HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 11/20/2023AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL South Burlington City Hall 180 Market Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Participation Options In Person: 180 Market Street - Auditorium - Main Floor Assistive Listening Service Devices Available upon request Electronically: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/citycouncil-11-20-2023 You can also dial in using your phone. +1 (224) 501-3412 Access Code: 137-431-053
Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Monday November 20, 2023
1.Pledge of Allegiance (6:30 PM)
2.Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology options –Jessie Baker, City Manager (6:31 – 6:32 PM)
3.Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (6:33 – 6:34 PM)
4.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda (6:35 – 6:45 PM)
5. Councilors’ Announcements and Reports on Committee assignments and City Manager’s
Report (6:45 – 6:55 PM)
6.Consent Agenda: (6:55 – 7:00 PM)A.*** Consider and Sign DisbursementsB.*** Approve minutes from the October 2, 2023, October 16, 2023, and the October30, 2023 CC MeetingsC.*** Receive the September & October FinancialsD.*** Receive the FY24 Quarter 1 Financials
7.Interview and consider appointments to both Town Meeting TV Board of Trustees and theEnergy Committee – Jessie Baker, City Manager (7:00 -7:30 PM)
•Possible Executive Session for the purpose of discussing appointments
8.*** Warned for 7:00 PM: Public Hearing: Land Development Regulations Amendments#LDR-23-03 Multiple Principal Structures on a lot, #LDR-23-04 Updates to the City CenterForm Based Code on Buildings on Outside of Road Corners and Interstate Façade
Standards, and #LDR-23-05: Minor and Technical Amendments – Paul Conner, Planning &Zoning Director (7:30 – 8:00 PM)
9.Consider approving Land Development Regulations Amendments #LDR-23-03 MultiplePrincipal Structures on a lot, #LDR-23-04 Updates to the City Center Form Based Code onBuildings on Outside of Road Corners and Interstate Façade Standards, and #LDR-23-05:
Minor and Technical Amendments – Paul Conner, Planning & Zoning Director (8:00 – 8:10 PM) 10. *** Town Meeting TV Annual Report and funding request – Jordan Mitchell, Co-Director of Operations & Digital Archivist (8:10 – 8:30 PM) 11. *** Discussion and possible action on the acceptance of road and stormwater infrastructure on Sadie Lane – Tom DiPietro, Public Works Director (8:30 – 8:50 PM) 12. *** Consider a request to put a question on the Town Meeting Day 2024 ballot to expand the number of School Board members and provide direction to staff – Council Request (8:50 – 9:10 PM) 13. *** Discuss the use of remaining American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) funds and possible action – Jessie Baker, City Manager (9:10 – 9:30 PM) 14. Other Business (9:30 – 9:40 PM) 15. Consider entering into executive session for the purpose of discussing the negotiation or
securing of real estate purchase or lease options, and specifically 1) the Scott property; and 2) the Long property.
16. Adjourn
Respectfully Submitted:
Jessie Baker City Manager
*** Attachments Included
Champlain Water District
Check/Voucher Register - Check Report by Fund
From 11/21/2023 Through 11/21/2023
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Check Amount Invoice Number
11/21/2023 4666 Aldrich & Elliott, PC Project 22025.001 - Split with City 516.78 81650
11/21/2023 4667 Champlain Water District - Retail Retail to SBWD Invoice 54,776.06 SBWD-403
11/21/2023 4668 Champlain Water District Wholesale to SBWD Oct 2023 Invoice 195.16 SBWD-396
11/21/2023 Champlain Water District Water Consumption - SBWD - October
2023
157,475.49 WTRCONSUMP-103126
11/21/2023 4669 E.J. Prescott Mark Out Flags 24.36 6255274
11/21/2023 4670 F.W. Webb Company Meter Angle Valves 9,869.25 82717159
11/21/2023 4671 Heather Osborne Refund duplicate payment on Account
3433
486.67 REFUND 3433-110223
11/21/2023 4672 South Burlington Sewer Department October 2023 Sewer Billings 329,505.04 Sewer-103123
11/21/2023 4673 South Burlington Stormwater Department October 2023 Stormwater Fees 302,013.90 Stormwater-103123
Total 70 - South Burlington Water
Department
854,862.71
Report Total 854,862.71
70 - South Burlington Water Department
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
Page: 1
CITY COUNCIL 2 October 2023
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 2 October 2023, at 6:30
p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Barnes, A. Chalnick
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; Chief S. Locke, Deputy City Manager and Acting City
Manager; M. Machar, Finance Director; T. DiPietro, Public Works Director; E. Quallen, Deputy
Public Works Director for Capital Projects; K. Bailey, School Board; T. Jarvis, B. Sirvis, D. Peters, T.
Stuessy, L. Williams, E. Fitzgerald, S. Conley, C. McQuillen, C. Trombly, D. Senly
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
option:
Chief Locke provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology
options.
It was noted that the City Manager was attending a City Manager’s Conference in Texas and was
attending this meeting remotely. In her absence, Chief Locke has been serving as Acting City
Manager.
2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
Mr. Trombly, Chair of the Affordable Housing Committee, said that at the Committee’s
September meeting, members discussed options to expand the scope of the Trust Fund. They
have engaged a member of the Trust Fund group to be a member of the sub—committee
looking into this.
Ms. Senly said that a letter containing 30 signatures from the Bartlett Bay area has been sent to
the City Manager outlining their concerns with the Airbnb’s that have sprung up in their
neighborhood. She noted that one house has already been booked for a graduation party in
May. She asked when the Council will review a second draft of the rental housing ordinance.
Chief Locke said the plan is to bring the ordinance to the Council in early November. It will be
available to the public the Friday before that meeting.
CITY COUNCIL
2 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 2
4. Announcements, Reports on Committee Assignments, and City Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended including the Energy Fair
and the Beta Open House.
Ms. Baker: The new IT Director joined the staff today.
Staff is in the final steps of recruiting the next Recreation/Parks Director.
Thanked Mr. Barritt for attending the Town Fair.
The new Public Safety Computer Dispatch has gone “live” with new technology.
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Approve Minutes of 18 September 2023 City Council meeting
Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
6. Receive the Transportation Implementation Plan for the Climate Action Plan and
provide direction to staff:
Ms. Baker provided a historical perspective and also voiced appreciation to VHB and to Ms.
Quallen.
Ms. Quallen then reviewed the goals of the Transportation Implementation Plan including:
a. Looking at high impact actions and developing a step by step plan.
b. Providing a memorandum of land use practices and recommendations for
encouraging high-density mixed-use development
c. Engaging with key stakeholders
d. Creating an implementation plan including costs.
Ms. Quallen noted that a questionnaire received 269 responses from people who live and/or
work in South Burlington. More than half of the respondents are interested in having an electric
vehicle. 13% already have.
CITY COUNCIL
2 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 3
There were also 2 focus groups, one involving seniors and the second retail service workers.
Ms. Quallen noted it was good to hear from the seniors who have different mobility needs. The
retail service group had limited participation. Ms. Quallen showed a list of the questions that
were asked of these groups.
Ms. Quallen then showed a sample of an Implementation Plan. Its elements include:
a. Information from principle CAP
b. Lead city organizations and implementation partners
c. Timelines
d. Funding
e. Level of effort
f. Key implementation steps
g. Opportunities for innovation
h. Focus on equity
i. Implementation considerations
j. Resources and case studies
Ms. Quallen showed a Supporting Action Matrix which includes things the School District is
taking on.
Staffing requirements fall into 2 categories: Scoping, Planning, Funding and Design; and Bids,
Procurement, Construction and Maintenance. Ms. Quallen showed the staffing requirements
for each of these categories including personnel for enforcement. In total, 4.4 new people
would be needed by 2028 at a cost of $506,000. Ms. Quallen stressed that this figure is just for
transportation and land use.
The “non-people” budget estimates were then shown. Ms. Quallen noted these figures do not
include what a developer would have to pay, only the city costs. Various project costs range
from $1,500,000 to $14,000,000. These figures include park-and-rides, EV charging, CATMA
membership, land reductions, parking management, etc. They do not include any grants the
city might receive. Most grants would have a 20% city match. Ms. Quallen noted that some of
the projects are already in the city’s CIP.
Ms. Baker stressed that this plan does not replace core municipal services. Mr. Barnes asked
whether ARPA funds can be used for any of this. Ms. Baker said because the city took ARPA
CITY COUNCIL
2 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 4
funds as “lost revenue,” those funds can be used for any “usual municipal use.” She stressed
that there will be ongoing FTE which will not be funded by ARPA money.
Ms. Quallen then reviewed the next steps including a public meeting on 12 October.
Mr. Chalnick said it would help him to have more data such as an “effectiveness cost” (how
much bang for the buck the city gets from each action). He thought there might be easy, quick
wins. Ms. Quallen said there have been “effectiveness” discussions. One result was a 42%
emission reduction by switching to EVs.
Ms. Emery noted the importance of EV chargers and said if you can’t plug in, you have to use
fuel, and the heavier engines in EV cars require even more fuel to run.
Ms. Quallen noted there will also have to be LDR amendments to achieve some of the goals.
Mr. Barritt noted that if there are apartment buildings without chargers, there is no incentive
for people to have EVs. Also, people have to be able to afford and EV which can run up to
$70,000, which is not what the average apartment dweller can afford. People aren’t going to
put out that much money for a car. Mr. Chalnick noted there are tax credits if the cars are
leased. Mr. Barritt said it is not the history of car dealers to be fair to customers and to advise
them of the most economical way to finance a car.
Mr. Barnes said that if a family is already struggling to put food on the table, these cars are not
affordable.
Ms. Baker noted that staff is now putting together the FY25 budget and asked the Council to
advise them of anything they want to add to that budget.
Mr. Chalnick said 2 FTEs should be the baseline. Ms. Riehle agreed and said that without
people, you can’t get grants done. Ms. Quallen asked if the Council wants 2 FTEs in the budget
for grant writing. Chief Locke said staff will bring to the Council what these people will be used
for.
Ms. Riehle asked if the Council can get a sense from Mr. Conner as to what LDRs are being
worked on and what can be dovetailed. Ms. Baker said staff will bring that to the Council. Mr.
Barnes said he didn’t want to make it more difficult/costly to build new/affordable housing. He
asked what the city is hearing from the development community.
CITY COUNCIL
2 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 5
7. Consider and possibly approve a School Board request to fund Traffic Monitors at
School properties:
Ms. Bailey said the School Board discussed school safety and the fact that schools are located
on some of the busiest streets, so that children don’t walk/bike to school. It is hard for parents
to give up the safety of driving their children to school. They are requesting that the City budget
fund crossing guards at all 4 campuses. Ms. Riehle said that would by 6 guards at $10,000, or a
total of $60,000 for the coming year.
Mr. Chalnick asked to whom these guards would report, who would hire/fire them, etc. Ms.
Baker said the School District would oversee, and the money would be given to them in a lump
sum. There would have to be a legal agreement for the long term.
Mr. Barritt said he understands the request, but he does not favor funding it, except in the case
where city construction is going on (e.g., Market Street).
Ms. Emery agreed and said it would set a precedent. She suggested discussing this at the
dinner the Council and School Board will be having.
Mr. Barnes disagreed and said it is important to keep children safe. If the city is encouraging
walking and biking, the city should be sure the children can do this safely.
Ms. Bailey said they see this as “traffic control and public safety. She asked to expand the
guards to the other 2 elementary schools for the coming year and then discuss more.
Ms. Riehle said she is reluctant for the City to pay for this. She noted seeing a school bus drops
off 10 children just 2 blocks from the school.
Mr. Chalnick said it was clear to him. If the schools hire, fire, evaluate, etc., they pay for the
guards. If it is a Public Works person acting as guard, the city pays.
Ms. Emery said the money ultimately comes from the same pocket. When she questioned why
children can’t ride the city buses, she was told by the school district: “we are responsible to get
kids to school safely.”
CITY COUNCIL
2 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 6
Ms. Riehle said she agrees with the City funding the guard for Marcotte School this year
because of the on-going construction. She noted it is more of an expense for the City to fund
the guards than for the State Education Fund.
Ms. Bailey said the request is in direct response to development happening in the city,
especially at Marcotte. They had no objection to the guards being city staff members, like
Police. She said the school district is not anxious to have this responsibility.
Mr. Barritt moved to fund $10,212.00 for a crossing guard for Marcotte School for FY24, related
to construction in the area. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Chief Locke said this will be put in the FY25 budget, if necessary.
8. Other Business:
Mr. Barritt cautioned the public against “free flash drives” as once they are plugged in,
everything on that device can be monitored. He said people should not plug anything into their
computers that they didn’t buy from a reputable source.
9. Consider entering into executive session for the purposes of:
A. Discussing contracts and the negotiating or securing of real estate purchase or
lease options
B. Discussing contracts and the negotiating or securing of real estate purchase or
lease options
C. Discussing pending litigation to which the City is a party
D. Discussing labor relations with employees and specifically those related to the
City’s contract with AFSCME
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council make a specific finding that premature general public
knowledge of the Council’s discussion of:
a. Contracts and Negotiating or Securing of Real Estate Purchase or Lease Options
b. Contracts and Negotiating or Securing of Real Estate Purchase or Lease Options
c. Pending Civil Litigation to which the City is a party
d. Labor Relations Agreements with Employees
CITY COUNCIL
2 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 7
would clearly put the public body at a substantial disadvantage.
Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Barritt then moved that the City Council enter into Executive Session under 1 V.S.A. Section
313(a)(1)(A),(B), and € and V.S.A. Section 212(a)(2) for the purpose of discussing:
a. Contracts and Negotiating or Securing of Real Estate Purchase or Lease Options
b. Contracts and Negotiating or Securing of Real Estate Purchase or Lease Options
c. Pending Civil Litigation to which the City is a party
d. Labor Relations agreement with employees
Inviting Ms. Baker, Chief Locke, Mr. Conner, Mr. McNeil, and Tom and Janet Bellevance into the
session for discussion of the first topic; inviting Ms. Baker, Chief Locke, Mr. Conner, Mr. McNeil
and Carol McQuillen into the discussion of the second topic; and inviting Ms. Baker, Chief Locke,
and Mr. McNeil into the third and fourth topics.
Ms. Emery seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The Council entered Executive Session
at 8:45 p.m.
Following the Executive Session, as there was no further business to come before the Council
Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
CITY COUNCIL 16 OCTOBER 2023
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 16 October 2023, at
6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Emery, Acting Chair; T. Barritt, T. Barnes, A. Chalnick
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; Chief S. Locke, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director
of Planning & Zoning; P. Trombly, Dr. B. Zigmund, A. Jensen-Vargas, M. Cota, B. Sirvis, D. Peters,
E. Sutherland, Tony, L. Smith, K. Calcagni, J. Louisos
Owing to recent events, Ms. Emery began the meeting by asking for a minute of peace and
reflection.
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
option:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology
options.
2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
No items were added to the agenda.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
Mr. Tousley asked about outdoor venues in the backyard of student-rented homes on Spear
Street. Events run from 7-10 p.m. with 100 students attending, alcohol being served. Students
often wander through other yards looking for bathrooms. There is a charge for these events.
Mr. Tousley said there is a check-in table, but he wasn’t sure IDs were being checked. Police
have said they are not doing anything wrong, but it there is a problem to call them.
Dr. Zigmund spoke about the construction noise on the Long Drive project. There is constant
hammering every work day when they wants to keep windows open. They were told there was
nothing that could be done about it. This will be going on year after year until the last
construction is done. Dr. Zigmund said the noise measures at 90 decibels on her deck. This is
the limit at which OSHA says one has to wear protective ear covering. The hammering is
necessitated because the houses need to have basements, and Dr. Zigmund asked that permits
for future homes should not allow basements. Mr. Anglin, who lives nearby, said this has been
going on since 2020. He asked why developers can flaunt the laws that everyone else has to
obey and why the city has done nothing about it for 4 years.
CITY COUNCIL
16 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 2
Mr. Chalnick said the DRB permit does not allow for violation of the noise ordinance. He asked
why they are being allowed to continue to do this.
Mr. Barritt noted this is a 9-house development with a lot of ledge. That is what is causing the
hammering. He asked why the permit was granted and who enforces the noise ordinance.
Mr. Conner said this is not a good situation for anyone, especially residents. It is the original
JAM Golf project, and the Court ruled that these houses could be built. The challenge is the
right to construct vs. the methods of construction. The developer says nothing else is feasible
on this site. Mr. Conner said staff has been working to make the hammering less incessant.
There is also a dialog going on with the master developer to see if there is another way to go in
the future The Police are the enforcing agency for the noise ordinance. Mr. Conner said he felt
the zoning office would be more appropriate.
Mr. Chalnick said it doesn’t make sense to give someone the right to violate an ordinance.
Mr. Barritt asked if there is a larger chipping machine that could finish the job quicker. Mr.
Conner did not know. He thought they were louder for a shorter period of time.
Ms. Emery asked if it is possible to ask the developer to amend the design.
Mr. Conner said the builder and staff are engaged in conversation trying to limit the extent of
the noise and disruption. There are no alternative to what they are doing at the moment.
Mr. Barnes asked how the Court settlement should figure into this. Mr. Conner said the
settlement does not enter into how the ordinance is enforced. The building has a permit to
construct.
Mr. Conner said staff is committed to providing an update later in the week as to what is being
done.
Mr. Chalnick said the developer should have to stop now until there is a solution.
Ms. Emery was concerned that a city ordinance was not holding up.
Dr. Zigmund said the Zoning Department has the right to stop the construction, but they are not
doing it.
CITY COUNCIL
16 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 3
4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Mr. Barnes said that he will be resigning from the Council following this meeting. He has been
offered a job promotion which requires relocating to Colorado. He expressed gratitude for the
opportunity to serve the community, but felt the move is best for his family. He said he tried to
used his voice to be sure benefits are available to all and questioned whether the city is making
it easier or more difficult for people to make South Burlington their home. It is an expensive
place to live, and capital needs for the schools will make it more expensive. He questioned
equitable access to green space in the city and questioned whether the city can add 10% to the
budget for climate change. He thanked Ms. Baker and Council Chair Riehle for their support and
guidance.
Members of the Council thanked Mr. Barnes for his commitment and wished him well in his new
endeavor.
Other Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended.
Ms. Baker: Last week a zoning permit was issued for Lot N in City Center. There will be 187
new homes and 27,000 sq. ft. of commercial space.
Holiday Inn has been demolished to allow for infill buildings.
All but 3 apartments in the former Ho Hum Motel have been filled.
The new Parks and Recreation Director will join the staff at the end of the month.
There are still openings on the DRB and other committees.
Thanked Mr. Barnes for his service and noted how quickly he learned.
