2014 Account Budget Expenditures Expended $ (+/-) Paid May To GF-Audit and Actuary $3,555.00 $3,555.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Engineering-Watershed $28,000.00 $8,532.45 30.47% $19,467.55 $1,490.96 Engineering-Nghbrhd Asst $22,000.00 $37,868.26 172.13% ($15,868.26) $0.00 Billing Payment CWD $33,800.00 $17,200.00 50.89% $16,600.00 $0.00 IT/Computer Support $13,300.00 $3,272.00 24.60% $10,028.00 $0.00 Office Equipment Maintena $1,000.00 $83.34 8.33% $916.66 $0.00 Equipment Rental $2,000.00 $2,346.01 117.30% ($346.01) $0.00 Administrative Services $128,549.00 $128,549.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Conference/Training Expen $3,000.00 $1,624.34 54.14% $1,375.66 $58.47 S/W Bldg Utilities $3,500.00 $3,054.81 87.28% $445.19 $174.28 Stormwater Pumps Electric $480.00 $244.14 50.86% $235.86 $0.00 Vehicles/Equipment $200,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $200,000.00 $0.00 Stormwater Capital Projec $531,000.00 $369,720.44 69.63% $161,279.56 $21,002.33 Office Furniture/Equipmen $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Project Notes Princ/Inter $103,420.00 $101,758.09 98.39% $1,661.91 $0.00 Flow Restoration Plan Ana $256,000.00 $14,169.23 5.53% $241,830.77 $5,988.75 Reimbursement to Highway $16,341.00 $16,341.00 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total S/WATER UTILITIES EXPS $1,933,146.00 $1,167,826.56 60.41% $765,319.44 $69,264.32 Total STORM WATER UTILITIES $1,933,146.00 $1,167,826.56 60.41% $765,319.44 $69,264.32 Total All Funds $1,933,146.00 $1,167,826.56 60.41% $765,319.44 $69,264.32 2 Revenue Report-May, 2014 General Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2014 Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-May Total PROPERTY TAX REVENUE $11,980,219.00 ($12,153,954.25) 101.45% ($173,735.25) $0.00 Total LOCAL OPTION TAXES $3,550,000.00 ($3,074,296.02) 86.60% $475,703.98 ($795,447.94) Total TAX REVENUE $15,530,219.00 ($15,228,250.27) 98.06% $301,968.73 ($795,447.94) Total INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX $236,500.00 ($178,824.48) 75.61% $57,675.52 ($2,625.47) Total CITY MANAGER $1,536,915.00 ($1,523,945.46) 99.16% $12,969.54 ($427.68) Total CITY CLERK $307,850.00 ($201,580.07) 65.48% $106,269.93 ($14,750.38) Total PLANNING & ZONING $303,000.00 ($386,268.58) 127.48% ($83,268.58) ($84,634.71) Total MARKET STREET & DORSET PARK $983,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $983,000.00 $0.00 Total FIRE DEPARTMENT $260,000.00 ($467,311.94) 179.74% ($207,311.94) ($20,158.71) Total AMBULANCE $704,000.00 ($664,282.61) 94.36% $39,717.39 ($37,143.21) Total POLICE DEPARTMENT $447,280.00 ($182,066.70) 40.71% $265,213.30 ($6,854.50) Total PUBLIC SAFETY $1,411,280.00 ($1,313,661.25) 93.08% $97,618.75 ($64,156.42) Total HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT $1,025,841.00 ($1,140,578.65) 111.18% ($114,737.65) ($171,131.47) Total RED ROCKS PARK $5,200.00 ($3,840.00) 73.85% $1,360.00 $0.00 Total FACILITIES $450.00 ($3,190.00) 708.89% ($2,740.00) ($240.00) Total SPECIAL ACTIVITIES $204,900.00 ($186,751.34) 91.14% $18,148.66 ($5,317.57) Total RECREATION $210,550.00 ($193,781.34) 92.04% $16,768.66 ($5,557.57) Total COMMUNITY LIBRARY $24,150.00 ($25,895.12) 107.23% ($1,745.12) ($17,200.00) Total GENERAL FUND $21,569,305.00 ($20,192,785.22) 93.62% $1,376,519.78 ($1,155,931.64) Revenue Report-May, 2014 General Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2014 Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-May TAX REVENUE Tax, Current Budget $11,875,719.00 ($12,047,619.25) 101.45% ($171,900.25) $0.00 VT Payment in Lieu of Tax $33,500.00 ($35,636.00) 106.38% ($2,136.00) $0.00 Taxes, Reappraisal/ACT 60 $71,000.00 ($70,699.00) 99.58% $301.00 $0.00 Total TAX REVENUE $11,980,219.00 ($12,153,954.25) 101.45% ($173,735.25) $0.00 LOCAL OPTION TAXES Local Option Tax-Sales $2,650,000.00 ($1,924,149.03) 72.61% $725,850.97 ($596,184.41) Local Option Tax-Rooms/Me $187,342.00 ($437,488.99) 233.52% ($250,146.99) ($199,263.53) Rooms/Meals - Fire Vehicl $352,658.00 ($352,658.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Rooms/Meals - P/D Hdqtrs $360,000.00 ($360,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Total LOCAL OPTION TAXES $3,550,000.00 ($3,074,296.02) 86.60% $475,703.98 ($795,447.94) Total TAX REVENUE $15,530,219.00 ($15,228,250.27) 98.06% $301,968.73 ($795,447.94) INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX Penalty, Current & Prior $108,000.00 ($125,229.41) 115.95% ($17,229.41) $0.00 Interest, Current & Prior $35,000.00 ($36,976.28) 105.65% ($1,976.28) ($2,625.47) Abatements/Write-offs $0.00 $1,696.32 100.00% $1,696.32 $0.00 Attorney Fees $2,500.00 ($2,260.03) 90.40% $239.97 $0.00 Fee to Collect State Educ $76,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $76,000.00 $0.00 Current Use $15,000.00 ($15,598.00) 103.99% ($598.00) $0.00 Per Parcel Payment Traini $0.00 ($457.08) 100.00% ($457.08) $0.00 Total INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX $236,500.00 ($178,824.48) 75.61% $57,675.52 ($2,625.47) CITY MANAGER Administrative Services-W $44,665.00 ($44,665.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Administrative Services-S $128,549.00 ($123,106.88) 95.77% $5,442.12 $0.00 Administrative Services-W $143,800.00 ($143,800.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 From Sewer-Audit & Actuar $6,214.00 ($6,214.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 From SW-Audit & Actuary $3,555.00 ($3,555.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 COBRA Repayment $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $10,000.00 $0.00 Pension Liab Note-WPC $38,675.00 ($38,675.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Pension Liab Note-SW $26,510.00 ($26,510.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 From Water-Audit $2,100.00 ($2,100.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 DPSA Insurance Reimb. $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $5,000.00 $0.00 Admin Svc Fee Fund 240 $31,424.00 ($31,424.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 From WPC-Payroll, Testing $700.00 ($700.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 From SW-Payroll, Testing $480.00 ($480.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Adminstrative Services-CJ $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $5,000.00 $0.00 CIGNA/VLCT Insur Rebate $0.00 ($4,783.43) 100.00% ($4,783.43) $0.00 Miscellaneous $4,000.00 ($11,689.15) 292.23% ($7,689.15) ($427.68) Applied Surplus-Gen.Fund $400,000.00 ($400,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Transfer In-Criminal Just $686,243.00 ($686,243.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 1 Revenue Report-May, 2014 General Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2014 Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-May Total CITY MANAGER $1,536,915.00 ($1,523,945.46) 99.16% $12,969.54 ($427.68) CITY CLERK Returned Check Fees $50.00 $0.00 0.00% $50.00 $0.00 Recording Fees $150,000.00 ($107,528.00) 71.69% $42,472.00 ($7,991.00) Photocopy Fees $22,000.00 ($23,524.00) 106.93% ($1,524.00) ($1,877.50) Photocopies-Vital Records $5,500.00 ($4,347.00) 79.04% $1,153.00 ($288.00) Pet Licenses $35,000.00 ($19,860.00) 56.74% $15,140.00 ($864.00) Pet Control Fees $4,000.00 ($4,169.00) 104.23% ($169.00) ($779.00) Beverage/Cabaret License $6,000.00 ($6,910.00) 115.17% ($910.00) $0.00 Entertainment Permits $100.00 ($995.00) 995.00% ($895.00) ($25.00) Fish & Game Licenses $0.00 ($37.50) 100.00% ($37.50) $0.00 Marriage Licenses $1,500.00 ($1,490.00) 99.33% $10.00 ($210.00) Green Mountain Passports $200.00 ($238.00) 119.00% ($38.00) ($42.00) Motor Vehicle Renewals $1,500.00 ($684.00) 45.60% $816.00 ($105.00) Election Expenses Reimbur $0.00 ($1,200.00) 100.00% ($1,200.00) $0.00 School Reimburse-Election $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Interest on Investments $80,000.00 ($30,597.57) 38.25% $49,402.43 ($2,568.88) Credit Card Cash Back $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Total CITY CLERK $307,850.00 ($201,580.07) 65.48% $106,269.93 ($14,750.38) PLANNING Building & Sign Permits $190,000.00 ($278,240.37) 146.44% ($88,240.37) ($65,433.21) Bianchi Ruling $6,000.00 ($8,169.00) 136.15% ($2,169.00) ($771.00) Zoning and Planning $60,000.00 ($82,949.21) 138.25% ($22,949.21) ($17,830.50) Sewer Inspection Fees $0.00 ($2,550.00) 100.00% ($2,550.00) ($250.00) Peddlers' Permits $1,000.00 ($1,060.00) 106.00% ($60.00) ($350.00) Legal Permit Review $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,000.00 $0.00 Market Street Grant $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $15,000.00 $0.00 MPG 11 Grant Revenue $15,000.00 ($12,800.00) 85.33% $2,200.00 $0.00 Independent Techincal Rev $10,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $10,500.00 $0.00 Grant Revenue-EECBG $0.00 ($500.00) 100.00% ($500.00) $0.00 Zoning Violations $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,500.00 $0.00 Total PLANNING $303,000.00 ($386,268.58) 127.48% ($83,268.58) ($84,634.71) Market Street/City Center $978,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $978,000.00 $0.00 Dorset Park Solar Array $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $5,000.00 $0.00 Total MARKET ST. & DORSET SOLAR $983,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $983,000.00 $0.00 FIRE DEPARTMENT Engine Trade In $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,000.00 $0.00 Outside Employment $4,000.00 ($138.50) 3.46% $3,861.50 $0.00 Misc.Revenue-Fire Dept. $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $4,000.00 $0.00 Fire Inspection Revenue $200,000.00 ($417,173.44) 208.59% ($217,173.44) ($20,158.71) Fire Impact Fees-Fund Tru $50,000.00 ($50,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 2 Revenue Report-May, 2014 General Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2014 Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-May Total FIRE DEPARTMENT $260,000.00 ($467,311.94) 179.74% ($207,311.94) ($20,158.71) AMBULANCE Tax Revenues $155,000.00 ($155,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Ambulance Service Billing $525,000.00 ($490,565.47) 93.44% $34,434.53 ($38,770.30) Williston Billing $18,000.00 ($13,255.08) 