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Approve an application for a Municipal Planning Grant to partially fund a Parks
Master Plan
c. Approve an application for a Bylaw Modernization Grant to fund San Remo
Drive planning and bylaw updates
CITY COUNCIL
16 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 4
d. Approve the allocation of up to $80,000 of ARPA funding to conduct the design
and engineering of a signalized intersection at Hinesburg Road and Market
Street in advance of Capital Improvement Plan funding in FY25
Ms. Emery asked about the 577 Dorset Street fee. Chief Locke explained that it relates to
separation of 575/577 including water, power, etc. The cost is being split with the School
District. Ms. Emery also asked what RAIZ is. Ms. Baker said it is the federal grant that is funding
the bridge over the Interstate. An appraisal has to be done in order to purchase land.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Chalnick seconded.
Motion passed 4-0.
6. First Reading of the Planning Commission’s recommended City Plan 2025: discuss
the process and consider warning a public hearing for a special meeting on
November 16, 2023 at 6:45 p.m.:
Ms. Louisos noted that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to move the plan forward.
She also noted that members felt “City Plan” was more understandable than “Comprehensive
Plan.”
The opening statement of the Plan includes the 4 guiding principles:
a. Climate Resilient
b. Inclusive, Fair and Just
c. Thoughtful and Sustainable Built Environment
d. Collaborative and Engaged
Ms. Louisos then showed the Future Land Use Map. She drew attention to a new designation:
Commercial/Industrial with Supporting Residential. She also noted that some small scale
commercial is allowed in every district.
The focuses of the plan include:
a. Climate Change/Mitigation and Resilience
b. Housing
c. Creating City Center
d. Building Community
CITY COUNCIL
16 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 5
e. Environmental Protection
Key aspects of the plan include:
a. Use of plain language
b. Measurable where possible
c. Ambitious and Visionary
d. Provides Framework for Future Work (e.g., Climate Action Plan, Bike/Ped
Master Plan)
Each section includes an overview, goals/actions, inventory analysis and challenges, and
resources.
Ms. Louisos then showed a timeline of the plan’s preparation and outlined public participation.
Mr. Conner explained that the next steps include Council review and two public hearings. If the
Council makes any changes, a third public hearing will be required. Staff suggests warning a
public hearing for Thursday, 16 November (special meeting). Public comment can be accepted
in the interim.
Ms. Emery noted that members of the public have expressed concern with infill being placed
only in areas with housing built prior to 1980 (“post-war neighborhoods”). Ms. Louisos said
some of that language has already been changed. Ms. Emery said that if there is already
housing built, infill should go there. She also felt there should be more relating to various forms
of diversity in this plan.
Mr. Barritt was impressed with what he called a “very crisp document.”
Mr. Barnes questioned the math which did not seem to add up. If housing growth and
population growth stay the same, how do we wind up with a 5% vacancy rate? Ms. Louisos said
the 5% was recommended by the Affordable Housing Committee, and the Planning Commission
decided to leave it and the other numbers unchanged.
Mr. Barnes asked how you prioritize one over the other. Mr. Conner said that is a very good
point. He explained that many goals are ambitious policy goals. The 5% is policy of a different
sort. There needs to be a balance so the city doesn’t get more infrastructure than it needs.
CITY COUNCIL
16 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 6
Ms. Emery was concerned that the plan seems to rely on current development patterns as to
what should be high or low scale development. Ms. Louisos said the Future Land Use Map
addresses some of that. Ms. Emery also felt there should be “future transit corridors” included.
Ms. Williams, representing the School Board, presented 9 “bullet points” that the School Board
wants to have included in the plan which did not make it in time to be included in this draft.
Mr. Barritt then moved to warn a public hearing on the 2024 City Plan for Thursday, 16
November 2023, at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Chalnick said he would like a less formal way for the Council to discuss the Plan prior to 16
November. Members suggested a special meeting on 30 October which could also include the
filling of Mr. Barnes’ Council position.
7. First Reading of Land Development Regulation Amendments #LDR-23-03, Multiple
Principal Structures on a Lot – Mobile Home Parks; #LDR-23-04, City Center Form
Based Code: Buildings on Outside of Road Corners; and #LDR-23-05, Minor
Technical Amendments; and consider warning a public hearing on these
amendments for 16 November 2023 at 7:45 p.m. or 20 November 2023 at 7:00
p.m.:
Mr. Conner explained that LDR-23-04 relates to an “L” shaped corner which created a pocket
where nothing can be built. There is a potential for this situation in several places in the city.
LDR-23-04 complies with State Law which does not allow a community to prohibit mobile home
parks. LDR-23-05 corrects some inconsistencies.
Mr. Barritt moved to hold a public hearing on the proposed LDR amendments on 20 November,
2023, at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
8. Discuss the process to fill the vacancy on the City Council:
Ms. Emery said Council Chair Riehle wants to fill the vacancy as soon as possible because of
upcoming budget discussions. She suggested having a subcommittee review applications and
bring forward a candidate for the Council to consider. She suggested a date for Council review
of 30 October which would allow the new Council members to participate in the 16 November
special meeting. Ms. Baker added that the new member could also participate in the Steering
CITY COUNCIL
16 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 7
Committee meeting on 2 November. She said the opening can be posted on the City’s website
and on-line advertising for The Other Paper as well as Front Porch Forum and other outlets.
Mr. Chalnick and Ms. Emery agreed to serve as a subcommittee and to schedule interviews for
10/25 through 10/27. Nominations should be received by Ms. Baker by 24 October.
Ms. Sirvis requested that the person chosen not live in the Southeast Quadrant.
9. Receive the FY24 Policy Priorities and Strategies Report #1:
Mr. Chalnick asked if the sidewalk item is for this coming budget. Ms. Baker said it is.
Ms. Baker noted that one of the challenges for this quarter is that they have been down 2
department heads and an attorney.
Mr. Barnes asked if there is any indication about the new dispatch system. Chief Locke said it is
meeting and exceeding expectations. It results in quicker deployment of the Air Guard. It also
addresses quality of life issues as overnight bells now go off only the station involved in the
incident. Mr. Barnes asked if this might mean they want to roll it out more. Chief Locke said it’s
a bit early to say, and he would want to discuss that with Chief Burke.
10. Discuss if the city should explore putting in place ordinance language, staffing, and
materials to implement an intermittent winter parking ban and provide direction
to staff:
Ms. Baker said the City gets this request from time to time. It seems simple, but it is an
incredibly “heavy lift” with regard to capital expenses and enforcement. The city has 400 miles
of road, and they would have to be signed appropriately in order for cars to be towed. There is
no traffic enforcement on staff at this time, and the question is whether the city wants “badges
and guns” enforcing such an ordinance.
Mr. Barritt asked how many cars get towed. Ms. Baker said just a few and only during major
snowstorms. Mr. Barritt then said that if only a few people have a problem, maybe that’s what
the Council should address.
Members agreed it made no sense to change the current policy.
CITY COUNCIL
16 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 8
11. Convene as South Burlington Liquor Control Commission to consider the following:
Delta House by Marriott Burlington, First Class Hotel; Delta House Hotels by
Marriott Burlington, Third Class Hotel
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Commission. Mr. Barnes
seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the First Class Hotel and Third Class Hotel permits for Delta House
by Marriott Burlington, as presented. Mr. Barnes seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Barritt moved that the Commission reconvene as City Council. Mr. Chalnick seconded.
Motion passed 4-0.
12. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
13. Consider entering into executive session for the purposes of discussion pending
litigation to which the City is a party:
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council make a finding that premature general public knowledge of
confidential attorney-client communications relating to pending litigation to which the City is a
party could place the public body at a substantial disadvantage. Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion
passed 4-0.
Mr. Barritt then moved that the Council enter into executive session for the purpose of
discussing pending litigation to which the City is a party and inviting into the session Ms. Baker,
Chief Locke and Mr. McNeill. Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion passed 4-0. The Council entered
into executive session at 9:26 p.m.
As there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn.
Mr. Chalnick seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50
p.m.
____________________________, Clerk
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 30 OCTOBER023
The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Monday, 30 October 2023, at 6:30
p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Barnes, A. Chalnick
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; Chief S. Locke, Deputy City Manager; P. Conner, Director
of Planning & Zoning; K. Peterson, Planner; M. Machar, Finance Officer; C. McNeil, City
Attorney; L. Kupferman, J. Stoever, M. Murray, Judy HW, Kd, J. R. Hacky, J. Bossange, G.
Silverstein, F. O’Neill, L. Darr, L. Anguin, D. Bugbee, K. Calcagni, C. Trombly, S. A. O’Brien, F. Von
Turkevich, K. Griffen, A. Chalnick, M. Provost, L. Bailey, D. Campbell, M. Cota, P. Cooper, L. Smith,
B. Sirvis, J. Moscatelli, B. Dunn, J. Leas, F. MacDonald, L. Marriott, S. Dopp, E. Krasnow, D.
Anglund, L. Waters, D. Barton, M. Farrington
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
option:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology
options.
2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
Several members of the public spoke regarding the noise issue related to the Long Road
development. A resident played a tape of the noise as it is heard in her home daily from 8 in
the morning until 4 p.m. Residents from as far away as 2 miles said this has been going on for
years and has precluded their ability to work from home and has exacerbated health issues for
people with reduced noise tolerance. Residents said the hammering is the result of the project
being allowed to have basements. They felt the remaining homes should be built on slab which
would eliminate the need to chip away at ledge. Dr. Zigmund noted that blasting had not been
allowed because of the tree protection which, she also noted, has been violated a number of
times by the developer. Residents felt there does not seem to be coordination as to who has
authority in this situation.
Ms. Riehle said the Council will have to discuss this in an executive session. She noted that the
situation is “trickier than it seems.”
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
30 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 2
Mr. Leas cited the city’s noise ordinance which, he said, gives the city power to address
“unreasonable noise” that endangers health or peace of a person. He said there is evidence
that this is the case, and that the noise ordinance is being violated. He felt there should be an
immediate complaint filed and that the police should be authorized to act.
Mr. Moscatelli, a member of the Development Review Board, noted that the new building
permits do not contain a statement that tree and ledge regulations need to be followed. He
agreed that basements are not necessary and said this should be considered ahead of time so
that development can be done without torturing the neighbors.
4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on events and meetings they had attended.
Ms. Baker: Staff is working to ensure that all students are safe as they walk or bike to school.
A public letter was issued last week outlining the status of all the efforts.
Adam Matth, the new Recreation & Parks Director started work today.
Staff is working on budget development. A preliminary budget will be brought to
the Council in early December.
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion
passed 4-0.
6. Appointment of City Councilor:
Ms. Baker reviewed the process the Council has used to replace Councilor Tyler Barnes who has
accepted an employment position out of state. She said that the Council can discuss the
appointment in executive session but will make the appointment in open session.
Ms. Riehle said that the Council’s consideration will include geographic distribution and
familiarity with city issues.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
3O OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 3
Ms. Farrington spoke in favor of Paul Engels, one of the candidates.
Mr. Barritt then moved that the City Council meet in Executive Session under 1 V.S.A. Section
313(a)(3) for the purpose of discussion the appointment of a public officer, inviting into the
session Ms. Baker, Chief Locke, and City Attorney McNeil. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
4-0. The Council entered Executive Session at 7:51 and resumed open session at 8:16 p.m.
Ms. Riehle announced that the Council has appointed Larry Kupferman to fill the Council seat
vacated by Tyler Barnes.
Mr. Barritt said the Council looked for someone who has served the city in the past and felt that
Mr. Kupferman as a great choice. Ms. Riehle said this was a hard decision and thanked all the
applicants for their interest.
Mr. Kupferman will be sworn in by the City Clerk tomorrow.
7. Council Discussion of the 2024 City Plan:
Ms. Baker explained that this is a Council work session. There will be the opportunity for public
input at the first of 2 public hearings on 16 November. She recommended that the Council not
take any votes at this meeting.
Council input was then presented as follows:
Mr. Barritt: Did not like the paragraph at the top of the document. He felt it was too
emotional and too alarmist. Ms. Emery and Ms. Riehle shared that concern. Members agreed
to remove that paragraph.
Ms. Emery: Noted the elimination of “human focus” from the third Guiding Principle. She
said the Council was told the Plan would focus on people’s needs, and if that is eliminated,
there is no reason for the Plan. She felt words such as “people oriented environment” and
“focus on belonging” were important and should not be eliminated. She asked to substitute
those words for “thoughtful sustainable environment.” Mr. Chalnick said that “human focus”
sounded arrogant to him. Ms. Emery responded that engineering plans need to take people
into account. She felt “human focus” to be humane. Mr. Engels said the Planning Commission
spent hours on the language and agreed on what is presented. It has been vetted in public
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
30 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 4
meetings. The Commission felt it was more precise and that the entire plan is “human focused.”
Ms. Riehle suggested “people focused” along with language regarding diversity and belonging.
Mr. Chalnick: Would prefer chronic housing shortage” rather than “housing crisis.” He would
also delete the word “and nationally.” Ms. Emery disagreed and felt that all the crises listed go
together. People feel unsafe and feel they need a response from government. Ms. Riehle was
OK with identifying 3 crises. Ms. Emery added that the Plan needs to say that government will
respond to people in crisis
Ms. Emery: On p. 8, paragraph 2, under “notable changes in the city,” Ms. Emery felt that
paragraph should go at the beginning. Mr. Barritt suggested beginning with the second
sentence. The language would need to be integrated.
Mr. Chalnick: On p. 16, goal #3, this should be limited to rental housing. Members agreed. He
also questioned how the city can influence goal #8. Ms. Riehle suggested saying “reduce the
percentage” and leaving out 50%. Mr. Conner noted the typical goal is to spend not more than
30% of ones income on housing. This language asked to reduce the number of people who are
spending more than 50% on housing.
Mr. Barritt: In goal #10, what does “electrify” mean. Mr. Conner said “electrify” is the word
used in the city’s Climate Action Plan. Members agreed to leave it in.
Mr. Chalnick: One p. 18, he questioned the 18,000 jobs and asked to check that number. He
also felt the second full paragraph needs tempering that speaks to the rest of the plan regarding
the challenges of building more housing. He proposed alternative language. Ms. Emery felt
there should be a link to the city’s Open Space Plan and to include that plan on the list on p. 9-
10. She noted that the business community has made it clear that they cannot hire people
because people can’t find housing.
Ms. Emery: On p. 19, paragraph 2, “challenges” is too vague a word. She suggested “these
homes should be reinvested in, including insulation.” Mr. Barritt suggested “have deficiencies”
instead of “challenges.” Members agreed.
Ms. Emery: On p. 20, the plan specifically identifies “post-war neighbors” for small-scale
infill. This has aroused a great deal of concern. She felt that the city should look beyond those
neighborhoods for infill. Mr. Barritt noted that the post-war neighborhoods are already very
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
30 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 5
tight. Mr. Conner said the Commission was intending to describe single-family lot
neighborhoods. Members agreed to make the change to “single-family lot neighborhoods.”
Mr. Chalnick: On p. 21, he felt the report being cited is “fatally flawed” and shouldn’t be cited.
Members agreed to strike that bullet point.
Mr. Barritt: On. P. 24, the words “integrated housing” should be changed to “integrating
housing.” Members agreed. Mr. Chalnick asked to strike the last sentence as he didn’t feel the
facts support it. Mr. Barritt said he knows many people who commute from St. Albans,
Swanton, Milton, etc., where housing is less expensive. Ms. Emery added that there are
telecommuters who live in South Burlington. People who live outside South Burlington lose out
because they can’t afford the housing.
Mr. Chalnick: On p. 25, suggested adding under the Airport: “work together to ensure that the
Airport is working to reduce its greenhouse gasses, consistent with the Climate Action Plan.”
Members were OK with “collaborate.”
Mr. Barritt: On p. 27, paragraph 2, the reference to Green Mountain Power’s low-carbon
electric supply is inaccurate as it is not low-carbon. Mr. Chalnick 100% of the new supply to the
grid is low-carbon. That is the basis for the Climate Action Plan. Members agreed to say “all
new power will be carbon-free.”
Mr. Chalnick: On p. 35, he asked to change “protect” to “permanently conserve.” Ms. Peterson
said that paragraph includes both private and public conservation, and that makes it tricky
because the city can’t conserve all of that. Mr. Conner added that they can’t say there is no
ability to come back for more homes. Ms. Riehle said if it’s a goal, the city could work with
people to permanently conserve the land. Ms. Emery said she didn’t want to scare people.
Members agreed to leave it as it is.
Mr. Chalnick: On p. 36, Action #43 needs clarification. He also felt there is a better way to say
Action #40. Mr. Conner directed attention to maps 3 and 9. He said however the language is
written, it has to be consistent with the future land use map so there is no conflict.
Mr. Chalnick: On p. 55, he asked for statistics.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
30 OCTOBER 2023
PAGE 6
Ms. Emery: On p. 78, Action 127, she wanted to be sure that is going to happen because it
did not happen on Market St. Ms. Peterson said there are things in the LDRs that bind this and
allow for additional actions to make it happen.
Mr. Chalnick: Expressed concern with solar numbers. Mr. Conner said there are 2 different
sources, one is the State, which has to recognized in the plan.
Due to the late hour and an executive session, Ms. Baker suggested holding further comments
until after the public hearing.
8. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
9. Consider entering executive session for the purpose of receiving professional legal
services:
Mr. Barritt moved that the City Council make a specific finding that premature general public
knowledge of the City’s discussion of confidential attorney-client communications made for the
purpose of providing professional legal services to the Council would clearly place the public
body at a substantial disadvantage. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Barritt then moved that the City Council enter Executive Session, under 1 V.S.A. Section 313
(a)(1)(F), for the purpose of discussing confidential client communications made for the purpose
of providing professional legal services to the Council, and inviting into the session Ms. Baker,
Chief Locke, Mr. Conner and Mr. McNeil. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
The Council entered Executive Session at 9:58 p.m.
Following the Executive Session, as there was no further business to come before the Council
Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at 10:51 p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Expenditure Report - GENERAL FUND
Current Year Period 4 October
% Budget Unencumbered FY-23/24 MTD
Account Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 4 Oct
GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP.