73.64% $4,744.92 $1,884.68 Grand Isle Billing $6,000.00 ($5,462.06) 91.03% $537.94 ($257.59) Total AMBULANCE $704,000.00 ($664,282.61) 94.36% $39,717.39 ($37,143.21) POLICE DEPARTMENT Vermont District Court $110,000.00 ($44,475.02) 40.43% $65,524.98 ($4,916.00) Traffic Safety Grant $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $15,000.00 $0.00 Sale of Cruisers/Bequest $4,000.00 ($3,355.00) 83.88% $645.00 $0.00 Police Reports $7,500.00 ($6,813.13) 90.84% $686.87 ($540.00) I.C.A.C. $0.00 ($1,603.88) 100.00% ($1,603.88) ($143.50) SHARP $0.00 ($418.96) 100.00% ($418.96) $0.00 Drug Task Force Grant $78,000.00 ($93,497.09) 119.87% ($15,497.09) $0.00 Asset Forfeiture for Trai $8,380.00 ($8,380.00) 100.00% $0.00 ($8,380.00) Parking Tickets $300.00 ($255.00) 85.00% $45.00 $8,380.00 Alarm Registrations $11,000.00 ($9,850.00) 89.55% $1,150.00 ($1,180.00) Alarm Fines $4,500.00 ($1,805.00) 40.11% $2,695.00 $0.00 Off Duty Police $30,000.00 ($6,040.00) 20.13% $23,960.00 $0.00 Bullet Proof Vest Grant $3,600.00 ($413.75) 11.49% $3,186.25 $0.00 Reparative Board Grant $100,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $100,000.00 $0.00 Police Impact Fees $75,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $75,000.00 $0.00 Miscellaneous - Police $0.00 ($5,159.87) 100.00% ($5,159.87) ($75.00) Total POLICE DEPARTMENT $447,280.00 ($182,066.70) 40.71% $265,213.30 ($6,854.50) HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Road Opening Permits $132,400.00 ($44,108.00) 33.31% $88,292.00 ($1,800.00) Overweight truck permits $1,200.00 ($1,535.00) 127.92% ($335.00) ($130.00) Highway State Aid $212,000.00 ($222,330.99) 104.87% ($10,330.99) $0.00 Fuel Pump Surcharge $1,000.00 ($5,571.85) 557.19% ($4,571.85) ($610.49) HazMat Facility Lease $18,000.00 ($20,272.72) 112.63% ($2,272.72) ($287.87) School Bus Parts Reimbure $32,500.00 ($20,923.84) 64.38% $11,576.16 ($376.45) School gas/diesel reimbur $130,000.00 ($144,004.09) 110.77% ($14,004.09) ($17,215.42) School vehicle repair pay $17,700.00 ($14,939.63) 84.40% $2,760.37 $0.00 Salary Reimbursement-WPC $257,434.00 ($257,434.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 FICA Reimbursement-WPC $21,070.00 ($21,070.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Pension Reimbursement-WPC $81,640.00 ($81,640.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Benefits Reimbursement-WP $70,431.00 ($70,431.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Salary Reimbursement-SW $16,341.00 ($16,341.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Benefits Reimbursement-SW $9,125.00 ($9,125.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Reimburse from Fund 265 $8,000.00 ($8,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 Vehicle Trade In $12,500.00 ($1,000.00) 8.00% $11,500.00 $0.00 3 Revenue Report-May, 2014 General Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2014 Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-May Sewer Inspection Fee $500.00 $0.00 0.00% $500.00 $0.00 Hgwy Misc Revenue $4,000.00 ($201,851.53) 5046.29% ($197,851.53) ($150,711.24) Total HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT $1,025,841.00 ($1,140,578.65) 111.18% ($114,737.65) ($171,131.47) RECREATION RED ROCKS PARK Red Rocks Gate Receipts $5,200.00 ($3,840.00) 73.85% $1,360.00 $0.00 Total RED ROCKS PARK $5,200.00 ($3,840.00) 73.85% $1,360.00 $0.00 FACILITIES J/C Park Rentals $450.00 ($3,190.00) 708.89% ($2,740.00) ($240.00) Total FACILITIES $450.00 ($3,190.00) 708.89% ($2,740.00) ($240.00) SPECIAL ACTIVITIES Great Escape Ticket Sales $15,000.00 ($12,711.00) 84.74% $2,289.00 ($255.00) Aternoon Skiing/Middle Sc $6,600.00 ($10,745.00) 162.80% ($4,145.00) $0.00 Afternoon Skiing/Orchard $6,700.00 ($2,885.00) 43.06% $3,815.00 $0.00 Tennis Class Receipts $4,600.00 ($4,126.00) 89.70% $474.00 $0.00 Youth Programs $75,000.00 ($111,984.34) 149.31% ($36,984.34) ($2,553.57) Adult Evening Classes $44,000.00 ($41,900.00) 95.23% $2,100.00 ($2,509.00) Vermont Track Meet-VRPA $0.00 ($2,400.00) 100.00% ($2,400.00) $0.00 Recreation Impact Fees $6,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $6,000.00 $0.00 Hinesburg Road Grant $47,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $47,000.00 $0.00 Total SPECIAL ACTIVITIES $204,900.00 ($186,751.34) 91.14% $18,148.66 ($5,317.57) Total RECREATION $210,550.00 ($193,781.34) 92.04% $16,768.66 ($5,557.57) COMMUNITY LIBRARY Grants and Donations $0.00 ($4,136.56) 100.00% ($4,136.56) $0.00 Late Book Charges/Fines $3,200.00 ($2,254.00) 70.44% $946.00 $0.00 Non-Resident Fees $750.00 ($561.00) 74.80% $189.00 $0.00 Blanchette Gift $17,200.00 ($17,200.00) 100.00% $0.00 ($17,200.00) C/L Photocopies $1,500.00 ($190.00) 12.67% $1,310.00 $0.00 Bookmobile Donations $1,500.00 $390.48 -26.03% $1,890.48 $0.00 LIBRARY MISCELLANEOUS $0.00 ($1,944.04) 100.00% ($1,944.04) $0.00 Total COMMUNITY LIBRARY $24,150.00 ($25,895.12) 107.23% ($1,745.12) ($17,200.00) Total GENERAL FUND $21,569,305.00 ($20,192,785.22) 93.62% $1,376,519.78 ($1,155,931.64) Total All Funds $21,569,305.00 ($20,192,785.22) 93.62% $1,376,519.78 ($1,155,931.64) 4 Revenue Report-May, 2014 Sewer Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2014 MTD Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-May WATER POLLUTION CONTROL CHARGES FOR SERVICES W.P.C. User Fees $3,207,304.00 ($3,013,629.12) 93.96% $193,674.88 ($230,890.64) W.P.C. Truck Charges $50,000.00 ($32,115.50) 64.23% $17,884.50 ($3,315.00) Connection Fees $133,907.00 ($261,125.85) 195.01% ($127,218.85) ($12,147.29) Enviromental Impact $50,000.00 ($10,319.04) 20.64% $39,680.96 $0.00 Total CHARGES FOR SERVICES $3,441,211.00 ($3,317,189.51) 96.40% $124,021.49 ($246,352.93) BOND AND LOAN PROCEEDS Colchester A/P Pkwy Pmt $742,310.00 ($742,310.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 W.P.C. Reserves $13,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $13,000.00 $0.00 Total BOND AND LOAN PROCEEDS $755,310.00 ($742,310.00) 98.28% $13,000.00 $0.00 Total OPERATING TRANSFERS IN $4,196,521.00 ($4,059,499.51) 96.73% $137,021.49 ($246,352.93) Total ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C. $4,196,521.00 ($4,059,499.51) 96.73% $137,021.49 ($246,352.93) Total All Funds $4,196,521.00 ($4,059,499.51) 96.73% $137,021.49 ($246,352.93) Revenue Report-May, 2014 Stormwater Fund Estimated Received % Budget FY 2014 MTD Account Revenue To Date Received $ (+/-)Received-May S/WATER UTILITIES REVENUE Intergovernmental Revenue $0.00 ($201,257.93) 100.00% ($201,257.93) $0.00 S/W User Fees - Water Bil $1,835,306.00 ($1,535,741.06) 83.68% $299,564.94 ($83,042.64) Payment from GF re: GIS $9,500.00 ($6,500.00) 68.42% $3,000.00 $0.00 State of VT Fee for Servi $50,000.00 ($50,000.00) 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 SW Grants $25,000.00 ($68,000.00) 272.00% ($43,000.00) $0.00 Land Owner Payments $44,815.00 ($4,328.72) 9.66% $40,486.28 ($3,809.27) Stormwater Miscellaneous $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,000.00 $0.00 Reserve Transfer In $100,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $100,000.00 $0.00 Miscellaneous Income $0.00 $2,783.04 100.00% $2,783.04 $0.00 Total S/WATER UTILITIES REVENUE $2,065,621.00 ($1,863,044.67) 90.19% $202,576.33 ($86,851.91) Total STORM WATER UTILITIES $2,065,621.00 ($1,863,044.67) 90.19% $202,576.33 ($86,851.91) Total All Funds $2,065,621.00 ($1,863,044.67) 90.19% $202,576.33 ($86,851.91) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: Formal expression of thanks to the Open Space IZ Committee and Conclusion of Committee service DATE: June 12, 2014 In October 2012, the City Council asked the South Burlington Natural Resources Committee (NRC) to serve as one of the four Committees working towards changes during the Interim Zoning period. As staff liaison to the NRC, I have continued as primary staff liaison to the group. The group began discussions in October 2012 with a dialogue of the goals of their work and the City Council made appointments to the committee and formally approved the work plan that same December. The City signed a contract with a consultant in June of 2013 and worked twice monthly towards an Open Space report. I am pleased to report that the Open Space Interim Zoning Committee voted on May 14, 2014 to approve the South Burlington Open Space Report. This report is available to the public, posted prominently on the City’s website under the Natural Resource/Open Space page. The chair will be presenting the report to the Planning Commission at an upcoming meeting, as took place with the other IZ committees. This report concludes the service of the Open Space Committee and I hope you will join me in a formal expression of gratitude for this group of volunteers. I can attest to their strong ethic, enthusiasm, critical thinking, and most of all, their passion for South Burlington. 575 Dorset Street   South Burlington, VT 05403   tel 802.846.4107   fax 802.846.4101   www.sburl.com        MEMORANDUM    TO:  South Burlington City Council and City Manager    FROM:  Jim Barlow, City Attorney    SUBJECT: First Reading of South Burlington Ordinance Regarding Licensure and       Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals and Other Shows    DATE:  June 16, 2014      Background    At the May 19, 2014 meeting, the City Council discussed giving the City Manager authority to  issue entertainment permits under the South Burlington Ordinance Regarding Licensure and  Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals and Other Shows (the “Entertainment Ordinance”).    The Entertainment Ordinance requires a license from the City Council for any circus, carnival,  menagerie, street show, itinerant show, or for any form of live entertainment or performance  open to the public, such as concerts, plays, dances with live music or a disc jockey, dance  reviews, clowns, magician, or comedians.  The ordinance sets forth certain standards for license  approval and authorizes the imposition of conditions to mitigate impacts under these approval  standards.   Entertainment licenses expire April 30th of each year unless the license has an  earlier expiration date or unless the license has been revoked by the City Council after a  hearing.   The cost of a license is $25.00.   