CITY COUNCIL 63,750.00$ 4,458.17$ 6.99%59,291.83$ 198.00$
ADMINISTRATIVE INSURANCE 896,056.52$ 174,070.38$ 19.43%721,986.14$ 65,647.18$
GF INSURANCE 682,365.73$ 343,902.39$ 50.40%338,463.34$ -$
CITY MANAGER 523,229.45$ 102,880.55$ 19.66%420,348.90$ 38,205.76$
LEGAL/ACCOUNTING ACTUARY 366,115.31$ 99,197.25$ 27.09%266,918.06$ 41,050.54$
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,242,115.17$ 261,107.09$ 21.02%981,008.08$ 124,220.83$
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 584,994.68$ 123,109.04$ 21.04%461,885.64$ 45,700.00$
CITY CLERK 464,169.43$ 151,497.11$ 32.64%312,672.32$ 31,604.39$
PHYSICAL PLANT 875,044.04$ 227,512.44$ 26.00%647,531.60$ 81,302.30$
ASSESSING/TAX/FINANCE 723,874.07$ 246,705.49$ 34.08%477,168.58$ 65,289.35$
PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW 918,730.97$ 192,999.87$ 21.01%725,731.10$ 66,326.06$
TO CAPITAL/RESERVE FUNDS 933,200.00$ -$ 0.00%933,200.00$ -$
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP.8,273,645.37$ 1,927,439.78$ 23.30%6,346,205.59$ 559,544.41$
PUBLIC SAFETY
FIRE DEPARTMENT 5,994,396.69$ 1,348,792.27$ 22.50%4,645,604.42$ 403,299.00$
AMBULANCE -$ 4,711.92$ 100.00%(4,711.92)$ 1,731.18$
POLICE DEPARTMENT 7,255,230.46$ 1,961,073.46$ 27.03%5,294,157.00$ 617,786.05$
Total PUBLIC SAFETY 13,249,627.15$ 3,314,577.65$ 25.02%9,935,049.50$ 1,022,816.23$
STREETS & HIGHWAYS
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 4,575,586.04$ 1,825,102.75$ 39.89%2,750,483.29$ 215,799.39$
Total STREETS & HIGHWAYS 4,575,586.04$ 1,825,102.75$ 39.89%2,750,483.29$ 215,799.39$
CULTURE AND RECREATION
% Budget Unencumbered FY-23/24 MTD
Account Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 4 Oct
RECREATION ADMINISTRATIO 527,613.70$ 89,399.85$ 16.94%438,213.85$ 31,079.24$
PROGRAMS 146,000.00$ 64,068.59$ 43.88%81,931.41$ 28,741.39$
FACILITIES 175,056.25$ 14,589.85$ 8.33%160,466.40$ 2,485.18$
SENIOR PROGRAMS 38,500.00$ 6,505.96$ 16.90%31,994.04$ 3,045.83$
SPECIAL ACTIVITIES -$ -$ 0.00%-$ (3,947.55)$
PUBLIC LIBRARY 1,045,028.63$ 276,027.74$ 26.41%769,000.89$ 90,169.72$
CAPITAL/PARK MAINTENANCE 726,434.93$ 168,491.82$ 23.19%557,943.11$ 46,381.65$
Total CULTURE AND RECREATION 2,658,633.51$ 619,083.81$ 23.29%2,039,549.70$ 197,955.46$
OTHER ENTITIES
OTHER OPERATING ENTITIES 937,809.97$ 374,154.18$ 39.90%563,655.79$ -$
Total OTHER ENTITIES 937,809.97$ 374,154.18$ 39.90%563,655.79$ -$
CURRENT PRINCIPAL BONDS 1,211,203.30$ 625,021.00$ 51.60%586,182.30$ 625,021.00$
CURRENT INTEREST BONDS 233,813.00$ 124,188.59$ 53.11%109,624.41$ 124,188.59$
Total GENERAL FUND 31,140,318.34$ 8,809,567.76$ 28.29%22,330,750.58$ 2,745,325.08$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Expenditure Report - ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C.
Current Year Period 4 October
% Budget Unencumbered FY-23/24 MTD
Account Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 4 Oct
W/POLLUTION CONTROL EXPS.
Salaries-Permanent 700,693.02$ 190,442.84$ 27.18%510,250.18$ 50,788.48$
Payment to Highway-wages 278,354.89$ -$ 0.00%278,354.89$ -$
Leave Time Turn-In 7,000.00$ -$ 0.00%7,000.00$ -$
Salaries-Overtime 75,000.00$ 29,039.10$ 38.72%45,960.90$ 7,386.83$
Payment to Sick Bank Fund 6,677.02$ -$ 0.00%6,677.02$ -$
Payroll Service 1,692.27$ -$ 0.00%1,692.27$ -$
PAFO Certification 9,000.00$ 3,289.20$ 36.55%5,710.80$ 876.88$
Sick Bank Payouts 10,000.00$ -$ 0.00%10,000.00$ -$
Fringe Benefits 9,300.69$ 300.00$ 3.23%9,000.69$ -$
FICA/Medicare 60,794.02$ 17,627.14$ 28.99%43,166.88$ 4,630.22$
Payment to Highway-FICA/M 33,289.64$ -$ 0.00%33,289.64$ -$
Vision Plan 779.69$ 230.50$ 29.56%549.19$ 123.54$
Disability Insurance 2,139.12$ 904.00$ 42.26%1,235.12$ 452.00$
Long Term Disability Insu 4,060.42$ 1,307.92$ 32.21%2,752.50$ 653.96$
Group Health Insurance 131,970.16$ 31,553.58$ 23.91%100,416.58$ 12,539.25$
Group Life Insurance 2,782.32$ 304.00$ 10.93%2,478.32$ 152.00$
Group Dental Insurance 7,409.53$ 2,467.13$ 33.30%4,942.40$ 1,213.50$
Pension 94,710.61$ 26,123.98$ 27.58%68,586.63$ 26,123.98$
ICMA Match 30,067.64$ 6,787.99$ 22.58%23,279.65$ 1,872.54$
Pension Note Payment 39,075.00$ -$ 0.00%39,075.00$ -$
Office Supplies 2,100.00$ 1,165.48$ 55.50%934.52$ 26.89$
Plant Supplies 125,000.00$ 9,992.45$ 7.99%115,007.55$ 4,974.22$
Polymer 120,000.00$ 33,395.67$ 27.83%86,604.33$ 33,395.67$
Sewer Line Maint/Supplies 27,000.00$ 3,452.82$ 12.79%23,547.18$ 2,314.84$
Pumping Station Supplies 18,000.00$ 3,072.85$ 17.07%14,927.15$ 1,478.51$
Laboratory Supplies 14,500.00$ 4,365.02$ 30.10%10,134.98$ 2,926.54$
Caustic Soda and Lime 175,000.00$ 46,552.54$ 26.60%128,447.46$ 21,457.57$
Alum 280,000.00$ 115,121.43$ 41.11%164,878.57$ 54,154.70$
% Budget Unencumbered FY-23/24 MTD
Account Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 4 Oct
Water-Airport-B/B-Pump 1,800.00$ 504.82$ 28.05%1,295.18$ 244.11$
Generator Preventive Main 10,000.00$ 306.00$ 3.06%9,694.00$ -$
Clothing Supplies 4,250.00$ 783.07$ 18.43%3,466.93$ 105.47$
Truck Parts 12,500.00$ 2,462.98$ 19.70%10,037.02$ 1,428.38$
Gas - Diesel Fuel - Oil 13,000.00$ 7,001.10$ 53.85%5,998.90$ 2,197.21$
Fuel - Airport Parkway 65,000.00$ 12,427.56$ 19.12%52,572.44$ 3,381.84$
Fuel - Bartlett Bay 6,500.00$ 158.30$ 2.44%6,341.70$ 55.88$
Telephone and Alarms 6,500.00$ 4,692.88$ 72.20%1,807.12$ 1,682.46$
Memberships/Dues 39,607.80$ 18,177.14$ 45.89%21,430.66$ (32,595.67)$
Discharge Permits 15,000.00$ 3,750.00$ 25.00%11,250.00$ -$
Workers Comp Insurance 18,729.67$ 9,457.62$ 50.50%9,272.05$ -$
Property Insurance 61,598.06$ 33,205.75$ 53.91%28,392.31$ -$
Unemployment Insurance 933.57$ -$ 0.00%933.57$ -$
Safety 5,500.00$ 4,875.97$ 88.65%624.03$ -$
Billing Payment to CWD 73,000.00$ -$ 0.00%73,000.00$ -$
Soil/Sludge Management 140,000.00$ 49,666.79$ 35.48%90,333.21$ 18,939.14$
Landfill Fees 1,000.00$ -$ 0.00%1,000.00$ -$
Building Improvements 7,500.00$ -$ 0.00%7,500.00$ -$
Pumps Replacements 55,000.00$ 20,400.00$ 37.09%34,600.00$ 20,400.00$
Pumps Replacements 43,000.00$ 13,768.98$ 32.02%29,231.02$ 13,768.98$
Marathon Health ctr cost 22,031.39$ -$ 0.00%22,031.39$ -$
HVAC Maintenance 38,000.00$ 8,617.87$ 22.68%29,382.13$ 937.98$
Auditing 3,773.86$ -$ 0.00%3,773.86$ -$
Engineering/Consulting 18,000.00$ 516.00$ 2.87%17,484.00$ -$
Landfill Engineering 17,500.00$ 5,111.84$ 29.21%12,388.16$ -$
Payment to SW for GIS 12,635.00$ -$ 0.00%12,635.00$ -$
Administrative Services 145,281.42$ -$ 0.00%145,281.42$ -$
Burlington Sewer Lines 2,000.00$ 447.69$ 22.38%1,552.31$ -$
Travel & Training 6,500.00$ -$ 0.00%6,500.00$ -$
Utilities-Pumping Station 105,000.00$ 23,457.95$ 22.34%81,542.05$ 7,784.73$
Utilities--L/Fill Station 900.00$ -$ 0.00%900.00$ -$
Electric-Airport Parkway 210,000.00$ 60,516.26$ 28.82%149,483.74$ 60,516.26$
% Budget Unencumbered FY-23/24 MTD
Account Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 4 Oct
Electric-Bartlett Bay 150,000.00$ 37,036.32$ 24.69%112,963.68$ 37,036.32$
Replacement-Vehicles 290,000.00$ 55,076.13$ 18.99%234,923.87$ 16,016.83$
Pump Repairs -$ 875.00$ 00.00%(875.00)$ 875.00$
PMT to SW for Hadley Loan 73,648.00$ -$ 0.00%73,648.00$ -$
Bartlett Bay Upgrades 600,000.00$ 3,062.00$ 0.51%596,938.00$ -$
Capital Projects - CIP 350,000.00$ 1,636.46$ 0.47%348,363.54$ 387.58$
Loan for Hadley Sewer 112,000.00$ -$ 0.00%112,000.00$ -$
Loan for Airport Parkway 970,000.00$ -$ 0.00%970,000.00$ -$
Total ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C.5,974,084.81$ 905,488.12$ 15.16%5,068,596.69$ 380,704.62$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Expenditure Report - STORM WATER UTILITIES
Current Year Period 4 October
% Budget Unencumbered FY-23/24 MTD
Account Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 4 Oct
S/WATER UTILITIES EXPS
Salaries-Permanent 458,034.55$ 145,246.81$ 31.71%312,787.74$ 39,067.47$
Payment to Highway-Wages 78,215.00$ -$ 0.00%78,215.00$ -$
Salaries-Overtime 23,000.00$ 3,192.75$ 13.88%19,807.25$ 246.69$
Payment to Sick Bank Fund 5,900.62$ -$ 0.00%5,900.62$ -$
Payroll Service 1,480.75$ -$ 0.00%1,480.75$ -$
Fringe Benefits 6,387.00$ 300.00$ 4.70%6,087.00$ -$
FICA/Medicare 36,799.14$ 11,784.94$ 32.03%25,014.20$ 3,113.17$
Vision Plan 631.39$ 132.34$ 20.96%499.05$ 66.20$
Disability Income Insuran 4,574.64$ 1,934.43$ 42.29%2,640.21$ 967.21$
Group Health Insurance 113,897.30$ 26,010.71$ 22.84%87,886.59$ 10,516.40$
Health Insurance FICA 459.00$ -$ 0.00%459.00$ -$
Group Life Insurance 1,906.98$ 266.00$ 13.95%1,640.98$ 133.00$
Group Dental Insurance 5,718.61$ 2,296.24$ 40.15%3,422.37$ 1,148.12$
Pension 88,872.21$ 10,605.54$ 11.93%78,266.67$ 10,605.54$
ICMA Match 23,002.64$ 8,524.70$ 37.06%14,477.94$ 2,305.67$
Pension Note Payment 26,910.00$ -$ 0.00%26,910.00$ -$
Office Supplies 1,500.00$ 860.96$ 57.40%639.04$ 72.00$
Small Equipment/Tools 3,000.00$ 2,723.82$ 90.79%276.18$ 1,400.14$
Uniforms/Supplies 6,500.00$ 2,596.60$ 39.95%3,903.40$ 191.65$
Gasoline 2,500.00$ 729.62$ 29.18%1,770.38$ 172.44$
Oil 275.00$ 219.48$ 79.81%55.52$ -$
Diesel Fuel 7,500.00$ 3,862.37$ 51.50%3,637.63$ 935.40$
Permit Requirement-Educat 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 100.00%-$ 7,000.00$
Telephone 2,000.00$ 1,046.59$ 52.33%953.41$ 333.79$
Membership/Dues 600.00$ -$ 0.00%600.00$ -$
Discharge Permits Renewal 24,000.00$ 14,776.00$ 61.57%9,224.00$ 14,776.00$
Workers Comp Insurance 16,551.80$ 8,357.90$ 50.50%8,193.90$ -$
Property Insurance 14,245.09$ 7,679.34$ 53.91%6,565.75$ -$
% Budget Unencumbered FY-23/24 MTD
Account Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 4 Oct
Unemployment Insurance 933.57$ -$ 0.00%933.57$ -$
GIS-Fees/Software 75,000.00$ 9,875.96$ 13.17%65,124.04$ 396.97$
Sediment & Depris Disposa 200.00$ -$ 0.00%200.00$ -$
Water Quality Monitoring 15,000.00$ 7,766.26$ 51.78%7,233.74$ -$
Building/Grounds Maint 200.00$ -$ 0.00%200.00$ -$
Reimb Highway Benefit 33,289.64$ -$ 0.00%33,289.64$ -$
Marathon Health ctr cost 25,178.73$ -$ 0.00%25,178.73$ -$
Vehicle Maintenance 15,000.00$ 12,275.04$ 81.83%2,724.96$ 4,803.97$
Storm System Maint Materi 100,000.00$ 4,636.92$ 4.64%95,363.08$ 550.12$
Printing 100.00$ -$ 0.00%100.00$ -$
Legal Services 20,000.00$ -$ 0.00%20,000.00$ -$
To GF-Audit and Actuary 4,287.21$ -$ 0.00%4,287.21$ -$
Engineering-Watershed 35,000.00$ -$ 0.00%35,000.00$ -$
Billing Payment CWD 73,000.00$ -$ 0.00%73,000.00$ -$
Office Furniture/Equipmen 1,000.00$ -$ 0.00%1,000.00$ -$
Office Equipment Maintena 2,500.00$ 26.89$ 1.08%2,473.11$ 26.89$
Equipment Rental 250.00$ -$ 0.00%250.00$ -$
Administrative Services 66,746.24$ -$ 0.00%66,746.24$ -$
Conference/Training Expen 8,000.00$ 472.50$ 5.91%7,527.50$ 472.50$
S/W Bldg Utilities 3,500.00$ 747.20$ 21.35%2,752.80$ 306.68$
Stormwater Pumps Electric 300.00$ 69.68$ 23.23%230.32$ 22.34$
Flow Restoration Plan Ana 5,000.00$ -$ 0.00%5,000.00$ -$
Vehicles/Equipment 745,000.00$ 261,997.83$ 35.17%483,002.17$ 243,004.83$
Stormwater Capital Projec 2,005,000.00$ 206,136.98$ 10.28%1,798,863.02$ 95,237.46$
Total STORM WATER UTILITIES 4,195,947.11$ 764,152.40$ 18.21%3,431,794.71$ 437,872.65$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Revenue Report - GENERAL FUND
Current Year Period 4 October
Estimated Received % Budget Uncollected FY-23/24 MTD
Account Revenue To Date Received Balance Pd 4 Oct
TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE 19,604,298.92$ (9,906,086.86)$ 50.53%9,698,212.06$ (1,869,803.94)$
LOCAL OPTION TAXES 4,850,000.00$ (448,891.47)$ 9.26%4,401,108.53$ -$
Total TAX REVENUE 24,454,298.92$ (10,354,978.33)$ 42.34%14,099,320.59$ (1,869,803.94)$
INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX 423,500.00$ (83,429.03)$ 19.70%340,070.97$ (2,997.84)$
Other Health Services 267,346.40$ (22,606.22)$ 8.46%244,740.18$ (22,606.22)$
CITY MANAGER 1,842,326.56$ (475,733.18)$ 25.82%1,366,593.38$ (138,073.43)$
CITY CLERK 351,000.00$ (74,683.93)$ 21.28%276,316.07$ (17,695.00)$
PLANNING 561,100.00$ (204,942.31)$ 36.53%356,157.69$ (19,666.80)$
FIRE DEPARTMENT 799,000.00$ (581,436.24)$ 72.77%217,563.76$ (31,957.50)$
AMBULANCE 990,000.00$ (381,387.75)$ 38.52%608,612.25$ (122,770.85)$
POLICE DEPARTMENT 277,150.00$ (32,259.41)$ 11.64%244,890.59$ (7,149.06)$
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1,014,896.45$ (319,858.89)$ 31.52%695,037.56$ (74,376.21)$
Senior Programs 26,650.00$ (6,244.00)$ 23.43%20,406.00$ (1,636.00)$
SPECIAL ACTIVITIES 125,000.00$ (69,354.00)$ 55.48%55,646.00$ (14,000.00)$
PUBLIC LIBRARY 8,050.00$ (6,646.60)$ 82.57%1,403.40$ (2,095.37)$
Total Departments 6,686,019.41$ (2,258,581.56)$ 33.78%4,427,437.85$ (455,024.28)$
Total GENERAL FUND 31,140,318.33$ (12,613,559.89)$ 40.51%18,526,758.44$ (2,324,828.22)$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Revenue Report - ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C.