Fines for violation of the Entertainment Ordinance  range from $50 to $500.      Proposed Amendments     Staff proposes the following amendments to the Entertainment Ordinance:     Granting the City Manager authority to grant licenses.  See Sections 2(a) and (b), Section  4, and Section 5.  575 Dorset Street   South Burlington, VT 05403   tel 802.846.4107   fax 802.846.4101   www.sburl.com   Updating reference to South Burlington Land Development Regulations.  See Section  4(a).   Clarifying that a person who violates a condition of an entertainment license will be  subject to a penalty.  See Section 8.    Increasing the wavier fees and penalties to reflect current statutory maximums for civil  ordinance violations.   See Sections 8, 9 and 10.    Updating reference to the Vermont Judicial Bureau.  See Sections 8 and 11.    Including a standard severability clause.  See Section 13.    In order to avoid the existence of multiple amendments to the Entertainment  Ordinance, repealing and replacing the existing Entertainment Ordinance in its entirety.   Existing licenses granted by the City Council will remain in effect until April 30, 2015 or  an earlier expiration date or the license is revoked by the City Council under Section  2(c).  See Section 14.     Recommendation    Staff recommend the City Council warn a second reading and public hearing on the draft  amendments for July 21, 2014.    Possible motion:  “I move the City Council warn a public hearing on the proposed amendments  to the Ordinance Regarding Licensure and Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals and Other Shows as  presented at this meeting for Monday July 21, 2014, 7 pm, at City Hall.”      1    AMENDMENT OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ORDINANCE REGARDING  LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF CIRCUSES,  CARNIVALS AND OTHER SHOWS    The Council of the City of South Burlington hereby ordains:      SECTION 1.  Definitions     “Show” as used herein shall mean any circus, carnival, menagerie, street show or  itinerant show.  “Show” shall also mean any form of live entertainment or performance open to  the public such as, but not limited to, concerts, plays, dances with live music or a disc jockey,  dance reviews, clowns, magicians, or comedians.    SECTION 2.  Regulation of Shows     (a) No show shall be conducted in the City of South Burlington unless a license has  been obtained from the City Council Manager, nor shall any show be conducted in violation of  the provisions of this Ordinance.     (b) A license issued under this Ordinance shall be effective on issuance and shall  remain in effect until midnight on the next occurring April 30th unless the City Council Manager  provides for expiration on an earlier date.  A license which expires on April 30 shall remain in  effect beyond April 30 if the holder of the license applies for a new license before April 30 and  the application for new license is pending before the City Council on April 30.     (c) Any license issued under this Ordinance may be revoked by the City Council, for  just cause, after notice to the license holder and provision of an opportunity for a hearing  before the City Council.    SECTION 3.  Application for License     (a) An application for a license under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be filed  with the City Manager at least twenty‐one (21) days before the date set for the opening of the  show.     (b) Such application shall include:       (1)   The name of the owner and operator.      2       (2)   A site plan indicating:  location, and distance from the nearest  residences, fire hydrants, state and local highways, overhead electrical and telephone wires,  entrances and exits to shopping centers and other public places.       (3)   The intended hours of operation, and the number of days that the  show will be conducted.       (4)   Description of the show, including a list of each item of proposed  exhibit or entertainment.       (5)   Any other information required by the City Council or the City  Manager.    SECTION 4.  Approval Standards     Prior to the issuance of any license under this ordinance, the City Council Manager shall  determine that the proposed show satisfies the following standards:     (a) The proposed show is in conformance with any applicable City ordinances  including the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations Land  Development Regulations;     (b) The proposed show will not result in undue adverse traffic congestion and  unsafe conditions regarding the use of public roads.     (c) The proposed show will not present or create a threat to the safety of persons or  property because of fire, explosion or other hazard.     (d) The proposed show will not create unhealthy conditions regarding water supply,  sewage disposal or solid waste disposal.     (e) The proposed show will not interfere with the use of neighboring property for its  customary use by the creation of noise, dust, noxious odors, lighting or other activities which  extend beyond the boundary of the activity.     (f) The proposed show will not overburden the public infrastructure of the City.   Special attention shall be given to the cumulative impacts of other activities which may be  occurring at the same time.     (g) The proposed show will not have an adverse effect on public health, safety,  welfare and convenience of the inhabitants of the City.    3      SECTION 5.  Approval Conditions     When issuing a license under this ordinance, the City Council Manager may attach such  reasonable conditions as they Manager may deem appropriate to mitigate or eliminate any  impacts reviewable under the Approval Standards set forth above.  Such conditions may include  but are not limited to:     (a) establishing specific hours for the proposed show;     (b) establishing noise limits;     (c) requiring the provision of traffic control personnel at no cost to the City;     (d) requiring the provision of crowd control and medical personnel at  no cost to the  city;     (e) requiring the provision of fire fighting equipment and personnel at no cost to the  city;     (f) requiring the posting of security bonds or escrow accounts to ensure compliance  with applicable ordinances and license conditions;     (g) requiring that trash and litter on public streets attributable to the proposed  activity be collected and removed at no cost to the city;     (h) restricting or prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages in connection  with any regulated activity;     (i) prohibiting the sale of admission or seating tickets in excess of the established  capacity of the event area.    SECTION 6.  License Fee     The fee for any license shall be $25.00 which shall be paid at the time of filing the  application.    SECTION 7.  Exemptions      4     Activities conducted by schools licensed by the State Department of Education and/or  churches, on school or church grounds, are exempt from the requirement to obtain a license  and pay a permit fee.          SECTION 8.  Enforcement     Any person who violates a provision of this civil ordinance or who violates any condition  of a license issued hereunder  shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to $5800 per day for each  day that such violation continues.  Police Officers of the City of South Burlington shall be  authorized to act as Issuing Municipal Officials to issue and pursue before the Traffic and  Municipal Ordinance Judicial Bureau a municipal complaint.    SECTION 9.  Waiver Fee     An Issuing Municipal Official is authorized to recover a waiver fee, in lieu of a civil  penalty, in the following amount, for any person who declines to contest a municipal complaint  and pays the waiver fee:      First offense                  $50100    Second offense $125250    Third offense  $200400    Fourth offense $275550    Fifth and subsequent      Offenses  $350700    Offenses shall be counted on a calendar year basis.    SECTION 10.  Civil Penalties     An Issuing Municipal Official is authorized to recover civil penalties in the following  amounts for each violation:      First offense  $100160    Second offense $200320    Third offense  $300480    Fourth offense $400640    Fifth and subsequent      Offenses  $500800    5      Offenses shall be counted on a calendar year basis.    SECTION 11.  Other Relief     In addition to the enforcement procedures available before the Traffic and Municipal  Ordinance  Judicial Bureau, the City Manager is authorized to commence a civil action to obtain  injunctive and other appropriate relief, to request revocation of a license by the City Council, or  to pursue any other remedy authorized by law.    Section 12.  Authority     This ordinance is enacted by the City Council to promote the public health, safety and  welfare of the City under the authority it is granted to regulate public entertainment activities  set forth in 24 V.S.A. Section 2291 and Section 104 of the South Burlington City Charter.  This  ordinance shall constitute a civil ordinance within the meaning of 24 V.S.A. Chapter 59.    Section 13.  Severability     Any part or provision of this ordinance shall be considered severable and the invalidity  of any part or section will not be held to invalidate any other part or provision of the ordinance.     Section 14.  Repeal of Prior Ordinances, Existing Licenses     This ordinance repeals and replaces any prior Ordinance Regarding Licensure and  Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals and Other Shows, and any amendment thereto, in force at the  time this ordinance takes effect.   However, any existing license issued by the City Council under  the Ordinance Regarding Licensure and Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals and Other Shows  repealed hereby, shall remain in force and effect until April 30, 2015, unless the City Council has  provided for expiration of the license on an earlier date under Section 2(b) or unless said license  is revoked by the City Council under Section 2(c).            Adopted at South Burlington, Vermont this _______ day of _______________, 1995  2014, and to be effective upon adoption.           SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL           __________________________________         Michael D. Flaherty  Pam Mackenzie, Chair           __________________________________    6           James C. Condos Pat Nowak, Vice Chair             __________________________________         William J. Cimonetti  Meaghan Emery, Clerk            __________________________________         Robert B. Chittenden Chris Shaw           __________________________________         David MacLaughlin Helen Riehle      Received and Recorded  This ______ day of _____________, 1995 2014.  ________________________________  Margaret Picard Donna Kinville, City Clerk              From: Catherine Frank [mailto:clfrank2@gmail.com]   Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:51 PM  To: Kevin Dorn  Cc: Matt Boulanger  Subject: Proposed reorganization of South Burlington Committees  Thank you for spending time with the Bike-Ped Committee last night explaining the the proposed restructuring of South Burlington's committees. The following comments are mine alone and do not represent the Bike-Ped Committee. I like the proposed changes. It makes so much more sense to have each committee be charged with taking a broader view amongst related interests and subject areas when considering solutions or enlightened design going forward. Street lighting, traffic lights, roads and what we choose to have run parallel to our roads, and the public transportation that the community needs, effects drivers, walkers and cyclists alike, as well as people who do not drive,walk or bike. Having a task force working to come up with the best solution for all concerned parties will produce a solution a lot faster working together than the current system of back and forth and back again. From a volunteer perspecitve it will be a much more worthwhile experience as well. It will probably take some time and trial and error to work out lines of communication and the most efficient use of volunteers time and how best to report to the City Council but that's OK. I would suggest adding to the procedures that are spelled out, as a way to introduce all committee members to the principles behind what that are being called to give volunteer advice on, that all new committee members be given an introduction to the city's Comprehensive Plan before they assume their responsibilities. It should be the ultimate standard that committees use to guide their deliberations and conclusions. Cathy Frank RICK HUBBARD 12 Woodbine Street South Burlington, VT 05403-6621 Rick’s cell: 802-999-3905 E-Mail: rick@rickhubbard.org   TO: All City Counselors plus Kevin Dorn, Ilona Blanchard, Todd Goodwin, Justin Rabidoux, Cathyann LaRose, Paul Conner & Tom Hubbard. RE: Comment about Report of the Committee on Committees Task Force Greetings: It’s important to periodically review how to maximize the effectiveness of committees and I support you for initiating this effort. The objectives of enhancing volunteerism, reducing committee burnout, clarifying jurisdiction, focusing attention on completing policy recommendations, and enhancing staff efficiency in meeting city objectives are commendable. The question is: how well does the existing committee structure and level of interaction and staff support work in accomplishing these goals, and will these goals actually be enhanced if changed to the proposed structure? I will limit my comments and observations to issues I’ve personally observed during my 7 years as a member of the (now renamed) Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, including my last year as its Chair, as well as to what I’ve learned about effective management, collaboration and coordination in connection with my advanced degrees in both business and law and subsequent lifetime experience. 1. Effective City Staff and Committee Coordination: Most everything the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee and the newly proposed Transportation Committee focus on, (paths, sidewalks, sufficiently wide shoulders for on road cycling, new construction, maintenance, public transportation, complete streets, etc.) relates to and is carried out by our SB Dept of Public Works. Yet a direct staff link between them does not exist. Despite the great efforts of first Tom and now Todd, the recreation department is simply not directly involved in the substance of this committee. This should be changed and a direct linkage established. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee has previously supported Justin’s need for an additional employee to prepare bike/ped infrastructure grant requests, to monitor ongoing projects, and to strengthen coordination with the committee. 2. Attracting and Maintaining Skilled and Effective Volunteers: Committee efforts by volunteers need to be respected, and their work products and recommendations seriously considered by both staff and city council as appropriate. Our committee collectively had advanced degrees and decades of experience in engineering, business, law, planning, architecture and bike/ped knowledge and advocacy This doesn’t mean committee advice and work product should be automatically accepted, but when a great deal of thought and professional work has gone into their proposals and recommendations, committee members should be clearly involved and/or responded to as their proposals and work product are considered by city council and staff. Nothing is more damaging to maintaining volunteer involvement than to have their work and presentations not opened, and/or not responded to by city staff as has sometimes happened over the past few years. South Burlington has lost a few of its most committed, most professional, most effective and longest serving committee members in the past few years due, in major part, to this issue. That’s a shame. So as you consider the Report of the Committee on Committees Task Force I ask you to consider how any recommendations you ultimately make would improve outcomes in the following four examples, two of which, though not all, relate to the recent Williston Road Complete Streets project. 1. How did the scope of the initial complete streets study by CCRPC come to focus on the parts of Williston Road between the Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive intersections, rather than between the Hinesburg Road intersection and Millham Court as it was ultimately built? Comment: I subsequently spoke to both the Executive Director and key Project Manager of CCRPC and learned that when CCRPC asked SB what should be considered for a complete streets study, they were advised by the City of SB that Williston Road from Dorset St to Kennedy Drive was SB’s preference. I further learned that the CCRPC request came to the Planning Dept., which forwarded it to the Planning Committee which made the recommendation. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Path Committee was never consulted. Had the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee been consulted, our strong recommendation would likely have been to only consider a complete streets study between Hinesburg Road and Millham Court where the former 4 lanes narrows to 2 a bit before Earl’s Bike Shop. This is because there’s a generally accepted rule of thumb that a complete streets approach will not work if total daily traffic volumes exceed about 20,000 vehicles. Everything west of Hinesburg Road greatly exceeds this. It’s in the mid 30,000 range by the Dorset Street intersection. This is why, after the draft study was produced showing the higher traffic volumes, CCRPC’s consultant recommended doing nothing. The consultant “averaged” the traffic volumes between Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive and the “average” exceeded 20,000. At this time the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee recommended to staff and city council that a trial complete streets demonstration be done only between Hinesburg Rd. and Millham Court after old pavement was removed and before a final layer of new pavement was added. All of that area was within or below the 20,000 limit. It’s also the reason why, when City Council voted to do the Williston Road trial between Hinesburg Rd and Millham Court, some Council members were very surprised when subsequent consultant drawings were produced only for half of the trial area, between Hinesburg Rd and Kennedy Drive. That’s because the CCRPC study, as initially scoped, only paid the consultant to work on that part of the project. After the trial, when City Council voted to extend the final paving over the entire distance from Hinesburg Road to Millham Court, the city had to pay many thousands of extra dollars of city funds to cover the additional cost of consultant drawings and related costs to cover the extension between Kennedy Drive and Millham Court. Had the entire project been properly scoped, these costs would have been included as part of the original CCRPC study. How would a revised committee structure have improved this outcome? 