Current Year Period 4 October
Estimated Received % Budget Uncollected FY-23/24 MTD
Account Revenue To Date Received Balance Pd 4 Oct
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
W.P.C. User Fees 4,113,150.00$ (1,403,990.08)$ 34.13%2,709,159.92$ (329,505.04)$
Sewer Septage Revenue 23,000.00$ (14,061.50)$ 61.14%8,938.50$ (14,061.50)$
Connection Fees 582,800.00$ (630,705.36)$ 108.22%(47,905.36)$ (29,293.28)$
Enviromental Impact -$ (2,728.00)$ 100.00%(2,728.00)$ -$
Total CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,718,950.00$ (2,051,484.94)$ 43.47%2,667,465.06$ (372,859.82)$
BOND AND LOAN PROCEEDS
Colchester A/P Pkwy Pm 742,310.00$ -$ 0.00%742,310.00$ -$
Total BOND AND LOAN PROCEEDS 742,310.00$ -$ 0.00%742,310.00$ -$
MISCELLANEOUS
Miscellaneous Rev.-W.P 10,000.00$ (28,174.03)$ 281.74%(18,174.03)$ -$
Reserve Fund Transfer 502,824.79$ -$ 0.00%502,824.79$ -$
Total MISCELLANEOUS 512,824.79$ (28,174.03)$ 5.49%484,650.76$ -$
Total ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C.5,974,084.79$ (2,079,658.97)$ 34.81%3,894,425.82$ (372,859.82)$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Revenue Report - STORM WATER UTILITIES
Current Year Period 4 October
Estimated Received % Budget Uncollected FY-23/24 MTD
Account Revenue To Date Received Balance Pd 4 Oct
S/WATER UTILITIES REVENUE
Intergovernmental Revenue 1,189,000.00$ (830.70)$ 0.07%1,188,169.30$ -$
S/W User Fees - Water Bil 2,779,678.00$ (910,460.98)$ 32.75%1,869,217.02$ (302,013.90)$
GIS Reimb From Other Fund 50,543.00$ -$ 0.00%50,543.00$ -$
Pmts from other towns 40,000.00$ (4,320.98)$ 10.80%35,679.02$ -$
Stormwater Miscellaneous 30,000.00$ (4,639.17)$ 15.46%25,360.83$ -$
Hadley Sewer Proj-Sewer f 73,000.00$ -$ 0.00%73,000.00$ -$
Reserve Transfer In 33,726.10$ -$ 0.00%33,726.10$ -$
Total STORM WATER UTILITIES 4,195,947.10$ (920,251.83)$ 21.93%3,275,695.27$ (302,013.90)$
City of South Burlington General Ledger Expenditure Report ‐ GENERAL FUND Current Year Period 3 September% Budget Unencumbered FY‐23/24 MTDAccount Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 3 SepGENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP.CITY COUNCIL 63,750.00$ 4,260.17$ 6.68% 59,489.83$ 4,260.17$ ADMINISTRATIVE INSURANCE 896,056.52$ 108,423.20$ 12.10% 787,633.32$ 25,560.74$ GF INSURANCE 682,365.73$ 343,902.39$ 50.40% 338,463.34$ 166,322.08$ CITY MANAGER 523,229.45$ 64,674.79$ 12.36% 458,554.66$ 24,845.61$ Wages & Benefits 304,615.31$ 56,775.08$ 18.64% 247,840.23$ 20,293.39$ Total LEGAL/ACCOUNTING ACTUARY 366,115.31$ 58,146.71$ 15.88% 307,968.60$ 21,018.39$ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,242,115.17$ 136,886.26$ 11.02% 1,105,228.91$ 43,863.83$ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 584,994.68$ 77,409.04$ 13.23% 507,585.64$ 30,667.20$ CITY CLERK 464,169.43$ 119,892.72$ 25.83% 344,276.71$ 22,167.31$ PHYSICAL PLANT 875,044.04$ 146,210.14$ 16.71% 728,833.90$ 59,720.28$ ASSESSING/TAX/FINANCE 723,874.07$ 181,416.14$ 25.06% 542,457.93$ 80,286.04$ PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW 918,730.97$ 126,673.81$ 13.79% 792,057.16$ 45,860.35$ TO CAPITAL/RESERVE FUNDS 933,200.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 933,200.00$ ‐$ Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP. 8,273,645.37$ 1,367,895.37$ 16.53% 6,905,750.00$ 524,572.00$ PUBLIC SAFETYFIRE DEPARTMENT 5,994,396.69$ 950,804.40$ 15.86% 5,043,592.29$ 370,791.43$ AMBULANCE‐$ 2,980.74$ 100.00% (2,980.74)$ 2,980.74$ POLICE DEPARTMENT 7,255,230.46$ 1,343,287.41$ 18.51% 5,911,943.05$ 512,245.25$ Total PUBLIC SAFETY 13,249,627.15$ 2,297,072.55$ 17.34% 10,952,554.60$ 886,017.42$ STREETS & HIGHWAYSHIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 4,575,586.04$ 1,609,303.36$ 35.17% 2,966,282.68$ 701,896.88$
% Budget Unencumbered FY‐23/24 MTDAccount Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 3 SepTotal STREETS & HIGHWAYS 4,575,586.04$ 1,609,303.36$ 35.17% 2,966,282.68$ 701,896.88$ CULTURE AND RECREATIONRECREATION ADMINISTRATIO 527,613.70$ 58,320.61$ 11.05% 469,293.09$ 21,781.31$ PROGRAMS 146,000.00$ 35,327.20$ 24.20% 110,672.80$ 12,192.87$ FACILITIES 175,056.25$ 12,104.67$ 6.91% 162,951.58$ 3,208.53$ SENIOR PROGRAMS 38,500.00$ 3,460.13$ 8.99% 35,039.87$ 955.59$ SPECIAL ACTIVITIES‐$ 3,947.55$ 100.00% (3,947.55)$ 432.00$ PUBLIC LIBRARY 1,045,028.63$ 185,858.02$ 17.78% 859,170.61$ 69,378.66$ CAPITAL/PARK MAINTENANCE 726,434.93$ 122,110.17$ 16.81% 604,324.76$ 37,427.04$ Total CULTURE AND RECREATION 2,658,633.51$ 421,128.35$ 15.84% 2,237,505.16$ 145,376.00$ OTHER ENTITIESOTHER OPERATING ENTITIES 937,809.97$ 374,154.18$ 39.90% 563,655.79$ ‐$ Total OTHER ENTITIES 937,809.97$ 374,154.18$ 39.90% 563,655.79$ ‐$ CURRENT PRINCIPAL BONDS 1,211,203.30$ ‐$ 0.00% 1,211,203.30$ ‐$ CURRENT INTEREST BONDS 233,813.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 233,813.00$ ‐$ Total GENERAL FUND 31,140,318.34$ 6,069,553.81$ 19.49% 25,070,764.53$ 2,257,862.30$
City of South Burlington General Ledger Expenditure Report ‐ ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C. Current Year Period 3 September% Budget Unencumbered FY‐23/24 MTDAccount Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 3 SepW/POLLUTION CONTROL EXPS.Salaries‐Permanent 700,693.02$ 139,654.36$ 19.93% 561,038.66$ 51,824.96$ Payment to Highway‐wages 278,354.89$ ‐$ 0.00% 278,354.89$ ‐$ Leave Time Turn‐In 7,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 7,000.00$ ‐$ Salaries‐Overtime 75,000.00$ 21,652.27$ 28.87% 53,347.73$ 6,738.44$ Payment to Sick Bank Fund 6,677.02$ ‐$ 0.00% 6,677.02$ ‐$ Payroll Service 1,692.27$ ‐$ 0.00% 1,692.27$ ‐$ PAFO Certification 9,000.00$ 2,412.32$ 26.80% 6,587.68$ 876.88$ Sick Bank Payouts 10,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 10,000.00$ ‐$ Fringe Benefits 9,300.69$ 300.00$ 3.23% 9,000.69$ ‐$ FICA/Medicare 60,794.02$ 12,996.92$ 21.38% 47,797.10$ 4,689.91$ Payment to Highway‐FICA/M 33,289.64$ ‐$ 0.00% 33,289.64$ ‐$ Vision Plan 779.69$ 106.96$ 13.72% 672.73$ (6.26)$ Disability Insurance 2,139.12$ 452.00$ 21.13% 1,687.12$ 226.00$ Long Term Disability Insu 4,060.42$ 653.96$ 16.11% 3,406.46$ 326.98$ Group Health Insurance 131,970.16$ 19,014.33$ 14.41% 112,955.83$ 5,865.99$ Group Life Insurance 2,782.32$ 152.00$ 5.46% 2,630.32$ 76.00$ Group Dental Insurance 7,409.53$ 1,253.63$ 16.92% 6,155.90$ 606.75$ 94,710.61$ ‐$ 0.00% 94,710.61$ ‐$ ICMA Match 30,067.64$ 4,915.45$ 16.35% 25,152.19$ 1,907.58$ Pension Note Payment 39,075.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 39,075.00$ ‐$ Office Supplies 2,100.00$ 1,138.59$ 54.22% 961.41$ 967.29$ Plant Supplies 125,000.00$ 5,018.23$ 4.01% 119,981.77$ 4,057.96$ Polymer 120,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 120,000.00$ ‐$ Sewer Line Maint/Supplies 27,000.00$ 1,137.98$ 4.21% 25,862.02$ 1,137.98$ Pumping Station Supplies 18,000.00$ 1,594.34$ 8.86% 16,405.66$ 254.34$ Laboratory Supplies 14,500.00$ 1,438.48$ 9.92% 13,061.52$ 289.88$ Caustic Soda and Lime 175,000.00$ 25,094.97$ 14.34% 149,905.03$ 12,202.49$ Alum 280,000.00$ 60,966.73$ 21.77% 219,033.27$ 22,137.39$ Water‐Airport‐B/B‐Pump 1,800.00$ 260.71$ 14.48% 1,539.29$ 260.71$
% Budget Unencumbered FY‐23/24 MTDAccount Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 3 SepGenerator Preventive Main 10,000.00$ 306.00$ 3.06% 9,694.00$ ‐$ Clothing Supplies 4,250.00$ 677.60$ 15.94% 3,572.40$ 443.66$ Truck Parts 12,500.00$ 1,034.60$ 8.28% 11,465.40$ 655.60$ Gas ‐ Diesel Fuel ‐ Oil 13,000.00$ 4,803.89$ 36.95% 8,196.11$ 1,499.88$ Fuel ‐ Airport Parkway 65,000.00$ 9,045.72$ 13.92% 55,954.28$ 4,165.24$ Fuel ‐ Bartlett Bay 6,500.00$ 102.42$ 1.58% 6,397.58$ 47.82$ Telephone and Alarms 6,500.00$ 3,010.42$ 46.31% 3,489.58$ 1,458.97$ Memberships/Dues 39,607.80$ 50,772.81$ 28.19% (11,165.01)$ 14,786.94$ Discharge Permits 15,000.00$ 3,750.00$ 25.00% 11,250.00$ 3,750.00$ Workers Comp Insurance 18,729.67$ 9,457.62$ 50.50% 9,272.05$ 4,590.54$ Property Insurance 61,598.06$ 33,205.75$ 53.91% 28,392.31$ 14,257.27$ Unemployment Insurance 933.57$ ‐$ 0.00% 933.57$ ‐$ Safety 5,500.00$ 4,875.97$ 88.65% 624.03$ 1,363.67$ Billing Payment to CWD 73,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 73,000.00$ ‐$ Soil/Sludge Management 140,000.00$ 30,727.65$ 21.95% 109,272.35$ 17,978.12$ Landfill Fees 1,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 1,000.00$ ‐$ Building Improvements 7,500.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 7,500.00$ ‐$ Pumps Replacements 55,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 55,000.00$ ‐$ Pumps Replacements 43,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 43,000.00$ ‐$ Marathon Health ctr cost 22,031.39$ ‐$ 0.00% 22,031.39$ ‐$ HVAC Maintenance 38,000.00$ 7,679.89$ 20.21% 30,320.11$ 2,914.89$ Auditing 3,773.86$ ‐$ 0.00% 3,773.86$ ‐$ Engineering/Consulting 18,000.00$ 516.00$ 2.87% 17,484.00$ ‐$ Landfill Engineering 17,500.00$ 5,111.84$ 29.21% 12,388.16$ 5,111.84$ Payment to SW for GIS 12,635.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 12,635.00$ ‐$ Administrative Services 145,281.42$ ‐$ 0.00% 145,281.42$ ‐$ Burlington Sewer Lines 2,000.00$ 447.69$ 22.38% 1,552.31$ 447.69$ Travel & Training 6,500.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 6,500.00$ ‐$ Utilities‐Pumping Station 105,000.00$ 15,673.22$ 14.93% 89,326.78$ 8,342.59$ Utilities‐‐L/Fill Station 900.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 900.00$ ‐$ Electric‐Airport Parkway 210,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 210,000.00$ ‐$ Electric‐Bartlett Bay150,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 150,000.00$ ‐$ Replacement‐Vehicles 290,000.00$ 39,059.30$ 13.47% 250,940.70$ 23,925.18$
% Budget Unencumbered FY‐23/24 MTDAccount Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 3 SepPMT to SW for Hadley Loan 73,648.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 73,648.00$ ‐$ Bartlett Bay Upgrades 600,000.00$ 3,062.00$ 0.51% 596,938.00$ 3,062.00$ Capital Projects ‐ CIP 350,000.00$ 1,248.88$ 0.36% 348,751.12$ 344.52$ Loan for Hadley Sewer 112,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 112,000.00$ ‐$ Loan for Airport Parkway 970,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 970,000.00$ ‐$ Total ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C. 5,974,084.81$ 524,783.50$ 8.78% 5,449,301.31$ 223,587.69$
City of South Burlington General Ledger Expenditure Report ‐ STORM WATER UTILITIES Current Year Period 3 September% Budget Unencumbered FY‐23/24 MTDAccount Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 3 SepS/WATER UTILITIES EXPSSalaries‐Permanent 458,034.55$ 106,179.34$ 23.18% 351,855.21$ 38,314.57$ Payment to Highway‐Wages 78,215.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 78,215.00$ ‐$ Salaries‐Overtime 23,000.00$ 2,946.06$ 12.81% 20,053.94$ ‐$ Payment to Sick Bank Fund 5,900.62$ ‐$ 0.00% 5,900.62$ ‐$ Payroll Service 1,480.75$ ‐$ 0.00% 1,480.75$ ‐$ Fringe Benefits 6,387.00$ 300.00$ 4.70% 6,087.00$ ‐$ FICA/Medicare 36,799.14$ 8,671.77$ 23.57% 28,127.37$ 3,035.86$ Vision Plan 631.39$ 66.14$ 10.48% 565.25$ (4.38)$ Disability Income Insuran 4,574.64$ 967.22$ 21.14% 3,607.42$ 483.61$ Group Health Insurance 113,897.30$ 15,494.31$ 13.60% 98,402.99$ 4,756.99$ Health Insurance FICA459.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 459.00$ ‐$ Group Life Insurance 1,906.98$ 133.00$ 6.97% 1,773.98$ 66.50$ Group Dental Insurance 5,718.61$ 1,148.12$ 20.08% 4,570.49$ 574.06$ Pension 88,872.21$ ‐$ 0.00% 88,872.21$ ‐$ ICMA Match 23,002.64$ 6,219.03$ 27.04% 16,783.61$ 2,294.72$ Pension Note Payment 26,910.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 26,910.00$ ‐$ Office Supplies 1,500.00$ 788.96$ 52.60% 711.04$ 288.00$ 3,000.00$ 1,323.68$ 44.12% 1,676.32$ 83.14$ Uniforms/Supplies 6,500.00$ 2,404.95$ 37.00% 4,095.05$ 1,224.61$ Gasoline 2,500.00$ 557.18$ 22.29% 1,942.82$ 378.12$ Oil 275.00$ 219.48$ 79.81% 55.52$ 165.72$ Diesel Fuel 7,500.00$ 2,926.97$ 39.03% 4,573.03$ 2,077.57$ Permit Requirement‐Educat 7,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 7,000.00$ ‐$ Telephone 2,000.00$ 712.80$ 35.64% 1,287.20$ 369.36$ Membership/Dues 600.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 600.00$ ‐$ Discharge Permits Renewal 24,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 24,000.00$ ‐$ Workers Comp Insurance 16,551.80$ 8,357.90$ 50.50% 8,193.90$ 4,056.76$ Property Insurance 14,245.09$ 7,679.34$ 53.91% 6,565.75$ 3,297.35$
% Budget Unencumbered FY‐23/24 MTDAccount Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 3 SepUnemployment Insurance 933.57$ ‐$ 0.00% 933.57$ ‐$ GIS‐Fees/Software 75,000.00$ 9,478.99$ 12.64% 65,521.01$ 3,500.99$ Sediment & Depris Disposa 200.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 200.00$ ‐$ Water Quality Monitoring 15,000.00$ 7,766.26$ 51.78% 7,233.74$ 3,668.18$ Building/Grounds Maint 200.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 200.00$ ‐$ Reimb Highway Benefit 33,289.64$ ‐$ 0.00% 33,289.64$ ‐$ Marathon Health ctr cost 25,178.73$ ‐$ 0.00% 25,178.73$ ‐$ Vehicle Maintenance 15,000.00$ 7,471.07$ 49.81% 7,528.93$ 1,035.98$ Storm System Maint Materi 100,000.00$ 4,086.80$ 4.09% 95,913.20$ 1,949.74$ Printing 100.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 100.00$ ‐$ Legal Services 20,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 20,000.00$ ‐$ To GF‐Audit and Actuary 4,287.21$ ‐$ 0.00% 4,287.21$ ‐$ Engineering‐Watershed 35,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 35,000.00$ ‐$ Billing Payment CWD 73,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 73,000.00$ ‐$ Office Furniture/Equipmen 1,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 1,000.00$ ‐$ Office Equipment Maintena 2,500.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 2,500.00$ ‐$ Equipment Rental 250.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 250.00$ ‐$ Administrative Services 66,746.24$ ‐$ 0.00% 66,746.24$ ‐$ Conference/Training Expen 8,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 8,000.00$ ‐$ S/W Bldg Utilities 3,500.00$ 440.52$ 12.59% 3,059.48$ 229.38$ Stormwater Pumps Electric 300.00$ 47.34$ 15.78% 252.66$ 24.34$ Flow Restoration Plan Ana 5,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 5,000.00$ ‐$ Vehicles/Equipment 745,000.00$ 18,993.00$ 2.55% 726,007.00$ 18,993.00$ Stormwater Capital Projec 2,005,000.00$ 110,899.52$ 5.53% 1,894,100.48$ 35,528.20$ Total S/WATER UTILITIES EXPS 4,195,947.11$ 326,279.75$ 7.78% 3,869,667.36$ 126,392.37$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Revenue Report - GENERAL FUND
Current Year Period 3 September
Estimated Received % Budget Uncollected FY-23/24 MTD
Account Revenue To Date Received Balance Pd 3 Sep
TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE 19,604,298.92$ (8,036,282.92)$ 40.99%11,568,016.00$ (139,378.12)$
LOCAL OPTION TAXES 4,850,000.00$ (448,891.47)$ 9.26%4,401,108.53$ -$
Total TAX REVENUE 24,454,298.92$ (8,485,174.39)$ 34.70%15,969,124.53$ (139,378.12)$
INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX 423,500.00$ (80,431.19)$ 18.99%343,068.81$ 12,093.91$
Other Health Services 267,346.40$ -$ 0.00%267,346.40$ -$
CITY MANAGER 1,842,326.56$ (337,659.75)$ 18.33%1,504,666.81$ (113,586.88)$
CITY CLERK 351,000.00$ (56,988.93)$ 16.24%294,011.07$ (20,486.00)$
PLANNING 561,100.00$ (185,275.51)$ 33.02%375,824.49$ (130,852.41)$
FIRE DEPARTMENT 799,000.00$ (549,478.74)$ 68.77%249,521.26$ (106,064.19)$
AMBULANCE 990,000.00$ (258,616.90)$ 26.12%731,383.10$ (78,420.62)$
POLICE DEPARTMENT 277,150.00$ (25,110.35)$ 9.06%252,039.65$ (18,080.15)$
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1,014,896.45$ (245,482.68)$ 24.19%769,413.77$ (12,335.37)$
Senior Programs 26,650.00$ (4,608.00)$ 17.29%22,042.00$ (1,964.00)$
SPECIAL ACTIVITIES 125,000.00$ (55,354.00)$ 44.28%69,646.00$ (20,425.00)$
PUBLIC LIBRARY 8,050.00$ (4,551.23)$ 56.54% 3,498.77$ (1,682.66)$
Total GENERAL FUND 31,140,318.33$ (10,288,731.67)$ 33.04%20,851,586.66$ (631,181.49)$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Revenue Report - ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C.