2. Why was the “before” vs. “during” trial traffic study never forwarded to the CCRPC consultant? The Bicycle and Pedestrian committee also knew that a “before” vs “during” traffic count study during peak driving hours morning and evening was essential to accurately document the effects of the complete streets trial and offered to assist Justin with this. Many weeks later when our committee learned the state would, in 2 more weeks, begin grinding up pavement over the complete streets study area, there still had not been any effort by Justin to initiate a comprehensive traffic count. For this reason our committee organized a comprehensive traffic count study over 3 days just before and 3 days during the complete streets trial. The results of this study showed actual traffic counts at peak AM and PM periods to be significantly lower than the computer “projected” counts by the consultant. This study was completed on our behalf by Lou Bresee and forwarded to Justin. In addition, on behalf of the Bike and Pedestrian Committee, Lou was also designated to coordinate with Justin and convey our thinking and recommendations about carrying the single lane approach, with turning lanes, through the Kennedy Drive intersection. Lou sent more than one email to Justin explaining the Committee’s recommendation and requesting a response if Justin or the consultants had any different opinions about this approach. Lou and the committee never received a reply to these requests. Subsequently, as City Council prepared for its August vote to make the complete streets approach permanent, Lou prepared, on behalf of the Committee, an extensive Power Point presentation outlining our recommendations and including all the traffic count data. This all was sent to every City Council member and to Justin a week ahead of the August meeting where City Council voted approval. The email and Power Point presentation were received but never opened by Justin prior to or subsequent to City Council giving its approval. I subsequently spoke with him about this and he told me because he was so busy he never opened this or more than one hundred other backed up emails from SB citizens about the project that arrived shortly before City Council made its decision. When I learned of this almost 4 weeks later I arranged for Lou to again resend Justithe email and PowerPoint presentation. Justin also related to me that, after the August decision, he and the consultant put their heads together and collaborated on the final concept that the consultant then produced in their drawings. These drawings did not include any of the Committee’s recommendations for a single lane plus turning lanes through the Kennedy intersection. The drawings also were not forwarded to the Committee for our review and input prior to implementation. Safe bicycle lanes through the intersection were not provided for and, when built, the white lines were ground into the pavement, which is more expensive but longer lasting. This leaves SB with an intersection that doesn’t match safety standards and markings recommended by certain influential national organizations for bicycle and vehicle travel through such an intersection and an intersection that is less safe for both bicyclists and motorists. This issue is ongoing and will likely cost many thousands of dollars to redo if/when the issue is ever addressed. I subsequently spoke with the manager of the consultant’s office who told me they never received our Power Point recommendations or any of our traffic count data showing the difference with their assumptions. He also said their office was “on the fence” about how to handle the Kennedy Drive intersection design and that it “might” have made a difference. How would a revised committee structure have improved this outcome? 3. How would the Committee continue its long standing, and very effective, practice of meeting with developers to discuss their proposed project a month or so ahead of appearing before the DRB, and then having a Committee member (or members) present at each DRB meeting to be sure that all Committee recommendations, as forwarded to the DRB by staff, are actually considered by the DRB and, as appropriate, required in connection with any DRB approval of the project? For most of the 20+ years since its inception the Committee has followed the above described procedure. It has been very effective. Lou Bresee and/or Bill Cimonetti generally covered each DRB meeting. Advance Committee planning of bike and pedestrian infrastructure which is then incorporated into our city plan and map at each update cycle ensures that bike and pedestrian considerations must be considered as part of DRB review of each developer project. Over the years this has resulted in significant, albeit often not interconnected beyond the project, additions to our bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. How would a revised committee structure meeting quarterly ensure these great outcomes continue? 4. Why has South Burlington lagged behind its much smaller Shelburne and Williston neighbors in expanding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure during the past 10 years or so? During the past several years our neighboring towns of Shelburne and Williston have made good progress in addressing similar issues. Shelburne, with a population of only about 7,200 and a municipal budget of only about $6.8 million (2 years ago) voted a bond of $1.1 million in 2008 and has since 2009 completed 4,600 linear feet of new sidewalks, 5,500 linear feet of paved recreation paths, and added 32,000 linear feet (16,000 feet x 2 sides) of additional road width for wider paved bicycle lanes. Within the last 2 years another 850 feet of additional paved path have been completed with remaining bond funds. Williston, with a population of only about 8,700 and a municipal budget of only about $8.3 million (2 years ago) voted a bond of $3.2 million in 2003 for the construction of multi-user paths. Since then a multitude of such paths have been constructed and more are in the works. South Burlington, with a population of about 17,900 and a municipal budget of about $25.4 million (2 years ago) has voted no bond issue for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure since phase one of our path system 20 years ago. Aside from Lou’s Crossing Bridge and the state’s repaving and restriping of Williston Road, relatively few significant bike ped infrastructure projects have been initiated, aside from those by developers in connection with DRB review. Because Justin with his current level of DPW staff have so much to do, they’ve been unable to initiate grant requests for many of the potential opportunities available to SB. The Bike and Pedestrian Committee has in the past offered to help, but largely have not been requested to do so. As previously mentioned, the Committee has previously supported Justin’s need for an additional employee to prepare bike/ped infrastructure grant requests, to monitor ongoing projects and to strengthen coordination with the committee but so far this has not happened. How would a revised committee structure have improved this outcome? I hope these observations, comments and questions help you evaluate how any proposed changes will actually result in maximizing the effectiveness of our SB committees. Sincerely, Rick Hubbard South Burlington Committee Restructuring Proposal  May 21, 2014      Page 1 The proposed recommendations contained in the “Report of the Committee on Committees Task Force” dated May 5, 2014, from Kevin Dorn, City Manager appear to be logical and perhaps appropriate for the growth of the city. They are also challenging and will require a period of time to understand and to implement. My interest and considerations, as a member of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, apply generally to the proposed “Transportation Committee”. Clearly the involvement of the B/P Committee has often been intimately connected to motor vehicle infrastructure. However the jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee vastly increases its responsibility with respect to motor vehicle issues. Perhaps item e., Complete Streets, as described in the Vermont Department of Health document available at: http://healthvermont.gov/family/fit/documents/Complete_streets_guide_for_VT_communities.pdf ; (reference also: H. 198, Act 34) provides significant rational for such all-inclusive responsibility. To have the present membership of the B/P C understand their new responsibilities it is advisable that the DPW Staff provide us with a description of their expectations of support from the Transportation Committee (especially with respect to items b, c, d, f, i, & j). Given these additional motor vehicle responsibilities at least one of the City Staff support personnel should be from the DPW. If the Transportation Committee is to address “policy” issues with respect to motor vehicle travel then it must also be in a position to review and comment on pending road construction and traffic management projects, i.e. “practice”. I anticipate that DPW would regularly have the committee review key projects in the early planning stages similar to the way they presently comment on projects from the DRB. Would this be acceptable to the DPW − is this the intent of the City Council? Regarding item k, the relationship with the DRB with respect to the review of proposed development plans this should be mandatory and must occur routinely and in a timely manner; “Upon request” does not reflect the importance of these reviews!. These reviews are one of the primary ways that the Bicycle/ Pedestrian Committee have been able to establish new bikeways, multi-use paths, sidewalks or right-of-ways for these facilities. It would be helpful to the Transportation Committee if copies of well-organized resource materials were readily available on site at City Hall and/or on-line (e.g. City Guidelines, new member training info, membership history, resolutions and committee communications to the City Council, Open Meeting Law information ,copies of Master Plans, etc.). There is no specific mention of Transportation Comm. responsibilities for hiking and walking trails. Is this implied under pedestrian support or will they be handled as open space issues by the Public Lands Committee? It is stated that the new Committees will meet quarterly. Presently the B/P C meets monthly and the agendas are seldom sparse. Perhaps the meeting schedules should be determined by each committee with the caveat that they meet at least quarterly. I t appears that with the additional responsibilities the Transportation Committee may need to meet even more often than monthly. Frankly I do question the intent of this restructuring if quarterly meetings of the committees are considered sufficient. Is the intent that the committees merely deal with “policy”, providing some nice sounding goals and South Burlington Committee Restructuring Proposal  May 21, 2014      Page 2 assume that city projects will conform without any detailed oversight or follow through? Perhaps the City Staff and City Council consider the present activities as too much meddling with city responsibilities. When will the twice a year meeting of committee leadership and staff occur and who will be responsible for the publication of the public warning and the minutes of these meetings? A second City Staff support person from the City Planning Office would provide the committee with some broader insight to