Current Year Period 3 September
Estimated Received % Budget Uncollected FY-23/24 MTD
Account Revenue To Date Received Balance Pd 3 Sep
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
W.P.C. User Fees 4,113,150.00$ (1,074,485.04)$ 26.12%3,038,664.96$ (442,508.41)$
Sewer Septage Revenue 23,000.00$ -$ 0.00%23,000.00$ -$
Connection Fees 582,800.00$ (601,412.08)$ 103.19%(18,612.08)$ (521,302.22)$
Enviromental Impact -$ (2,728.00)$ 100.00%(2,728.00)$ (1,975.00)$
Total CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,718,950.00$ (1,678,625.12)$ 35.57%3,040,324.88$ (965,785.63)$
BOND AND LOAN PROCEEDS
Colchester A/P Pkwy Pm 742,310.00$ -$ 0.00%742,310.00$ -$
Total BOND AND LOAN PROCEEDS 742,310.00$ -$ 0.00%742,310.00$ -$
MISCELLANEOUS
Miscellaneous Rev.-W.P 10,000.00$ (28,174.03)$ 281.74%(18,174.03)$ -$
Reserve Fund Transfer 502,824.79$ -$ 0.00%502,824.79$ -$
Total MISCELLANEOUS 512,824.79$ (28,174.03)$ 5.49%484,650.76$ -$
Total ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C.5,974,084.79$ (1,706,799.15)$ 28.57%4,267,285.64$ (965,785.63)$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Revenue Report - STORM WATER UTILITIES
Current Year Period 3 September
Estimated Received % Budget Uncollected FY-23/24 MTD
Account Revenue To Date Received Balance Pd 3 Sep
S/WATER UTILITIES REVENUE
Intergovernmental Revenue 1,189,000.00$ (830.70)$ 0.07%1,188,169.30$ -$
S/W User Fees - Water Bil 2,779,678.00$ (608,447.08)$ 21.89%2,171,230.92$ (182,412.44)$
GIS Reimb From Other Fund 50,543.00$ -$ 0.00%50,543.00$ -$
Pmts from other towns 40,000.00$ (4,320.98)$ 10.80%35,679.02$ -$
Stormwater Miscellaneous 30,000.00$ (4,639.17)$ 15.46%25,360.83$ (4,639.17)$
Hadley Sewer Proj-Sewer f 73,000.00$ -$ 0.00%73,000.00$ -$
Reserve Transfer In 33,726.10$ -$ 0.00%33,726.10$ -$
Total STORM WATER UTILITIES 4,195,947.10$ (618,237.93)$ 14.73%3,577,709.17$ (187,051.61)$
Quarterly Financial Reporting
From: Martha Machar, Finance Director
City Leadership Team
To: South Burlington City Council
Jessie Baker, City Manager
Subjects: FY24 Financial Report, Quarter Ended September 30, 2023
Date: November 16, 2023
FY24 financial reports for the period ending September 30, 2023 are attached. Only summary
reports for the general fund budget are included. Detailed reports can be found in the Council
box.
Overall, the general fund expenses and revenues through the end of the first quarter are on target.
Expenses are at 19.49%, which is consistent with prior years’ spending. Revenues are at 33.04%,
this is also consistent with past fiscal years. While some revenue lines are still below budget
others are above and in the aggregate are balancing each other out.
Find below the financial narratives from department managers for the first quarter ending
9/30/2023.
IT: (Department Head: Shawn Nick Gingrow)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
We are currently under budget for the year overall, I think this is likely due to a gap in leadership
and a pause put on some projects. As we get projects back on track and fill our vacancy I think
we will be back on track.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
Late this quarter the new IT Director started, and the search for the new Network and System
Administrator began. The telephone migration to New Horizons has largely finished, and the
police dispatch move has begun to move forward.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
Software costs are on track, we have a few software projects on the docket for the coming year
including new HR software and a NEMRC replacement that will take up the slack in this area as
we go forward.
IT utility services are also going as expected, we have consolidated all cellphone lines to one
single plan which should streamline management without significantly changing costs, while
removing data caps on some plans.
We have yet to begin using our IT Support Service budget for the year but we have networking
projects (replacing old hardware, and improving our firewall) both at City Hall and at some
remote locations where we plan to use this money later on in the year.
No trainings have yet been scheduled, while we are down a staff member this will probably not
be used until later in the year.
IT Capital budget usage is very low currently, but as the IT Director has begun assessing the
status of current hardware, there are many older machines and hardware that are in need of
replacement. Laptops, servers, and other hardware quotes are currently in process.
CLERK: (Department Head: Holly Rees)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
Revenues are hovering around 16% which tracks appropriately with what is planned for
throughout the year. Pet licensing fees are a significant driver of revenues and those won’t really
begin to be actualized until third quarter. Additionally, recording fees for September haven’t
been included in this report now that we offer an on-line option and the accounts payable to us
are reconciled in the following month.
Expenses are exactly as predicted; 25.83% at the end of the first quarter.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
Retired City Clerk, Donna Kinville, after 22 years of service in August.
Officially welcomed new City Clerk, Holly Rees, August 18.
Moved Land Records On-Line in August
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
Revenues:
Recording fees:
When we switched on the option to access the land records on-line, the contract requires that our
on-line vendor, Avenue, collect the monthly fees and provide us a share check the following
month. Fees collected in August were actually an additional $1100 from the on-line portal. We
will ensure that all months are reconciled ahead of the fiscal year close out; though it should be
noted that there is a discussion of changing the fee structure for this service as South Burlington
hosts the highest cost in the state. South Burlington charges $20 per day or $60 per month to
access the on-line records portal while many other communities offer it for free or a nominal $2
or $4 per day. Coming to the office continues to be the most popular means of research with
modest fees of $4 per hour and $1 per copy.
Pet Licenses:
While we do see some residents coming in to register their pets as they move into the city or
welcome a new family member, these are minimal compared to the anticipated 1800 registrations
we will process in February, March and April ahead of the required due date.
Beverage Licensing:
Traditionally the Liquor Licenses were all on an April 1 renewal deadline. The State changed
this last year to a rolling 1 year renewal from date of registration, so that if you registered in
September you wouldn’t be due again until the following September. With this change comes
the potential for a more consistent and steady workflow and revenue stream, but it will take a
couple of years move away from seeing the bulk of this activity in April. It is anticipated we will
realize all of the revenues by the end of the fiscal year.
Expenses:
Salary overage:
Holly worked with Donna half time in July and August which had unplanned salary
impacts. Additionally, Pam Corriea was promoted to Deputy City Clerk in April. This
promotion came with an increase in both responsibilities and salary.
PLANNING AND ZONING: (Department Head: Paul Conner)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
Overall revenues and expenditures are in a stable position. Expenditures are below budget
overall, at 13.8% through one-quarter of the year, though notably several larger items are to
come. Revenues are above budget, at 36% through the first quarter of the year.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
• The Planning Commission completed their work on City Plan 2024 on October 3rd
following ~16 months of work and community engagement and prepared a series of
amendments to the LDRs related to the City Center FBC, mobile home parks, and
technical corrections
• Planning staff is preparing amendments related to the recently-adopted Vermont
Act 47, the City Center FBC, and the city’s transportation management standards
• The Development Review Board was active in an initial review of a conservation
PUD at the Allenwood property and with several updates to existing project
• The Zoning office was active, including issuance of the site plan and subsequent
zoning permit for City Center Lot N (187 homes and 27,000 s.f. commercial space),
ongoing permitting for various neighborhoods and lots, and enforcement actions
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
Expenditures: Public Meeting Advertising is likely to exceed budget for the year. This is due in
large part to additional ads having been taken out to publicize the draft CityPlan 2024, to inform
community members of their opportunities to weigh in over the summer. Several items,
including travel & training, consulting, and consulting, are expected to have greater expenditures
as the year continues.
Revenues:
• Zoning permit revenue was strong in Q1, with 48% of the annual budget received.
A handful of large projects were primary contributors to this.
• Development Review revenues were substantially below budget.
o This is in part a matter of how new application fees are received; there is
an accounting lag for projects that have not been assigned a project number yet –
they are placed in a temporary finance location and then later are reconciled back
to the project number.
o It is in part a reflection of a more quiet summer in development review
than we’ve seen the last couple of years. Several of the regular private sector
entities that come before the city had either just completed the development
review phase of a project and were moving to construction (such as in City
Center, or O’Brien Brothers at O’Brien Eastview), or were gearing up for their
next projects that are either coming in this fall or winter (such as Larkin Terrace
Master Plan, or the next Airport project).
PHYSICAL PLANT: (Department Head: Greg Yandow)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
Overall budgets are running at or below first quarter expectations except Facilities Maintenance,
previously facilities stewardship at 60.64%. Facilities Cleaning Service (formally PD
maintenance) at 26.4%, HVAC 3nd at 20.26% of overall line item.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
Replaced outside cleaning services with inhouse personnel. This has been a great move with
higher customer satisfaction on all of the city buildings that were being cleaned by contractor
and no complaints, just praise for the individual. Facilities acted as GC and built bathrooms for
Dorset Park.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
Facilities Maintenance/Stewardship at 60.64%. This is due to the purchase of a small floor
machine ($6,150) for Police Dept.’s tiled floors that must be mopped almost every day (every
day during the winter). This saves on the employee’s shoulders (could translate into a Workers
Comp claim) and time allowing for more cleaning to be done.
RECREATION & PARKS: (Department Head: Adam Matth)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
The Q1 numbers show us under budget or pacing as expected throughout the various line items
Admin, Programs, Facilities and Programs. The various items showing well over the projections
at the current moment are due to elements which are seasonal in nature (SB Night Out, facilities
in use during summer/fall).
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
Successful SB Nite Out despite the weather and rain outs, average attendance was ~1,000. Red
Rocks had a successful season with its two Park Rangers. Our camp numbers totaled ~200
families served by our camp inventory with 13 camps offered and another 6 supported. Hosted
turf time at SBHS and had ~400 in attendance for that event.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
Revenues:
SB Night Out: Revenues are lower than initially projected due to the weather which impacted
multiple cancellations and ultimately vendor refunds. Additionally, Baker Distributing and
Coca-Cola still have a due invoice we are waiting for.
Special Event Revenue: Over projection as this is made up of revenue brought in for the Spark
The Park and sponsorship from North Country Federal Credit Union.
Expenses:
Overtime: Due to the nature of the department being short staffed (down two full time
employees) for the majority of the quarter and a summer heavy event/program season. This also
is offset by the general rec.admin.salaries-perm line item being well under projection at the
current moment.
Park Salaries: Another seasonal element where park staff is managed during Q1 of a fiscal year
and then return in Q4 for the second half of those line items.
Contracted Services: These are held for the holiday events inclusive of Senior Holiday Meal
and the Senior Holiday Lights Tour which are free opportunities to South Burlington Seniors.
Capital Items: Projects below are currently in the bid process.
Roof Replacement at Jaycee/Red Rocks
Beam Replacement at Vet
Dugout Replacement at Vet
Bleacher Replacement at Vet
Senior Meal Cost: The Q1 expenses for senior meals were posted in October and will appear in
the next set of reports.
FIRE & AMBULANCE SERVICES: (Department Head: Steen Locke)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
At the conclusion of the first quarter, the Fire Department financials are doing well. Revenues
are exceeding estimates and expenditures are within expectations.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
The Fire Department has implemented computer aided dispatch and filled all vacancies. As was
discussed at last year’s budget presentation, not having all positions filled was a prime reason for
the massive amount of overtime. The Department has seen a significant reduction in overtime
which increases employee morale and quality of life.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
Overtime Training – this line item is 78% expended. Primary reason is required training for all
staff on new rope rescue techniques and boat operations. These needed to be conducted off duty,
so employees compensated accordingly.
Firefighter Clothing – several new employees required to be outfitted with structural fire
protection clothing (pants, coat, boots, helmet, gloves and hood). Complete package costs more
than 5k per employee. This account will be overspent for some time in order to catch up.
Airpack maintenance – we have had a couple units break and the costs to repair have been over
2k each. Vendor failed to provide a couple FY23 invoices before 8/30/23 so expense carried into
FY24.
Computer Contracts – This is 96% expended, but is the one time fee for records management
system which is invoiced at the beginning of fiscal year.
Telephone/Internet – During switch to new phone vendor the existing provider increased rates by
300 percent. This has been addressed and going forward prices are within expectations.
Uniforms – Large order for uniforms placed at the beginning of the fiscal year. Should balance
out as the year progresses.
Oil and Fire Inspector Car/Equipment both over significantly by a percentage, but not much by
dollars amounts. Normal one time purchases to cover operational needs.
POLICE: (Department Head: Shawn Burke)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
The Q1 data reflects anticipated expenses and revenue. The expense lines which show
expenditures in excess of 25% are generally lines that were budgeted for one-time expenses; e.g.
the Body Worn Camera annual contract.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
During Q1 the Department had two St. Michael’s College students employed as summer parks
patrol staff. This program has been a community desire for a number of years and our two
employees this summer were fantastic. The department responded to fewer calls for service in
the parks and on the paths this summer.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
Revenues:
The used car market has been strong; the sale of cruiser line confirms this market trend. Alarm
registration bills are sent out in April of this year, the revenue reflected here is a direct result of
the bills that were issued in April of 2023. Bullet proof vest grant – the FY 24 grant was awarded
to the Department.
Expenditures:
Traffic Unit Supplies – The department renewed the data capture contract for the speed
detection trailer.
Tires – The department purchased the snow tires needed for the fleet.
Dues and Subscriptions – The department has paid for half of the subscriptions we rely on each
year.
Body Worn Cameras – The department paid the annual contract fee for the Axon suite of
services; body worn cameras, cruiser cameras, cloud-based storage, electronic control weapons.
Vehicles and Equipment – The department is in the process of acquiring our allotted fleet
vehicles for FY 24. This process also involves the offload of retired vehicles which is reflected in
revenues.
PUBLIC WORKS – HIGHWAY: (Department Head: Tom DiPietro; Fund Manager: Adam
Cate)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
• After the first quarter, the highway budget has been spent at expected levels (35.17%). A
number of projects planned for FY24 have yet to begin, i.e. Bike path paving, Ash tree
treatment, and DPW garage expansion. These costs will be incurred during Q3 and Q4.
The bulk of FY24 paving has been accomplished. No salt expenses are represented, but
salt was ordered early in Q2.
• Revenues stand at 24.19% and are in line with what would be expected during this time
of year.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
• The Dorset Street Signal Project continues with completion anticipated in Q3 of FY24.
• FY24 Paving has been completed except for Cheese Factory Lane, which is scheduled for
a full reclaim in the Q4. There should be some funds available for paving in the spring,
or potentially to roll into the FY25 paving program if additional funds are necessary to
cover the costs associated with paving phase 4 of Dorset Street in FY25.
• All vehicles for the FY24 Fleet Plan have been ordered. Labor strikes in the auto
industry will likely slow delivery.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
• We hired a contractor to complete line striping early in FY24, but much of the work we
requested has yet to be completed. This line item remains at 47.2% spent.
• The Dorset Street Signals line item appears to be over budget, but funding for this project
includes funds from previous fiscal years. In addition, council funded additional work for
this project in the FY24 CIP. All costs are being coded to this line item.
PUBLIC WORKS – WATER QUALITY: (Department Head: Tom DiPietro; Fund
Manager: Bob Fischer)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
• Overall expenses are at 8.78% for the first quarter of FY24. This is below the average
historic rate for the first quarter, but anticipated as many consumable items are bought in
bulk. Water Quality has stopped all discretionary spending due to recent high inflationary
cost increases and are focused on maintaining current assets. Major non-fixed expenses at
the two Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) and pumpstations are somewhat
predictable based on age/usage of equipment, but each piece of equipment has a wide
lifespan/breakage range so non-fixed expenses fluctuate each fiscal year.
• Revenue is at 28.57% for the first quarter of FY24. This is above the average historic rate
for the first quarter and primarily due to income from wastewater allocation and
connection fees.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
• The Bartlett Bay WWTF was awarded the National Association of Clean Water Agencies
(NACWA) Gold Award and the Airport Parkway WWTF was awarded the Silver Award.
• Repaired the Centrifuge. The centrifuge is a critical piece of equipment for solids
handling at the Airport Parkway facility and the VFD’s failed and were obsolete (from
2011). Initial estimates were 14-16 weeks for the repair, but the Airport Parkway facility
only has about 10 weeks of holding time before considerable expenses would be incurred
hauling solids from the facility. Staff worked with the factory to get the unit repaired and
back in operation in 2 weeks.
• Maintained very low phosphorus discharges from both facilities.
• Planning and meetings for the Bartlett Bay WWTF upgrade took place throughout the
first quarter.
• The solids handling upgrade at the Airport Parkway facility was put out to RFQ and
Aldrich & Elliott Water Resource Engineers (Essex Junction) was the preferred firm. We
are ready to award a contract for this project, but await Vermont DEC’s approval of the
contract.
• The city released an RFQ to retain an engineer to replace/upgrade the four pump stations
that are part of the Queen City Park pump station project.
• Final engineering and design of the improvements/equipment replacement at the Bartlett
Bay WWTF was awarded to Hoyle Tanner and Associates (Burlington). Lou Bresee has
been involved with energy efficiency improvements during the upgrade of the Bartlett
Bay WWTF. A meeting was held with Green Mountain Power and Hallam-ICS on
potential efficiencies that could reduce our energy usage at the WWTF.
• The Industrial User Survey ARPA Grant was put out to RFP and Hoyle Tanner and
Associates (Manchester, NH) was awarded the contract. A survey will be sent to all
commercial properties in the City in FY24 Q2.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
• 400-14-7500-20.00 Office supplies: $2,100 budget $1,139 expenditure (54%). Purchased
toner and office supplies.
• 400-14-7500-26.00 Gas-Diesel Fuel-Oil: budget $13,000 expenditure $4,804 (37%).
Increased fuel costs.
• 400-14-7500-53.00 Safety: budget $5,500 expenditure $4,876 (89%). Digester gas
detection system repair.
PUBLIC WORKS – DRINKING WATER: (Department Head: Tom DiPietro; Fund
Manager: Jay Nadeau)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
• Water revenues through the first quarter are approximately 1% ahead of budget
projections, which is somewhat surprising given the very rainy first quarter we have
endured. Overall revenues are approximately 3.24% ahead of projections in part due to
higher-than-expected connection fee income, service work, and interest earned.
• Water expenses for the first quarter are also on track with budget projections, although
water purchases from CWD are slightly higher this quarter. This is due in part to routine
hydrant flushing that is considered non-revenue water.
Key Highlights:
• The water department continues to upgrade aging water meters and convert water meters
to the Neptune Radio Read AMR system.
• In conjunction with MSK Engineers, the water department is concentrating on identifying
the material of water service lines in order to complete the federally mandated Lead
Service Line Inventory due in October 2024.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses:
• No significant concerns currently.
• The Department recognizes the supply chain issue with some water distribution materials
still exists. We continue to monitor our inventories and purchase ahead in case there are
delivery delays. Stock for emergencies is adequate and the Department remains vigilant
in monitoring supply and delivery restrictions to avoid lengthy shutdown situations.
PUBLIC WORKS – STORMWATER: (Department Head: Tom DiPietro; Fund Manager:
Marisa Rorabaugh)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
• Overall expenditures for stormwater were 7.8% of the total budget at the close of the first
quarter. This is largely due to the status of capital projects, the timing of vehicle
purchases, and fund transfer to Administrative Services.
• Overall revenues were at 14.73% of total revenue, which is largely due to the timing of
grant reimbursements and payments from other towns. These will occur later in the fiscal
year. Stormwater Utility Fee revenues are on track at 21.9% of the budget amount.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
• Construction on the Kennedy Drive Pond 2 retrofit commenced in Q1 and will reach final
completion in Q2. This project is being constructed using $253,616 in grant funding from
the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
• The Stormwater Department was awarded $748,251 in grant funding though the MS4
Community Formula Grant Program. Final grant agreement paperwork will be signed in
Q2. This funding will be used to construct a stormwater treatment practice in accordance
with the City’s Flow Restoration Plans.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
• Capital projects have only incurred $110,899 in expenses, out of a total FY24 budget of
$2M. Construction will pick up in the spring and summer (Q3 and Q4).
• There has been minimal expenditure in the Vehicle/Equipment line item within FY24,
largely due to continued supply chain issues surrounding the purchase of a new street
sweeper. This purchase is expected to occur later within FY24.
• The Storm System Maintenance Material line item was at 4.09% expended at the close of
Q1. We are anticipating a large expenditure in Q2 due to a failing culvert that has been
recently identified and needs immediate repair.
• Administrative Services and Billing Payment to CWD account for $67k and $73k of total
expenditures from the Stormwater budget. These transfer payments will be made later in
FY24.
• Intergovernmental Revenue is sitting at 0.7% of the budget received at the end of Q1.
This is due to the timing of grant reimbursements.
PUBLIC WORKS – PENNY FOR PATHS: (Department Head: Tom DiPietro; Fund
Manager: Erica Quallen)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
• The Williston Road Crosswalks project reached substantial completion for construction
which resulted in approximately $87,000 paid to the contractor. This was expected for
this quarter. Final invoicing will likely occur at the end of FY24 Q2.
• All other project expenses are occurring as expected for FY24 Q1.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
• As previously noted, the Williston Road Crosswalks have reached substantial completion
and are open for use by the public.
• The new crosswalk with RRFB across Patchen Road at Jaycee Park has been completed
and is open for use by the public.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
• The largest expense for Fund 604 was for the crosswalks’ construction (explain above)
was expected.
PUBLIC WORKS – OPEN SPACE FUND: (Department Head: Tom DiPietro; Fund
Manager: Erica Quallen)
Overall Summary (provide a brief summary of how your department ended the quarter/year
compared to budget projections):
• The primary Open Space Fund projects (Hubbard Recreation & Natural Area path and
Red Rocks Trail Improvements) moved slowly in FY24 Q1.
o Red Rocks Act 250 permitting has been submitted and is under review. Upon
approval, plans can be completed and put out to bid for construction.
o The Hubbard path was consolidated significantly in July 2023 and the consultant
team has been slimmed down accordingly to save money on design.
Key Highlights (showcase any highlights on major projects/accomplishments your department
has done during the quarter/year, particularly those included in the year’s budget presentation
to Council):
• Nothing to report on in Q1.
Individual Budget lines - Revenues and Expenses (consider which surpluses and overages
might “jump off the page” for a reader, please provide a brief narrative/explanation for each):
• Only one payment was made from Fund 309 in FY24 Q1 which was to close out a
contract with a firm that was previously on the Hubbard path project.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessie Baker, City Manager & South Burlington City Council
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
Kelsey Peterson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and possible action on LDR Amendments #LDR-23-03, Multiple Principal Structures
on a lot – Mobile Home Parks; LDR-23-04 City Center FBC: Buildings on Outside of Road Corners;
and LDR-23-05: Minor and Technical Amendments
DATE: November 20, 2023 City Council meeting
Last month the City Council warned a public hearing on three sets of amendments previously approved 6-0 by
the Planning Commission. No comments have been received by staff since that time. The Council is invited to
open and hold the public hearing, and then may afterward vote to adopt the amendments if it is prepared to do
so, or may make changes and warn a new public hearing.
Summary of the amendments:
LDR-23-03 Multiple Principal Structures on a lot – Mobile Home Parks
The proposed amendment would expand the locations where Mobile Home Parks are allowed within South
Burlington. In 2022, amendments to the Land Development Regulations prohibited multiple residential
principal structures from being located on a single lot except within the City Center Form Based Code. A side
effect of this amendment was to limit the allowance for Mobile Home Parks, which are defined under Vermont
State Statute as “any parcel of land under single or common ownership or control that contains, or is designed,
laid out, or adapted to accommodate, more than two mobile homes.” [10 VSA 6201(2)]. This amendment
would allow for mobile home parks, as defined under Statute, to have more than one principal building on a lot.
LDR-23-04 City Center FBC: Buildings on Outside of Road Corners and Interstate Façade Standards
The proposed amendment addresses the circumstances of development on a “L”-shaped street corner within
the Form Based Code. Because buildings are required to have frontage on a street, but the street cannot
continue through the site because of the wetland complex to the north, sites are left with an unbuildable
circumstance. The amendment creates an exception to the frontage on a street requirement for the outside of
corners less than 120 degrees (roughly L-shaped bends with a little more for leeway) where a road cannot be
continued from the corner that allows a building to be built if the closest façade to the road meets principal or
secondary façade requirements. This will allow a good building to be built in the area where we are focusing
additional development instead of leaving empty space. The amendment also eliminates the requirement for a
5th story to be set back 12’ along an Interstate-facing façade. A building will still be required to have a step-back
along its main façade, however the purpose of the step-back – to foster a pedestrian-scaled environment – is
not advanced on an Interstate side and instead can create odd designs on that face.
LDR-23-05: Minor and Technical Amendments
The amendment is a technical correction. In 2022, the SEQ-NRP district was amended to allow the limited
amount of development that is allowed in that district to not only be single family homes, but also duplexes
and multi-family homes; at the same density as previously allowed. However, the corresponding table C-1,
which spells out allowed residential building types, was not updated to match the changes in Article 9. This
correct that error.
Recommended Council Actions:
1. Open Public Hearing. “I move to open the public hearing on proposed amendments to the Land
Development Regulations #LDR-23-03, LDR-23-04, and LDR-23-05.”
2. Close Public Hearing. “I move to close the public hearing on proposed amendments to the Land
Development Regulations #LDR-23-03, LDR-23-04, and LDR-23-05.”
3. Adopt Amendments (If Council is ready): “I move to adopt amendments to the Land Development
Regulations #LDR-23-03, LDR-23-04, and LDR-23-05.”
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS to the SOUTH BURLINGTON
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
City Council Public Hearing Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:00 pm
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 20, 2023 at
7:00 PM to consider amendments to the Land Development Regulations. The amendments affect all
parts of the City unless otherwise specified below. The hearing will be held in person and remotely via
Zoom. Participation options:
• In-Person: City Hall Auditorium, 180 Market Street
• Interactive Online: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/citycouncil-11-20-2023
• Phone: (224) 501-3412; access code: 137-431-053
The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following:
A. LDR-23-03 Multiple Principal Structures on a lot – Mobile Home Parks
B. LDR-23-04: City Center FBC: Buildings on Outside of Road Corners and Interstate Façade Standards
C. LDR-23-05: Minor and Technical Amendments
Copies of the proposed amendments are available for inspection at the Department of Planning &
Zoning, City Hall, 3rd Floor, 180 Market Street, and on the city website at www.sbvt.gov.
Meaghan Emery, City Council Vice-Chair
October 26, 2023
LDR-23-03
Multiple Principal Structures on a lot – Mobile Home Parks
for City Council Public Hearing 2023-11-20
LDR-23-03 Multiple Principal Structures on a lot – Mobile Home Parks
3.09 Multiple Structures and Uses
A. General Provisions.
There shall be only one principal building or structure on a lot and only one use per lot, except as
otherwise provided in this Section 3.09.
…
C. Multiple Principal Structures on a Lot.
(1) Outside of the City Center Form Based Codes District, lots shall be limited to a single principal building
except as provided for in Section 3.09(D).
(2) Within the City Center Form Based Codes District, multiple principal structures on a single lot shall
be permitted in accordance with the standards contained within these Regulations.
D. Multiple Structures on a Single-User Lot or Complex.
(1) Non-residentially-zoned lot or single-user complex. The Development Review Board may approve
two (2) or more buildings or structures which would otherwise be considered principal buildings on a
non-residentially-zoned lot or in a commercial, educational, municipal, or airport or industrial complex
for a single integrated user without requirement to meet the requirements of subsection C above.
Relevant criteria from site plan, PUD or subdivision reviews shall apply.
(2) Mobile-Home Parks. Mobile home parks, as defined by 10 V.S.A § 6201, are exempt from the
limitation of a single principal building on a lot.
…
F. Separate Lots Otherwise Required.
All combinations of buildings, structures, and uses that do not meet the above conditions shall require
separate lots.
LDR-23-04
City Center FBC: Buildings on Outside of Road Corners and Interstate Façade Standards
For City Council Public Hearing 2023-11-20
LDR-23-04 City Center FBC: Buildings on Outside of Road Corners and Interstate
Façade Standards
Article 8: City Center Form-Based Code
…
8.03 Land Development and Building Placement
A. Land Development.
No land development shall be permitted except in full compliance with the applicable Building Envelope
Standards (BES) and this Article. See also Section 8.11, non-conformities.
B. Building Placement.
(1) All new buildings and all additions to buildings shall include at least one building façade located
entirely within a Build-to-Zone, except as provided for below:
(a) Buildings permitted in a T3 Cottage Court;
(b) As permitted under Section 8.11, Nonconformities;
(c) Accessory structures; or,
(d) New Buildings on the outside of an existing or planned road corner of 120-degree or less if:
(i) The building façade nearest to the street meets the Primary Building Façade requirements
and is at least partially located within 120 feet from the right-of-way of the roadway; and,
(ii) The road cannot reasonably be extended from the corner due to restrictions in Article 12
or the presence of an interstate; and,
(iii) Either:
(I) The building is on a pre-existing lot containing no street frontage, or
(II) The frontage buildout on the lot is met or has been approved to be met by other buildings.
…
8.13 T-4 Urban Multi-Use Building Envelope Standards
T4 BES Standard Primary Building Façade
Requirements
Secondary Building
Façade Requirements
Supplemental
…
(F) Supplemental District Standards
…
(5) Upper Story setbacks. Except where located within a Gateway Area,
all stories not categorized as a rooftop structure in Section 8.06 above the
fourth story of any building shall be set back a minimum of twelve feet (12’)
from the primary and secondary building facades.
See note 3
…
Notes
…
(3) Standard does not apply to a building façade abutting an Intertstate or Interstate ramp
LDR-23-05
Minor and Technical Amendments
For City Council Public Hearing 2023-11-20
1
LDR-23-05: Minor and Technical Amendments
9.12 SEQ-NRP
A.
Any land that lies within a SEQ-NRP sub-district may only be developed in the following manners:
(1) Subdivision and/or conveyance to the City of South Burlington or to a qualified land trust as
dedicated open space.
(2) Subdivision and construction of a dwelling unit(s) pursuant to Section 9.12(B) or (C) below;
(3) Development with uses other than residences, as listed in Table C-1, subject to the Development
Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan that balances development or land utilization and
conservation.
(4) Additions or alterations to existing structures, and new or altered accessory structures and lot
coverage subject to the requirements of Section 9.12(D) below.
B.
A lot that was in existence on or before June 22, 1992 and which lies substantially or entirely within a
SEQ-NRP sub-district may be improved with one or more dwelling units, subject to conditional use
review and the following supplemental standards:
(1) Where the lot is less than fifteen (15) acres in size, the Development Review Board may permit no
more than one (1) single family dwelling unit, and only where:
(a) The portion of the lot in any other (non-NRP) SEQ sub-district is insufficient to accommodate the
construction and use of a single family dwelling unit in compliance with these Regulations;
(b) Standards of Section 9.12(D) are met.
(2) Where the lot is fifteen (15) acres or more in contiguous area, the Development Review Board may
allow a subdivision of no more than three (3) lots and construction no more than three (3) dwelling
units total only if:
(a) The DRB shall determine whether the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is
sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3) dwelling units on lots
approvable in compliance with these Regulations.
(i) Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to
accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3) dwelling units on lots approvable in
compliance with these Regulations, no subdivisions of land or construction of new dwelling units shall be
permitted in the NRP subdistrict;
(ii) Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to
accommodate the construction and use of two (2) dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with
these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to one (1) new dwelling unit in the NRP
subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these Regulations;
LDR-23-05
Minor and Technical Amendments
For City Council Public Hearing 2023-11-20
2
(iii) Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to
accommodate the construction and use of one (1) dwelling unit on lots approvable in compliance with
these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to two (2) new dwelling units in the
NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these Regulations;
(iv) Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is
insufficient to accommodate the construction and use of any single family dwelling units on lots
approvable in compliance with these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to three
(3) new dwellings unit in the NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these
Regulations; and,
(b) The arrangement of lots, structures, and access drives are clustered such that dwelling units are
located no more than one hundred (100) feet from the principal structure on the adjacent lots
within the subdivision,
(c) Such subdivision plan shall be subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a
conservation plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney that permanently encumbers the
land against further land subdivision and development, and;
(d) All lots intended for development shall be subject to the standards of Section 9.12(D).
C.
A single tax parcel existing as of the effective date of these regulations which exceeds one hundred (100)
acres and is located entirely within the NRP sub-district, as shown on the South Burlington Tax Maps last
revised 6/05 (June 2005), whether such lands are contiguous or not, may be subdivided at an average
overall density for the entire tax parcel of one (1) dwelling per ten (10) acres. Such lots shall be clustered
in a manner that maximizes the resource values of the property and shall have no portion within a
Hazard or Level I Resource Area except as specifically permitted in Article 12 . All buildings containing
dwelling units shall have the appearance of a detached single family house and must not contain more
than four (4) dwelling units. Such subdivision plan shall be subject to the Development Review Board’s
approval of a conservation plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney that permanently encumbers
the land against further land subdivision and development, and to Section 9.12(D) of these Regulations.
…
TABLE C-1: USES APPLICABLE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS
RESIDENTIAL & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS SEQ-NRP
Residential Uses
Single-family dwelling P
Two-family dwelling P
Multi-family dwelling P
180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbvt.gov
South Burlington Planning Commission
Proposed Land Development Regulations
Amendment & Adoption Report
Planning Commission Public Hearing October 10, 2023, 7:00 PM
In accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441, the South Burlington Planning Commission has prepared the
following report regarding the proposed amendments and adoption of the City’s Land Development
Regulations.
Outline of the Proposed Overall Amendments
The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 7:00
pm, in person and via electronic platform, to consider the following amendments to the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations:
A. LDR-23-03 Multiple Principal Structures on a lot – Mobile Home Parks
B. LDR-23-04 City Center FBC: Buildings on Outside of Road Corners and Interstate Façade Standards
C. LDR-23-05: Minor and Technical Amendments
Brief Description and Findings Concerning the Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendments have been considered by the Planning Commission for their consistency with
the text, goals, and objectives of the City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 1,
2016. For each of the amendments, the Commission has addressed the following as enumerated under
24 VSA 4441(c):
“…The report shall provide a brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and shall
include a statement of purpose as required for notice under section 4444 of this title, and shall include
findings regarding how the proposal:
A. LDR-23-03 Multiple Principal Structures on a lot – Mobile Home Parks
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
The proposed amendment would expand the locations where Mobile Home Parks are allowed within
South Burlington. In 2022, amendments to the Land Development Regulations prohibited multiple
residential principal structures from being located on a single lot except within the City Center Form
Based Code. A side effect of this amendment was to limit the allowance for Mobile Home Parks, which
2
are defined under Vermont State Statute as “any parcel of land under single or common ownership or
control that contains, or is designed, laid out, or adapted to accommodate, more than two mobile
homes.” [10 VSA 6201(2)].
This amendment would allow for mobile home parks, as defined under Statute, to have more than one
principal building on a lot.
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing, and sections 4412,
4413, and 4414 of this title.
This amendment is intended to (re)-expand access to Mobile Home Parks as required under
24 VSA 4412: “(C) No bylaw shall have the effect of excluding mobile home parks, as defined
in 10 V.S.A. chapter 153, from the municipality.” The amendment has no effect on 24 VSA
4413, limitations on municipal bylaws, or on 24 VSA 4414, zoning, permissible types of
regulations.
Access to diverse housing types is strongly supported in the City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan:
Objective 3. Foster the creation and retention of a housing stock that is balanced in size and
target income level, is representative of the needs of households of central Chittenden
County, and maintains an efficient use of land for use by future generations.
Strategy 4. Implement a variety of tools and programs to foster innovative approaches to
preserving and increasing the City’s supply of affordable and moderate income housing.
Potential tools should be explored and could include form-based codes that would allow a
variety of residential and mixed use building types, transferable development rights,
neighborhood preservation overlay districts, household definition regulations, inclusionary
zoning, bonuses and incentives, waivers and expedited review processes, and/or a housing
retention ordinance.
Strategy 7. Accommodate compatible infill and additions to homes in existing neighborhoods.