overall city projects and the schedules for their implementation. Will the Planning Office also request oversight and comment on projects that fall within the responsibilities of the Transportation Committee? The formation of “Task Forces” to achieve specific objectives will be an interesting challenge. How will community participants be solicited: by public notices, word of mouth, Staff or City Council recommendations? Can it be assumed that The Transportation Committee will be responsible for providing a written description of any Task Force’s charge and having a least one member on that sub-committee? Who will produce the minutes, if required, for the Task Force meetings? Is there any limitation to the size of task forces? May non-residents serve on task forces? Must task force members serve for a specific duration? At what point will a task force be determined to be full to establish what a quorum will be? Would a Task Force consisting of one person be allowable? Who will be responsible for training temporary volunteers about Open Meeting Law requirements? Personally, at this level of voluntary service to the City, I believe that the requirements of the Open Meeting Law may dampen the enthusiasm and spontaneity of interactions between individuals to get project work done. It is suggested that the restructuring will encourage the formation of more “Community Based Organizations” (i.e. locally based NGOs). It is not clear to me how this will happen unless the City instigates sponsorship. Recall that much of the resident participation regarding Interim Zoning and the City Center was kicked off by fairly professionally conducted City events/meetings. An advantage of CBOs is that they are not subject to the Open Meeting Laws and can discuss anything at any time without disclosure. In a sense wouldn’t they be “silos”? How will they interact with the City, City Council and city Staff? What responsibilities will the City have to them? Perhaps the Veterans Memorial Committee may serve as a model of how a CBO can function. I understand that since the City Council does not use Roberts Rules of Order that his requirement will not be imposed on the new committees. I noted that there is no mention of budgets. Will the committees be required to submit and justify budget requests or will funding support be determined some other way? The proposed committee restructuring plan may be necessary; however the increased level of responsibilities and focus on “policy” seem up raise the level competence of members by an order of magnitude. Personally I question whether I am capable of contributing at an appropriate level of effort given the scope of responsibilities of the new Transportation Committee. Sincerely, Roy Neuer 13 Deane Street. S.B. 05403; 802 863 5750; email: rnsw1313@yahoo.com From: Paul Conner   Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 11:22 AM  To: Kevin Dorn  Cc: Cathyann LaRose; Jessica Louisos  Subject: Planning Commission input on Committee structure    Kevin,    The Planning Commission at their last meeting (May 20) held a warned discussion and passed a motion  to provide feedback to the City Council on the draft Committee structure. Below please find the draft  minutes from that portion meeting, including the motion:      4. Discussion and consideration of providing feedback on concepts for City Committee  structure under consideration by City Council:  Mr. Riehle said efficiency in government makes sense and it is important to consider staff time,  but he was concerned the three “mega‐committees” won’t have as much input.  He would ask  that the Council structure committee so as to get as much diversity as possible.  Mr. Gagnon understood where staff is headed.  He felt the ability for the system to work  depends on who is involved in the committees.  He also liked the idea of more citizen‐related  committees that aren’t “officially recognized.”  Ms. Louisos noted the current system has worked well for the Planning Commission which can  give a project to a committee and have it worked on.  Mr. Gagnon said that can still happen.  Ms. LaRose explained that it took 2‐1/2 years to do a Tree Ordinance3 and years to do other  projects.  The Market Street “shopping around” took 5 months.  If committees had gotten  together in the first place, it could have been a better process.  She felt it is important to start  prioritizing.  People with different interests need to be brought together at the beginning of a  discussion.  Mr. Riehle suggested the following possible language for a response to the City Council:               As we have found the work of the various 12 citizens’ committees an important resource  to our work, and we understand the need for efficiency and staff time, we encourage the City  Council to find a happy balance between efficiency and the need for diverse citizen input which  we think is critical.   Ms. Quest moved that Mr. Riehle’s language be sent to the City Council as an expression of the  opinion of the Planning Commission.  Ms. Calcagni seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.        Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP  Director of Planning & Zoning  City of South Burlington  South Burlington, VT 05403  pconner@sburl.com  www.sburl.com  (802) 846‐4106  Comments from Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee of the Planning Commission in regard to the Proposal from the Committee on Committees to disband present committees in favor of a new plan. May 26, 2014 PURPOSE OF THE EFFORT (TO “ENHANCE VOLUNTEERISM”): 1. Rather than continue citizen involvement, this proposal dis-empowers the citizenry by abolishing the methods by which they participate, and thereby reduces their input and access to the city council. 2. The proposal does the opposite of encouraging more volunteer work. Standing committees of dedicated people are being dissolved. Perhaps one or two of them will be asked to work on the three umbrella committees. Perhaps some will work on the time-limited task forces. The regular monthly contact that encourages consistent volunteer work is halted in this proposal. 3. By dissolving the committees, the present proposal actually reduces the amount of hours that the public has a chance to take part in city affairs. The actual work now performed by dedicated committees might easily lose any focus as too many issues are taken up. 4. The proposal includes developing and closing down a number of time-limited task forces. Most volunteers are committed to certain issues and want to work consistently on them. This increases their expertise on these issues. It is quite possible that many dedicated volunteers would not be willing to work with time-limited task forces. 5. Volunteers are people who want improvements in city functioning. Does the City Council listen to the ideas of outside organizations (CBOs) as carefully as they do to inner City Committees at the present time? How will political influence change with this proposal? Does the City Council want more input or less input by this organizational change? Will the members chosen for the umbrella committees be the people who are politically in tune with the City Council? RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL: 6. Appears to fix a minor issue by overhauling a successful city committee structure. One committee's problem does not necessarily extend to other committees. A committee, which does not know its mission, only need ask for guidance, or create its own mission and ask for endorsement. Reviewing agendas of other committees, and/or having the chairs talk with each other on their respective workloads can easily remedy any lack of communications. 7. If the proposal is driven by the lack of staff, there is a simple solution: allow the committees to be unstaffed. In the past (and even currently) city committees perform very well on their own without a city staff person in attendance. 8. Staff has clearly been overworked in the past year. One option is for city committees to staff themselves. In SusAg we have found that this enhances the development of leadership and initiative among committee members. 9. The idea that this proposal reduces volunteer “Peak Loading Burnout/Boredom Frustration” has come from the Committee on Committees--a group that included no volunteers' input. Independent volunteers might suffer from burnout if they feel the city is not listening to them; boredom does not happen when volunteers are committed to a project that interests them. 10. Collaboration has always been an option between committees, and many committees have taken advantage of this option. Three committees have been working together on a plan for Underwood. 11. If some city issues have not attracted volunteer workers, perhaps they never will, even if it is an option for an umbrella committee. 12. How many committees expressed problems with their committees besides the Recreation and Leisure Arts committee? UMBRELLA STANDING COMMITTEES: 13. The three umbrella groupings are an appealing construct, from a purely organizational point of view. De-siloing our work is also a worthy goal, though I believe that could be accomplished without dismantling all of the existing committees. A more conscious focus on communication and periodic joint meetings across disciplines could be used as an alternative. 14. From a practical point of view, there are too many disciplines grouped together in some cases (especially the Public Lands Committee). The same individuals may not be equally devoted to spending committee time on Sustainability AND Agriculture AND Recreation AND Natural Resource Preservation etc., nor are they necessarily knowledgeable about these varied topics or willing to spend personal time to become knowledgeable. 15. I'm not clear on the mechanics which would assure that the various interest areas encompassed under one umbrella would be represented in the future, when replacement appointments are needed. Would someone remember that the person retiring from the umbrella was there to "represent" parks and so the new appointee needs to be a parks-focused person? If this is not maintained, the umbrella group will quickly become unbalanced and forget some of its charge. 

 16. Having so many different areas contained in one umbrella group will dilute at best, and ignore at worst, many of the areas now being worked exclusively and deliberately by existing city committees. 17. This proposal eliminates the proponents and champions of long-term issues, e.g., bike paths, open space, affordable housing, SusAg, energy conservation, park maintenance, etc. 18. The task forces appear to be “ad hoc” committees with a short duration to accomplish a specific task. However, many of the issues being worked on by city committees are long-term issues; and some are related to policy recommendations. The new structure does not have any method to address or work on long-term issues. 19. The umbrella groups appear to add another layer of bureaucracy. Moreover, it appears that they will do little, if any, work. The task forces will do all the work, and their recommendations will be filtered through another city layer of individuals who may have little or less expertise than those in the task forces. Will the umbrella committee's role be to comment on the task force's work, and pass it up to the council? Given that the umbrella committees meet only four times a year, the work of the task forces will be delayed by having to wait for the umbrella committee's quarterly meetings. 20. It is not clear to me how the ongoing concerns of the current individual committees could be overseen in an ongoing fashion, with the focus diluted and the meetings only quarterly. As things are now with monthly meetings, the committees often feel they are time-constrained to accomplish their goals. This will not improve with less time. 
 21. Umbrella committees are so loose, so multi-directed, and meet so seldom, that it is unlikely that there will develop in them the passionate commitment that has always been evident in the present standing committees. The most active volunteers choose themselves by attending meetings and taking part, even if they are not appointed to a committee. An umbrella committee appointed by the City Council and covering a wide number of issues is less likely to attract these active volunteers, who usually have a particular interest that is attracting them. 22. Are the umbrella committees expected to be“bottom up”think tanks for the City Council or will the City Council be telling them what to do. Volunteers are motivated by their own interests; their passion evolves from this, not from instructions from“above.” 23. How would the nine members of the umbrella committees be selected? Would they come from the existing committees that are being abolished? And, if so, how many members from each committee would be selected? What would happen to those members of the abolished committees who are not selected for membership on one of the umbrella committees? 24. How would nine people meeting quarterly do the work of 20-30 people who meet monthly? 
 TASK FORCES: 25. I see no reason for limiting the individual project task forces to only two per year per umbrella group if different citizens are expected to sign up for those just one at a time for a finite time. If personnel could be found to staff four project task forces in a year, for example, and the work needed doing, why not permit that? 
 26. I am concerned that the Council not be put in the position of appointing the task forces by themselves. The umbrella groups should have at least a co-equal role in interviews and appointments. 

 27. I am concerned that ALL the task force projects not arise from the Council, but that the process would also continue to allow new ideas to bubble up from below, from the umbrellas and from the citizens at large. 28. Professionals in their field of expertise will be encouraged to volunteer and chair the task forces. 29. Having only six activities going on at a time considerably reduces the work currently being done by the existing committees. 

 CBOs: 30. Community Based Organizations (CBOs) are in direct service to the community. They have particular missions. It has been expressed that sometimes the city will allow the CBO to do the work that should be part of the city work as the city expands its resilience and sustainability. (Note: Vermont has more non-profits per capita than any other state. Is this good? Or does it indicate that city and town governments need to be doing more work.) 31. CBOs are a good way to involve citizens for more long-range and ongoing agendas. Suggestions generated from CBO's can be brought before the Council for deliberation with possible action or Task Force assignment. 32. What standing, if any, will the proposed CBOs have? GENERAL: 33. There are four major committees being affected here: Energy, Natural Resources, Bicycle Pedestrian, Recreation and Leisure Arts. Apparently they all have different opinions about being laid down. In order to continue their volunteer energy, each committee may have an optimal different path. For instance, Energy, because of their initiative in becoming part of the Georgetown University Energy Prize, which is officially a city entry, may have to continue as a city entity for at least the next two years of the program. It is their work that has brought them this far and their work that we are counting on to continue and, ideally, win such a lucrative prize. 34. For many years, these city committees have been doing free work for the city. How will that work be accomplished now? 35. It was very insightful for Kevin Dorn, Councilors, and City staff to recognize the need for this reorganization. 36. Committees endorsed by the City should have oversight by the City with staff presence, reports back to manager or mother committee. 37. Goals and deadlines are reasonable and necessary. 38. Result may be the elimination of biased based committees who attempt to stifle differing points of view. Hopefully, all input will be encouraged 39. Since the city council dissolved the IZ committees against the near unanimous recommendations from three city committees urging they be kept, this recent proposal, seems to be yet another effort on the part of the council to eliminate the current citizen involvement and input into the city. There appears to be a connection between the council's decision to abolish the successful IZ committees and this effort to abolish the city committees. 40. Abolishing city committees, which are the key way that residents contribute to the city and make their views known, seems to indicate that the city council is not interested in the contributions or views of the public. May 23, 2014 Dear Kevin, I am writing on behalf of the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee (R & LA) to thank you and the Committee on Committees Task Force for having produced such a thoughtful set of recommendations, and to let you know that our committee is unanimous in its support for the general ideas in your draft proposal of May 5, 2014. As one committee member put it, “It makes a great deal of sense for City Management and City Council to have looked at the whole landscape of committees to determine gaps and overlap in committee work.” The proposal seems to offer a way for City Council to oversee and manage its committees more effectively, while simplifying and clarifying jurisdictions of the various committees and giving City staff better protection against burnout. I am sending this to you in advance of the Open Hearing scheduled for June 16 so that you can share it with members of the Council if that seems appropriate. I plan to be present at the Hearing, and expect that I will be joined by some others from our committee. The R & LA meeting of May 19 did produce some questions and concerns about implementation of the draft proposal, which included:  How will members of the three umbrella committees be selected, and when?  Will there be attempts to balance differing interests and personal priorities in the membership of each committee?  Which of the five “statutorily based” committees exist because of State Statutes?  It would be helpful for the charges to those five committees to be described briefly in the proposal, as information for interested citizens.  Will nine members on each umbrella committee be enough? (It was noted that a committee could request additional members as needed.)  Will four meetings a year for the umbrella committees be sufficient, especially in the early stages, when the committees and their Task Forces are being organized?  Will current roles played by R & LA not directly concerning Public Lands have a place in the proposed structure? (The answer would seem to be “Yes”; for instance, a Friends of Recreation group could be formed, and could assist the Recreation and Parks Department by reviewing programs AND by conducting fund-raising, which a city committee cannot do.)  We presume there will eventually be a Task Force to establish design specifications for a Recreation Center or Community Center; would interested citizens be invited to be members of such a Task Force? As you can see, these are mainly attempts to foresee how implementation of the draft proposal or something like it might proceed, and how current interests and concerns of R & LA could be folded into a new structure. In general, however, our committee was very favorably impressed with the proposal, and we unanimously recommend that City Council endorse such a proposal. If no such proposal is adopted by the Council, we have a request and a few recommendations to share:  We would ask the Council to act in the near future on the proposed ByLaws our committee submitted last November 1.  We would recommend that the Council find a way to support sensible limits on staff responsibilities to City Committees, to prevent staff burnout.  We would recommend that the Council devise a sensible way to allocate tasks and responsibilities to all City Committees.  We would recommend that the Council devise a plan to keep abreast of the activities of all its committees.  In particular, we would recommend that members of City Council regularly read minutes of the meetings of its committees.  We would recommend that all committees have a clear charge, a set of By- Laws and orientation for new members. In closing, we thank you and the Committee on Committees Task Force again for the careful attention you have obviously given to the present committee structure and for the positive and creative vision your proposal provides. Thank you! Best regards, Glenn Sproul, Chair Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee 1 SBEC Response to the Committee on Committees Proposal The members of the South Burlington Energy Committee (SBEC) appreciate the Committee on Committees’ (COC) effort to explore ways to improve citizen volunteerism and committee effectiveness. We also appreciate having the opportunity to comment on the COC’s proposal given our continuous commitment to work in the best interests of our city and its citizens. It is important to note that, as explained below, implementing the COC’s recommendation to dissolve SBEC at this time would likely end our participation in the Energy Prize initiative. Response to the Proposal Rationale In the case of the South Burlington Energy Committee, the Committee on Committees’ proposal would likely: • Not Enhance Volunteerism—City Council public invitations for SBEC volunteers have never yielded more candidates than could be accommodated by the current committee structure. Result: even if three members choose to serve on umbrella committees, a net decrease of seven volunteers would result; and the city would lose access to a dedicated and passionate group of energy experts and supporters. • Reduce Oversight of Energy-related Issues & Cost-saving Results—At a time when forward-thinking communities are taking responsibility for [1] reducing energy- related costs to taxpayers; and [2] minimizing or eliminating their reliance on unsustainable, non-renewable forms of energy; the broad focus of the COC’s proposed umbrella committees would result in a significant reduction in the number of future energy initiatives and in the people available to facilitate and monitor