Strategy 8. Explore innovative land development regulations that allow for a range of
residential building and neighborhood types, including but not limited to cottage housing,
clustered housing and infill residential development.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The proposed amendment does not affect allowable densities or future land uses; it allows for
a modified arrangement and placement of principal structures on a lot or parcel.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
The proposed amendment does not affect any specific proposals for planned community
facilities.
3
B. LDR-23-04 City Center FBC: Buildings on Outside of Road Corners and Interstate Façade
Standards
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
The proposed amendment addresses the circumstances of development on a “L”-shaped street corner
within the Form Based Code. Because buildings are required to have frontage on a street, but the street
cannot continue through the site because of the wetland complex to the north, sites are left with an
unbuildable circumstance. The amendment creates an exception to the frontage on a street
requirement for the outside of corners less than 120 degrees (roughly L-shaped bends with a little more
for leeway) where a road cannot be continued from the corner that allows a building to be built if the
closest façade to the road meets principal or secondary façade requirements. This will allow a good
building to be built in the area where we are focusing additional development instead of leaving empty
space. The amendment also eliminates the requirement for a 5th story to be set back 12’ along an
Interstate-facing façade. A building will still be required to have a step-back along its main façade,
however the purpose of the step-back – to foster a pedestrian-scaled environment – is not advanced on
an Interstate side and instead can create odd designs on that face.
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing, and sections 4412, 4413,
and 4414 of this title.
The amendment is consistent with and advances the 2016 Comprehensive Plan.
Objective 41. Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic and people-oriented City Center with a strong
identity and “sense of place” that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of residential
and non-residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining neighborhoods.
Strategy 106. Use design review and/or form-based coding to promote the development of
aesthetically pleasing, pedestrian-focused and highly functional environments.
The proposed amendment will allow for additional compact infill development within the City
Center Form Based Code, which is allowed to be residential.
This amendment has no effect on 24 VSA 4412, required provision and prohibited effects, and no
effect on 24 VSA 4413, limitations on municipal bylaws. The amendment employs and advances 24
VSA 4414(1)(A): downtown, village center, new town center, and growth center districts as discussed
above.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The proposed amendment allows for compact and efficient use of buildable land within the City and
is consistent with the compact development objectives of the Plan.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
4
The proposed amendment does not affect any specific proposals for planned community
facilities.
C. LDR-23-05: Minor and Technical Amendments
Brief explanation of the proposed amendment:
The amendment is a technical correction. In 2022, the SEQ-NRP district was amended to allow
the limited amount of development that is allowed in that district to not only be single family
homes, but also duplexes and multi-family homes; at the same density as previously allowed.
However, the corresponding table C-1, which spells out allowed residential building types, was
not updated to match the changes in Article 9. This correct that error.
(1) Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the
effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing, and sections 4412,
4413, and 4414 of this title.
The proposed amendment is a correction to match an amendment completed in 2022 that
allowed for additional housing types within the SEQ-NRP. By allowing building types other
than single family homes, which were the only allowed type previously, less costly housing
types are allowed.
(2) Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.
The proposed amendment is a correction to match an amendment completed in 2022 that
allowed for additional housing types within the SEQ-NRP. No changes in densities are
proposed, and the effect on land uses is minor but has the opportunity to conserve more land
by allowing multi-family housing types for the density that is allowed.
(3) Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.”
The proposed amendment does not affect any specific proposals for planned community
facilities.
November 11,2023
MEMO TO:City of South Burlington,President Helen Riehle &City Manager Jessie
Baker
FROM:Jordan Mitchell,Town Meeting TV Director of Operations,jmitchell@cctv.org
RE:Town Meeting TV FY23 Update and FY24/Municipality’s FY25 Budget Request
Town Meeting TV submits this report in advance of our visit with the City of South
Burlington.The purpose of the presentation is to brief the City Council on Town Meeting
TV operations,to hear from the community on how Town Meeting TV might better serve
your needs,and to request an annual municipal contribution in the amount of $23,152
for general Town Meeting TV operations.
Introduction:Town Meeting Television was launched by its member communities
in September 1990.Town Meeting TV is operated by CCTV Center for Media &
Democracy on behalf of the Chittenden County Government Access Channel Trust.
The City of South Burlington is currently represented by Helen Riehle.We sincerely
appreciate Henel’s contributions to Town Meeting TV and the community as a Trustee.
Between 10/1/22 and 9/30/23,Town Meeting TV produced and supported 1.386
programs for our member communities;362 were categorized as municipal
coverage.
During the period of 10/1/2022 -9/30/2023 Town Meeting TV live streamed,
recorded,produced,and archived 51 City Council and Development Review
Board meetings for the City of South Burlington.In addition,coverage and
service includes other general TV programs recorded in and about South
Burlington,local election programs,legislative updates,and municipal
updates.Town Meeting TV studios and internships remain open to all community
members.The contract stipulates production of 5 meetings/month and at least
one South Burlington specific general program.We appreciate a close working
relationship with City officials who make sure to avail the city of allotted production
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 1
resources and keep us informed of potential programming needs and
opportunities.South Burlington officials are invited to inform us of more
community based programming for coverage.
We are requesting an FY25 City of South Burlington municipal contribution of
$23,152 to help meet continued revenue shortfalls from declining cable
contributions.This is outlined in the 5 year projection chart below.At this point,we
expect municipal contributions to increase along with the rates of inflation or at 5%.
In addition,we are offering municipalities the opportunity to add meeting
coverage and/or meeting archiving by CCTV Productions at the municipal rate.The
current municipal rate for meeting production,including pre-production,field
production,live streaming &titling,post-production,and archiving is estimated to
be 7 hours per meeting at the municipal rate of $112/hour or approximately $780
per meeting.Costs for titling,airing,and archiving recorded meetings conducted
without Town Meeting TV operators can also be calculated on a case by case basis.
Municipal Funding Request:The City of South Burlington contribution is part of
the municipal supplement to the Town Meeting TV annual budget.We have
projected that Town Meeting TV’s municipal members will contribute $120,305,or
16.7%to the operating revenue.Municipalities may opt to add additional meeting
coverage at the current municipal production rate of $112/hour.
See below for the chart of projected municipal support requests.
PROJECTIONS
FY19
(7/19)
FY20
(7/20)
FY21
(7/21)
FY22
(7/22)
FY23
(7/23)
FY24
(7/24)
FY25
(7/25)
50%0%5%5%5%5%5 years
Burlington $12,000 $24,000 $24,000 $25,200 $26,460 $27,783 $29,172 $156,615
South
Burlington $10,000 $20,000 $20,000 $21,000 $22,050 $23,152 $24,310 $130,512
Winooski $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 $11,000 $12,000 $57,000
Essex $6,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,600 $13,230 $13,891 $14,586 $78,307
Essex Jct $6,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,600 $13,230 $13,891 $14,586 $78,307
Williston $6,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,600 $13,230 $13,891 $14,586 $78,307
Increase $46,000 $87,000 $88,000 $93,000 $98,200 $103,610 $109,240 $579,050
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 2
Town Meeting TV FY23 Report
Town Meeting TV supports public officials who seek to engage their
constituents in the work of local government.We connect community
members to local government so they are able to take action on community
and public issues.
Revenue Sources:Town Meeting TV is funded,in large part,by the cable
subscribers of Comcast and Burlington Telecom (BT).In addition to their
requirement to set aside channels and “cable capacity”,regional cable subscribers
are assessed 5%of their bills for PEG operating and 1.5%for capital costs.This
revenue,locally,is shared by Town Meeting Television and The Media Factory.
In Town Meeting TV’s FY24 Budget,approved by the municipal Trustees,cable
revenue accounts for 71%of the FY24 budget revenue,estimated to be $572K,
detailed in the budget narrative,below.This is different from the FY23 budget,
where cable revenue accounted for 80%of the revenue ($555k).
Services:With your partnership,Town Meeting TV produces,live streams,records,
titles,distributes and archives gavel-to-gavel coverage of municipal meetings,
regional events,and educational programs designed to help open the doors of local
government,civic life,and promote public awareness and participation.
Town Meeting TV is part of a network of community access media centers that
provide an essential community service that has expanded to meet the needs of
remote participation in public meetings,public health communications,more
extensive election coverage,and community producer requests for services.
During this year our services included:
Live streaming of gavel-to-gavel
coverage of municipal and regional
meetings in Burlington,South
Burlington,Winooski,Essex,Essex
Junction,Williston and Colchester.
These meetings are streamed live,aired
on TV,and archived.Town Meeting TV
content is available on Comcast channel
1087,BT channel 217 and 17,BT
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 3
channel 317,online at ch17.tv (with clickable agendas)and on our YouTube page
youtube.com/TownMeetingTV (with auto-generated captions and clickable
agendas).Town Meeting TV continues to work with communities to make that
experience productive while retaining high video and audio quality for TV
distribution and archiving.
Hybrid Meeting support -Town Meeting TV worked with municipalities to
continue to support high quality hybrid meeting systems.In many cases these
systems were purchased by the municipalities and the expected technical life was 3
years from installation.This year we will be reevaluating the functional life and best
practices on a case by case basis with each municipality.
Redundant and reliable archiving of community based video content,including
meetings and public events is a unique service of Town Meeting TV.This content is
available on YouTube and also searchable at www.cctv.org a/k/a ch17.tv.The Town
Meeting TV Archivist continues to do research on how to shore up the redundancy
and efficacy of our archival systems.We are working not only to digitize all of our
current physical media,but to ensure easy,permanent,secure,and public access
to all community media content past,present and future.This continued work
positions CCTV and Town Meeting TV to secure archival grant funding in the future.
In-depth election programming -
Town Meeting TV produces televised
local forums featuring all candidates,
municipal budgets and ballot
presentations during Town Meeting,
Primary and General elections.Town
Meeting TV also partners with both
state and local level organizations
such as VPIRG,League of Women
Voters and media outlets such as
VTDigger.org to bring election
information to a wider audience.In
most cases Town Meeting TV is the only forum for all registered candidates to
appear in front of voters in a fair,congenial,and high quality format.
Community based programs -Democracy begins in dialogue.Community access
TV is the site of many interesting and provocative conversations.From shows on
addiction recovery and prevention,education reform,national politics,local issues,
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 4
the Town Meeting TV studio (both in person and online)provides citizens a space to
express and workshop ideas with their community.In FY23 our studios continue to
grow and welcome new community producers,as well as maintaining relationships
with older community producers.On average we are hosting 2-3 studio programs a
week,as well as numerous shows filmed on location in the field.
Marketing and Outreach -Opening the doors to democracy also means
connecting community members in a nonpartisan manner,to a variety of ideas and
content.Our marketing efforts include supporting internships and experimentation
with various tools and platforms for expanding our reach.We excerpt and share
meeting highlights such as Mayor or Municipal updates,connect local journalists to
source material,and help the public make sense of the content that is recorded
and archived by the Town Meeting TV field crew.
Media Education for school
groups (e.g.,CCV,UVM,
Champlain,local high schools)
is a crucial part of the Town
Meeting TV civic work.Helping
students understand what is
behind the creation of media
and engaging them with local
civic leaders through
internships and volunteering
are foundation to the work of
community media.Not only
are we developing the next
generation of field producers and editors,but we are also introducing young people
to how local government functions and why it is important.This year Town Meeting
TV is in year three of the Neighbrohood Media Internship.This project was started
with support by grant funding from the VT Community Foundation.
Maintaining a Public Web Presence.Town Meeting TV’s website is home to more
than 50,000 pieces of archival content.We envision this as a gateway to community
content both present and historic.We are continuing on the process of upgrading
the Town Meeting TV website to a new platform and that municipalities will be able
to more easily embed municipal content on their own home pages.
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 5
Legal and Advocacy Matters:Town Meeting TV has worked closely with its
colleagues in the Vermont Access Network (VAN)to advocate for the replacement
of declining cable revenue.The Legislature has recognized our work as an “essential
service”and awarded CRF funds to subsidize health-messaging related
communications and funded a comprehensive study (The PEG Study)to assess
what authority the state has to restructure how PEG is funded.This work leads us
to a short term statewide legislative request for FY24 of $1M.The legislators will
look to the municipalities to support this proposal,and we are happy to discuss this
in more detail with you.
The Vermont Access Network (VAN)is currently petitioning with the State of
Vermont to have recognition as Vermont’s statewide Access Management
Organization (AMO)pursuant to PUC Rule 8.42.This case involves a petition filed by
the VAN with the Vermont Public Utility Commission,pursuant to Commission Rule
8.425,requesting designation as an access management organization to administer
a state-wide public,educational,and government (PEG)access network and to
promote the sharing of PEG content among cable systems.
CCTV Center for Media and Democracy continues to administer the services of
Town Meeting TV on behalf of the Trustees.This unique relationship allows Town
Meeting TV to be housed alongside other community based projects such as the
CCTV Archives,VT Language Justice Project and CCTV Productions.These
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 6
relationships allow us to share expertise,community connections,and carry the
work we do together even farther.
Town Meeting TV cable channels reach 25-30,000 cable subscribers within
Chittenden County.The archive of all content is available at Ch17.tv.Applicable
content is distributed statewide as well as nationwide.The Town Meeting TV
website averages about 1000 hits per month,and the Town Meeting TV Youtube
channel maintains about 4,600 subscribers.People watch meetings and events,
share them,and most importantly report that they can find them when needed.
Thank you for your support.We are happy to respond to any questions,comments,
and are always open to ways that we can serve you better.The Town Meeting TV
Budget Narrative for FY24 follows:
Town Meeting TV/Town Meeting TelevisionBUDGETNARRATIVEFY24(APPROVED)
October 1,2023 –September 30,2024
Town Meeting TV is a trusted producer,educational and equipment resource,andcommunityarchiveofvideoprovidingaccesstolocalgovernmentandfacilitating
engagement in local democracy.Town Meeting TV is Chittenden County's regionalgovernmentaccessTVchanneloverseenbymunicipallyappointedrepresentativesfromBurlington,South Burlington,Essex,Essex Junction,Williston,Winooski,Colchester,and St.George.Town Meeting TV programs are made available on
Comcast 1087,Burlington Telecom 17 &217,as well as at www.CH17.TV.
Launched in 1990 to cover municipal events and public issues,Town Meeting TVairsmorethan100hoursofpublicmeetings,election coverage,and communityeventseachmonthonComcastandBurlingtonTelecomandwww.ch17.tv.Town
Meeting TV opens the door to local government.
1.OVERVIEWFundingFormulas:Funding for Town Meeting TV is calculated at 1.67%of the cable
operators’(Comcast and Burlington Telecom)annual gross revenue.These costsarepassedondirectlytosubscribers.
The funding level for Town Meeting TV capital is set at .6%of gross revenue after
we renegotiated the contract in 2021.Part of that renegotiation was to removelanguageallowingfor“spike”capital requests over the course of the contract.Along with other VAN AMO’s in Comcast regions,Town Meeting TV was awarded20K,of which 15K remains in ROS to provide for capital purchases to support live
streaming from remote locations.
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 7
The Media Factory receives approximately the same percentage,for total PEG
funding of 5%operating plus 1.5%capital (1.666%+.05%x 3 channels).The small.06 percentage difference that they receive is used to support Town Meeting TV’sportionofoursharedusetechcoreat208FlynnAvenue.
Burlington Telecom and Comcast’s fiscal year runs from 1 January through 31December.BT provides operating and capital funding to Town Meeting TV inSeptemberofeachyear.Comcast pays Town Meeting TV on a quarterly basis.WehavegeneratedComcastrevenueprojectionsbasedonpastperformance.We
generously project a 1%decline in funding from Comcast based on the past 2quartersofperformance.
2.REVENUE SUMMARY
FY24 revenue is estimated at $720,210.Our expenses are estimated to be$749,802.This leaves a shortfall of $38,280 to be made up through fundraisingeffortsbyCCTV.
●The estimated revenue received from Comcast is projected to be $378K foroperatingand$137K for capital,a generous 1%decline.
●Burlington Telecom’s total contribution is estimated to be $22.9K for
operating and $7K for capital.
●Municipal revenue in FY24 will be based on past contributions and is set at$120,305.This includes a 5%increase for most municipalities and an
additional contribution from Burlington to support specific additionalproductionsupportforNeighborhoodPlanningAssemblylivestreaming andhybridmeetings.
●The Vermont Legislature included $1M in bridge funding from the generalfundbudgetthisyear,to be distributed by the Secretary of State’s office.Town Meeting TV expects to receive $45K from that allocation and to return$3K as an advocacy contribution to CCTV.
●Keeping with the previous year,Interest/Capital Gains is estimated to be$2,500+/-.We will be working with VCF to find ways to improve thatinvestment.
3.EXPENSE SUMMARYThetotalTownMeeting TV FY24 expenses are projected to be $749,802 inoperating$613,647 and capital $136,155.
Operating Expenses are estimated to be $613,647 and include:
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 8
●CCTV Base contract in the amount of $581,847 (a 3%increase from FY23)for Town Meeting TV operations which includes staff labor for administration,
production,internship support,archiving,and marketing ((about 8 FTE)aswellasoveralladministrative,insurance,professional development,and sitecosts.
●The other line items on the operating expense budget include $2K in legalandinvestmentfees,$3.6K to pay bookkeeping expenses,$8.6K for theannualaudit,$5.7K in dues to the VT Access Network and the Alliance forCommunitymedia,$5K to support ad buys and marketing costs on behalf of
Town Meeting TV,and $3K to acknowledge the specific advocacy work CCTVhasdonewithVANtosecurelegislativesupportforPEGmedia.
Capital Expenses are estimated to be $136,155.Town Meeting TV’s annual Capital
budget is based on priority areas recommended by Staff and approved by theTrustees.The FY24 Capital recommendations include hardware,supplies,networkinfrastructure,dues and subs,and technical contractors.
Equipment Total:$44,075 Estimated equipment costs largely reflect the annualreplacementofcameras,computers and large scale equipment due to extendeduse.While equipment life expectancy continues to diminish from 5 years to a 2-3yearcycle,we do our best to get the most use out of gear we possibly can.
●Production $1,500:Purchase of additional public use camera.We have alsobudgetedforanewfieldcamerawithlivestreamingcapabilitiesfromtheROSreservefunds.
●Post Production $2,500:Editing Workstation.
●Studio Control Room $2,400:New backdrops and set design to supportnewerproductionvaluesandincreasedhybridcapacity.
●Playback $14,000:To support captioning equipment on both of the
channels.We may ask the CCTV board to support this or look for more grantopportunities.
●Office $4,000:Replacement staff computers
●IT/Network/Tech Core Equipment:$18,925:This is the largest increase
from FY23 anticipating a large increase to our digital storage capacityexpectedtotakeusintothenext3years.