them. • Potentially Break Down Silos But Reduce Substance & Initiative—Umbrella committees could facilitate the sharing of ideas on a quarterly basis; but the supporting expertise, initiative, and passionate dedication to steadily moving city energy policy and practice forward would be lost without the backing of a camaraderie-fueled standing committee. Result: fewer cost- and energy-saving projects proposed, fewer grant funds won, and less carbon-footprint progress made. In addition, if an umbrella committee chairperson did not agree with or appreciate the energy representative’s recommendation, the potentially beneficial input would be lost. • Not Affect Committee Burnout—SBEC has been good at managing burnout. • Not Further Clarify Jurisdiction—Since shortly after its creation in 2008, SBEC has clearly understood its unique role and mission of saving taxpayers money while encouraging the analysis-based policy, operational, and awareness-related changes that will be needed to help: [1] increase South Burlington’s economic vitality, [2] reduce its energy-related expenditures, [3] reverse climate change, and [4] elevate the future wellbeing of the whole community above the special interest influence that benefits relatively few. • Not Encourage an Energy-focused Community-based Organization (CBO)— Given SBEC volunteers’ motivation to help affect meaningful policy, operational, and awareness changes within the city; a CBO could be less effective. Without having been vetted by the City Council, members of an SBEC CBO would likely have less 2 influence with the City Council, department heads, commissions, and other city committees—especially if SBEC recommendations would require additional staff work and/or a challenge to the status quo. In addition, a CBO would need to divert significant time from core energy work to raise funds for overhead and project work. Because current SBEC members are unlikely to be able to commit the additional time necessary to start a CBO from the ground up, the city risks losing the type of valuable expertise and cost-saving solutions that are critical to a healthy city budget. • Lighten Staff Workload But Result in a Disservice to Taxpayers—Since its creation in 2008, SBEC has: [1] brought over $131,500 in grants and other income to the city despite a one-time city-budget-related project freeze; [2] initiated carbon- reducing projects with estimated savings of well over $28,000/year for the city and over $300,000/year for residents1; [3] provided sound analysis-based advice to staff; and [4] offered time-saving expert help to assist staff on various projects. In short, SBEC provides significant value that is worthy of staff time—time that would largely still be required if the city were to pursue a CBO-recommended project. Another Unintended Consequence • Georgetown University Energy Prize—The disbanding of the South Burlington Energy Committee and the potential subsequent creation of an SBEC CBO would make achievement of the city-approved Energy Prize ($5 million) work difficult if not impossible. o The effort required to create a new CBO would require many person-hours and elapsed months to determine a governance structure and to then build it from the ground up. This effort would draw significant resources away from the critical planning, partnership-building and project implementation work that is currently underway for “the Prize.” o South Burlington citizens and Energy Prize judges and partners would likely interpret the dissolution of SBEC as the city’s lack of understanding of and commitment to energy-related opportunities and threats. Consequently, Prize- related collaboration, participation, and success would likely be negatively affected. 1 SBEC planned and implemented a program that resulted in the sale of over 40,000 energy- efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs as replacements for inefficient incandescent bulbs in homes throughout South Burlington. The resulting efficiency improvements are providing residents with electric bill savings of over $300,000 annually (assuming an average per-bulb savings of 60 watts and per-bulb daily usage of 2.5 hours). 3 Recommendations At a time when many local governments are acknowledging the role that energy-related decisions can play in both saving taxpayers money and reversing scientifically proven climate change, the City of South Burlington would be taking a step backward by dissolving the energy committee that it created in 2008. Consequently, we recommend the following: • Give approval for SBEC to continue to work in the best interests of the city and its citizens by allowing it to remain a standing committee with a representative on each of the umbrella committees (Rationale: the aforementioned concerns; the value that SBEC contributes to the city and its community; and SBEC’s inability to participate in the SBEC-initiated, city-approved Georgetown University Energy Prize competition if members must first take time to consider and potentially create a new CBO organization). • Transfer the Open Meeting Law meeting preparation tasks from SBEC’s city staff liaison to either a city administrative assistant or an SBEC volunteer so that the staff liaison can focus on more demanding work. • Create a process that allows qualified SBEC members to help staff implement SBEC project tasks in a timelier manner when needed. Staff would have oversight. NOTE: If the first recommendation listed above is not approved, an alternative could be for SBEC to remain a standing committee until at least three months following the completion of the city’s participation in the Energy Prize competition. During that post- competition time period, SBEC members would explore alternative committee structure options, i.e., connected to or separated from the city. ATTACHMENT: Examples of SBEC Value to South Burlington since its 2008 Creation 4 Examples of SBEC Value to South Burlington since its 2008 Creation The mission of the South Burlington Energy Committee (SBEC) is to maximize the energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy in the city’s municipal operations and Comprehensive Plan. The following include examples of value-added work done by SBEC while pursuing this mission. Grant funds won • $80,000 for municipal energy audits and weatherization ($70,000 diverted to new energy- and money-saving HVAC system) • $40,000 to encourage energy audits for and weatherization of South Burlington condominiums • $8,000 solar education grant (SBEC facilitated transfer to SBSD during city budget freeze; resulted in cost-saving solar panels on SBHS turf field and curriculum tools) • $500 for meeting requirements of the Vermont Agency of Transportation Commuter Challenge Savings examples (most were implemented with significant SBEC volunteer hours) • Over $17,000/year from municipal building lighting upgrades • Over $11,000/year (and a 56% reduction in streetlight-related greenhouse gases) to convert GMP-owned streetlights to LED lamps • Over $300,000/year estimated savings for residents participating in the promotion targeting the replacement of over 40,000 incandescent light bulbs with CFL bulbs • Future efficiency and weatherization capital plan items will result in significant savings when implemented • Numerous hours donated for research, facilitation, and implementation by SBEC members have saved staff time and costs on various projects. One example: o SBEC member Peter Tousley (CEM, CSDP, CBCP) of TCorp, Inc., and his staff donated hours valued at $1,220 to fulfill a prerequisite of Energy Prize participation, i.e., reviewing two years of municipal energy bills, clarifying meter locations and related account numbers, and entering all relevant data into the Portfolio Manager program. Note: ongoing updates are on hold pending the City Council’s decision on SBEC’s future. Example of incentive income earned • $3,000 incentive money from Efficiency Vermont for municipal building lighting upgrades Examples of donated expertise & services provided • Produced the baseline estimate of the city’s carbon footprint by enlisting volunteer assistance from the University of Vermont • Represented the city on the CCRPC task force responsible for preparing the Creating a Climate for Resilience: A Chittenden County Climate Action Plan. SBEC contributed technical assistance that the CCRPC depended upon to complete the electricity component of the Plan. 5 • Represented the city on the CCRPC Shelburne Road Corridor Study task force, advocating improvements that address improvements in transportation efficiency including, for example, new park & ride capacity, pedestrian pathway improvements, and bicycle transportation safety and efficiency improvements • Developed an Energy Ambassador Program for Efficiency Vermont that offered lighting upgrade assessments to small businesses throughout South Burlington. The city received a $3,000 performance award from Efficiency Vermont for the electricity savings experienced by businesses that had taken SBEC-Ambassador-initiated efficiency actions. A key element of the program was the ability of SBEC Ambassador volunteers to introduce themselves to business owners as members of the city’s energy committee. • Provided technical assistance to the city in evaluating the potential value of using performance contractors to achieve energy savings in municipal buildings • Provided the city with technical assistance in developing an energy efficiency plan to optimize the funds from the ARRA energy efficiency block grant • Worked with staff to select a solar developer to work with the city • Worked with the city and its solar developer on the 60kW solar array at Dorset Park, now producing low-cost power for the city (exact savings not yet estimated) • Worked with the city and its solar developer to create a large-scale solar array on the landfill. Lobbied legislators to raise the limit on the allowable net-metered array size. (The city and the developer are moving forward with a 1.5+MW array that could save $500,000 to $1,000,000 over the next 20 years.) • Worked with a local contractor to facilitate the condominium weatherization project • Presented at the annual Vermont Energy & Climate Action Network (VECAN) conferences to inform, inspire and learn from the other 119 energy committees in Vermont Examples of other value-added SBEC contributions to the community • Has advocated policies that look beyond the interests of short-term-focused, well- funded commercial interest groups to consider economically sound practices that will support a sustainable energy future for the benefit of the whole community—not just a powerful few, e.g., energy efficient and renewable-energy-ready new buildings, and ubiquitous commuter bikeways • For years, has written well-researched energy-related monthly articles in The Other Paper to inform the public about practices that can improve our collective future • Has provided educational opportunities for businesses (e.g., Ambassador Program) and residents (e.g., sponsoring weatherization and net-zero-renovation workshops and renewable energy/weatherization open houses, and staffing an SBEC table at weekly farmers’ markets) • Has supported SBSD energy efforts by sharing money-saving opportunities (e.g., landfill solar and GMP’s EverGreen Fund program) and educational tools (e.g., solar grant transfer, field trips and news opportunities for SBNN student media correspondents, VEEP presentations, energy activities at FHTMS Family Fun Night, process and script input for an FHTMS energy play targeting elementary school students, and an invitation for an SBHS student to join SBEC) 6 • Provided context, solar-ready definition, and outside expert with commercial solar- ready-roof cost information to Planning Commission and recommended stakeholder types necessary for follow-up task force • Publicly supported the creation of local solar farm projects • Has contributed numerous volunteer hours to identify, gain city approval for, enter, plan for, and facilitate the Georgetown University Energy Prize competition effort. June 6, 2014