Capital Support Total:$92,080
Capital Support constitutes the bulk of the capital budget,as most technicalsolutionsaresoftwareandconsultantsupported.The FY24 budget includes (seeCapitalDetailforthecompletelist):
●Tech Core Rental $6,500:Supports our portion of the shared tech corespaceat208Flynnprovidingclimatecontrolledandsecureinfrastructure
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 9
space for our playback and network storage.Town Meeting TV is connectedtothisspaceviahighspeeddarkfiberprovidedbyBurlingtonTelecom.
●Streaming and Web Development $40,000:New website part one now thatwehaveconcludedourrelationshipwithLocaleyz.
●Service Contracts $28,000:Largely to Clear Bearing for Networkinfrastructuresupportandmonitoring.
●Repair and Maintenance:$8,250 Includes 30 hours of contracted projectsupportforClearbearing.
●Equipment Supplies and Production $8,775:Smaller purchases to supportthevideoproductionworkflow.See Capital Detail Budget.
●Equipment Supplies Office $2,400:New VM server,switches,office chairs,etc.
●Subscriptions and Licenses $7,955:Supporting fees for subscriptions thatallowforvideoworkflowincludingDropbox,Adobe Creative Cloud,Parsec,
Zoom,Teradek and cell service connections.
CCTV CONTRACT breaks down as follows:Wages and Benefits total $445,360 CCTV manages staff compensation and
human resources these costs include:
●Payroll:$372,540
●Health/Dental/Vision Insurance:$38,592
●Unemployment and Workers Compensation:$3,325
●Payroll taxes:$27,375
Non-Wage Costs specific to TMTV $53,236 Site costs are shared by all CCTV
projects and administration and include:
●Site Costs $30,614:Rent,utilities,package liability:
●Communications $2,317:Phone,postage,online services.
●Office Expenses $250:Copying,Printing -largely in the capital budget
●Repair &Maintenance of Facilities $1,050:HVAC and carpet cleaning.
●Meals/Travel/Professional Development $8,425 :Includes training duesandexpenses,conferences,coaching,and employee support for leadership
and skills development.
●Subcontracting $9,500:Ad buys for the election year,Talent for electionnights,and paid media internships.The internship expenses may be offset bygrantsupport.
CCTV Management and Overhead portion for TMTV in FY24 $120,727:OverheadiscalculatedasapercentageofeachprograminCCTVbylabor.In FY24 thisassumes48%of $178,305K in admin wage costs.
4.FUND BALANCE
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 10
The Town Meeting TV assets &liabilities as of July 31,2023 are $296,677 or 5.2monthsofoperatingrevenue.These assets include $92K in the VCF reserve fund In
addition to current receivables and liabilities.As a matter of sound fiscal practice,the Town Meeting TV Trustees have established a 3-6 month set-aside of its annualbudgetinordertoaddresscashflowissuesandemergencies.Monthly expenses inFY24areprojectedtobe$62,484.A six month reserve amounts to $375K therefore
we do not recommend using your reserve to cover operating or capital costs thisyear.
Town Meeting TV Update &Budget Request for 7/1/24 -page 11
180 Market Street, South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.658.7961 fax 802.658.7976 www.southburlingtonvt.gov
Physical Address: 104 Landfill Road , South Burlington, VT 05403
To: South Burlington City Council
From: Tom DiPietro, Director of Public Works
Cc: Jessie Baker, City Manager
Date: November 15, 2023
Re: City Acceptance of Sadie Lane as a Public Road
The warranty period for the Sadie Lane Right-Of-Way (ROW) and stormwater treatment pond have
passed and this infrastructure is eligible for City acceptance. However, I do not recommend that City
Council accept the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication and Warranty deeds for transfer of these facilities at
this time. The existing stormwater pond does not meet the stormwater treatment standards mandated by
the current Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM). These standards are referenced in the
City’s Stormwater Upgrade Feasibility Analysis (SUFA) ordinance. The primary objective of the SUFA is to
ensure the City’s continued compliance with requirements in State and Federal Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) regulations included in the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit.
In order for the Sadie Lane stormwater pond to be considered for City acceptance it would need to be
upgraded from its current Tier 3 treatment level to Tier 2 or higher, as defined in the VSMM. If the City
assumes responsibility for the stormwater pond that serves Sadie Lane, it will expose the City to financial
costs associated with upgrading this pond in the future. This would not be in alignment with the SUFA
ordinance established by City Council. In addition, doing so may establish a precedent that would expose
the City to additional financial costs associated with acceptance of other privately owned stormwater
treatment systems in the City that do not meet the standards in our SUFA ordinance or the current VSMM.
There is a path forward for City acceptance of the Sadie Lane ROW (i.e. road) at this time. The Sadie Lane
development is covered by State of Vermont stormwater permit #5603-9050. If the City accepts the Sadie
Lane ROW it will become the owner of impervious surface covered by the State stormwater permit and is
required to be a co-permittee. Prior to becoming a co-permittee on any State stormwater permit, the City
requires that all owners of property covered under the permit sign a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement
that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of each party. The City has a template for this agreement that
indicates that the City would own, maintain, and upgrade any infrastructure on City owned property and
that private property owners would be responsible for the same for any infrastructure on private
property. If an agreement of this type were in place, we can move forward with acceptance of the Sadie
Lane ROW.
Related to the road ownership issue described above, it is important to note that the City has been plowing
snow from Sadie Lane for the past few winters. If the City and HOA intend to continue working to make
Sadie Lane a public street, I recommend we formalize the City’s ability to access the road for the purpose of
plowing during the interim period (i.e. while the road remains privately owned and we work to develop a
stormwater maintenance agreement so that the City can accept the road). Development of a stormwater
agreement may take some time because the stormwater pond providing treatment to the Sadie Lane
2
development does not appear to be on land owned or controlled by the Sadie Lane HOA. If the process to
transfer the Sadie Lane ROW to the City is no longer moving forward, then I recommend we discuss an
appropriate time for the City to stop plowing this private street.
1
South Burlington City Charter Committee
Recommendations to the City Council
September 18, 2023
City Council’s Direction to the Charter Committee
As part of the South Burlington City Council’s Fiscal Year 2022 Policy Priorities and
Strategies, the Council identified consideration of “charter changes related to governance” as a
priority. The Council passed a resolution on February 22, 2022, convening the Charter
Committee to consider updates to the City’s municipal charter. The resolution stated that the
Council wanted “to explore governance structures to ensure that voices are equitably represented
at policy making tables.” It also sought to be sure the South Burlington School Board was
represented in the governance discussions. The Council then requested that the School Board
appoint two of its members to the Charter Committee.
The Council charged the Charter Committee with considering governance models and
language updates to the city charter. It directed the committee to “engage in a community
feedback process” to “solicit feedback from South Burlington residents on governance models.”
The Council asked that the committee finish its work by July 2023.
Overview of Charter Change Process
In order to amend the City Charter, the Charter Committee first sends any recommended
changes to the City Council. The Council can approve, amend, or reject the recommendations,
which, if approved, then go before the South Burlington voters. If the voters approve the
recommendations, the changes then go to the State Legislature for a vote and, if approved, to the
Governor for signature.
Charter Changes Considered
The Charter Committee considered different options for Chief Executive of the City:
A City Council/City Manager system (currently the South Burlington model)
A City Council/City Manager system with a policy or “weak” mayor who serves as City
Council Chair but has no executive function
An administrative or “strong” mayor system where the mayor is the CEO of the city
The Committee also considered the composition of the City Council and the School Board.
Section 13.302 of the City Charter limits City Council and School Board membership to 5
members each. The Committee looked into whether that number is still viable for each body or
whether it should be increased for one or both. In addition, the Committee studied the question of
whether the City's voters should continue to elect City Councilors and School Board Directors at
large or whether it would recommend moving to a “ward” or district system or a hybrid system
of some elected at large and some elected by ward.
2
After a brief discussion of increasing the number of members of the City Planning
Commission from 7 to 9 the Committee asked the Planning Commission to assess this idea. It
did so, voting 5 to 1 with one abstention to maintain the status quo and stay with 7 members.
Those in the majority felt that 9 members could be unwieldy and “counterproductive.” Council
Liaison Emery brought the issue back to the City Council to see if they wanted the Charter
Committee to continue pursuing it, and she reported that the Council saw no reason to counteract
the Planning Commission’s decision to remain at 7 members. This topic was then tabled with no
further action by the Charter Committee. The notion of electing members to the Planning
Commission versus appointments by the City Council as a means to improve equitable
representation was brought up in various community forums. The Charter Committee did not
discuss this issue.
The Committee also looked at language changes to make the charter gender neutral.
However, the legislature had already modernized the charter’s language in 2021 without the
city’s involvement, requiring no action by the Committee.
Charter Committee Process
Interviews on governance structure
The Charter Committee interviewed four Vermont experts on different forms of city
governance:
Montpelier City Manager Bill Fraser on the council/manager form of government (12
October 2022)
Winooski Mayor Kristine Lott on the policy/“weak” mayor form of government (12
October 2022)
Rutland Mayor David Allaire on the administrative/“strong” mayor form of government
(9 November 2022)
South Burlington City Council Chair Helen Riehle on the council/manager form of
government (14 December 2022)
Committee members asked these individuals a variety of questions related to their specific
position, including:
How long they had served in the position
What qualifications they felt were needed to serve in the position
Their thoughts on the various forms of governance the committee was considering (pros
and cons)
Their thoughts on the best size for City Councils
Their thoughts on the use of political affiliations in campaigning for office
How each described their management practice and their role (or not) as “face of the
city”
Their thoughts on at-large vs ward systems
The hours they committed to their city position and the salaries or stipends they were
paid
3
The cost of campaigning
Any additional thoughts on city government structure
Their thoughts and comments can be reviewed in the Charter Committee meeting minutes.
List of pros and cons
The Committee worked hard creating and rewriting a list of possible advantages/pros and
disadvantages/cons for each possible charter change, including the status quo. That chart appears
at the end of this recommendation.
Community outreach – survey, forums, other meetings
The Committee engaged in community outreach to determine the views of South
Burlington citizens on the governance structures we were considering. It deliberated on the
questions we were trying to answer and developed a community survey that allowed votes for
the different options as well as the opportunity to provide open-ended responses. City Manager
Jessie Baker developed a document with a message from the Charter Committee, the
Committee’s list of pros and cons, and a link to the survey. See
https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/government/city_committees_boards/2023_city_charter_com
munity_feedback.php. The survey was publicized in the online City News newsletter, three
editions of the Other Paper, and Front Porch Forum emails. Fliers were posted at City Hall to
encourage people to take the survey. The South Burlington Business Association advertised our
desire for feedback and our survey at one of their membership meetings. Jessie Baker collated
the community survey results, which were posted on the above website.
The committee held two community forums, Wednesday, May 10 and Thursday, May 25,
from 7-9 p.m. in the City Hall auditorium. The forums were recorded and the videos appear on
the website given above. Committee members also spoke with parents at PTO meetings and with
members at a Rotary meeting. At each of the meetings, the committee chair encouraged
attendees to share the survey and their own thoughts on the governance structures with their
neighbors after the meeting.
Review of public input and feedback
Forums
May 10, 2022 and May 25, 2022 - Brief review of comments made:
Concern of using legislative districts as wards because legislative districts may
not be current in the actual distribution of the City population, demographics, and
diversity and they will change every ten years due to the census
Wards vs at-large representation (this was a topic of significant and diverse
discussion)
Possibility of electing Planning Commission members was raised
4
Support for a non-partisan system was a consistent theme. Residents expressed
concern over having elections involving political party candidates. (This concern
was consistent at hearings, in forums and in survey responses.)
At the May 10 meeting, in a straw vote ½ attendees favored wards and ½ at-large
representations
The Chair of the Board of Civil Authority requested expansion of the size of the
BCA if possible. This was based on his perspective that the BCA members would
support this expansion.
Concern that expanding the School Board may not generate a sufficient number of
candidates
The concept of Ranked Choice voting in various formats was mentioned
The Mayor form of government was not supported by the majority of commentors
The possibility of elections in November with larger voter turnout was expressed
Minutes from the public input sessions are attached to the agendas for the June 22 meeting of the
Charter Committee.
Survey
There were 175 responses to the Charter Committee survey. Ninety-eight percent of the
respondents were South Burlington residents from a variety of districts though not in equal
numbers (24% from CHI-8, 17% from CHI-9, 14% from CHI-10, 16% from CHI-11, 27% from
CHI-12). Eighteen percent of respondents said they had attended a community meeting on the
charter issues. Eighty-five percent said they had reviewed the Committee’s spreadsheet of pros
and cons. Seventy-seven percent of respondents did not have children in the city’s schools.
(Note: the survey was not designed or intended to be a statistically valid survey.)
For the Chief Executive question, 64% preferred the City Manager form of government,
19% wanted to see an executive mayor, and 17% favored a policy mayor.
For City Council, 54% preferred a City Council of 5 members and 46% wanted to
increase that number. For those wanting to increase the number, many comments suggested 7
councilors, while a few mentioned 8, 9, or 10. Regarding voting districts for City Council, 37%
favored continuing to vote at large, 33% favored electing members from the five legislative
districts, and 30% favored a combination of at large and districts.
For School Board, 60% favored the current number of School Board Directors and 40%
preferred increasing that number. For those wanting to increase the number, many comments
suggested 7 School Board members, while a few mentioned 10. Regarding voting districts for
School Board, 52% favored voting for School Board Directors at large, 24% preferred election
by legislative districts, and 24% preferred a combination of at large and districts.
Many respondents provided written comments in their survey responses. These
comments were consistent with input from the hearings. The survey results and written
comments can be found at the link at the end of this report.
5
Comments at Regular Committee Meetings
Many of those who attended the Committee’s regular meetings advocated in favor of a
ward system. They argued that election by wards would lead to broader participation by South
Burlington citizens and ensure that the Council is more responsive to the concerns of all citizens.
Though it would not guarantee diversity, these commenters believed that election by district
would make it more likely for all citizens to have a voice at the City Council.
South Burlington resident Dan Albrecht prepared a handout for the Committee with
demographic information on each of the census tracts. The handout also showed South
Burlington’s legislative districts overlaid with a map of single-unit and multi-unit housing in the
city. Dan suggested South Burlington could draw our own voting districts without difficulty. He
distributed another handout to the Committee showing the demographics of South Burlington’s
four census districts with data from the 2020 census, highlighting the different median incomes
and rates of poverty in the districts.
The comments of members of the public can be reviewed in the Charter Committee
meeting minutes.
Recommendations of the Charter Committee
Chief Executive
The Committee unanimously recommends that there be no change to the City’s chief
executive structure. Based on public feedback, the Committee found that South Burlington
citizens did not want to make a change from the current form of government. In the survey, 64%
preferred the City Manager form of government. A City Manager is a professional, neutral
administrator who provides continuity to City operations, and a City Councilor elected by the
Council to be Chair serves many of the same functions as a policy mayor.
City Council
With a unanimous vote, the Committee recommends an increase in the number of City
Councilors. An increase could increase demographic representation, allow councilors to mentor
newer members, permit more Councilors to have discussions without violating the open meeting
law, and enable retention of more institutional memory when there is turnover in the Council. In
the survey, 54% preferred a City Council of 5 members and 46% wanted to increase that number,
close to the same. Should the City Council agree to an expansion of the number of Councilors,
the Charter Committee would be interested in exploring the appropriate number.
The Committee could not reach a consensus on whether councilors should be elected by
district, at large, or some combination of the two (five by district and two at large, for example).
Regarding voting districts for City Council, in our survey, 37% favored continuing to vote at
large, 33% favored electing members from the five legislative districts, and 30% favored a
combination of at large and districts. The Committee takes this to mean that 37% favored the
current system and 63% favored an option other than the current system. Many comments
suggested that the wards should be different from the legislative districts. We recommend that
6
the City Council further consider the possibility of voting for councilors by wards, but the
Committee did not agree on whether to recommend the change.
Some felt that diverse representation could be encouraged by the use of wards. Four out
of five City Councilors currently live in the city’s Southeast Quadrant, and moving to voting by
wards would mean that different areas of the city are represented on the council. Many people do
not feel represented in city government and a ward system could lead to increased accountability
and representation, as well as a more inclusive government with diverse ideas. A ward system
could also lead to lower costs for campaigns, and the Committee has heard that large campaigns
may become very expensive. Some believe that the council should put a ward system on the
ballot for the voters to choose. Moving to wards with an expanded number of council members
would involve a great deal of consideration, particularly if the boundaries of the wards differ
from the legislative district boundaries. Issues would include the number of wards and
geographic considerations, the frequency of revising ward boundaries when population shifts
occur, and polling locations and staffing.
Others felt that a change to wards was unnecessary because all councilors represent the
entire community and understand issues facing all citizens in South Burlington. Councilors from
different wards may be too interested in their own ward’s issues, rather than considering what is
best for the entire city. That may lead to “horse trading” in the city council. Further, it may be
difficult to find candidates in each ward who are willing to serve.
Some comments expressed concern about using legislative districts for city elections
because they are subject to change every ten years, with input and recommendations by the City
Board of Civil Authority but ultimately determined by the legislature. The consensus in the
Committee, however, is that, if wards were used, it would be too confusing for voters for the city
to create different wards, distinct from the legislative districts. It is also unclear who would draw
these new wards. In addition, city-created wards would likely have to change periodically too,
due to new data and ultimately approved by the Legislature.
School Board
With a unanimous vote, the Committee recommends an increase in the number of School
Board Directors. At their August 2, 2023 meeting, all current School Board Directors spoke in
favor of expanding the Board. The Committee had also heard from past School Board Directors
in favor of an increase. While 60% of survey respondents favored the current number of School
Board Directors, only a quarter of total respondents had children in the South Burlington schools.
The School Board works in committees that, among other responsibilities, negotiate with
teachers, administrators, and staff, and five people is not enough to do that work without it being
a substantial burden. The addition of more Directors could increase engagement and involve
diverse perspectives, and allow more Directors to have discussions without violating the open
meeting laws. The Committee does not recommend a particular number of Directors, though 6 to
8 were most frequently mentioned in the survey and forums.
With a unanimous vote, the Committee recommends that South Burlington continue
electing School Board Directors at large. At their August 2, 2023 meeting, all current School
Board Directors spoke in favor of having at-large elections for the Board. In the survey, 52%
7
favored voting for School Board Directors at large, 24% preferred election by legislative
districts, and 24% preferred a combination of at large and districts. The Committee takes this to
mean that 52% favored the current system and 48% favored an option other than the current
system. Directors all represent a single school district with a state-mandated curriculum and most
school issues are not localized.
Additional Items
The Committee discussed other means of addressing concerns about under-representation
of certain areas or demographics in city government. This is not a comprehensive list of ideas to
further enhance equitable representation. The Committee was unable to analyze these complex
options in detail during the time available.
One option was alternative election methods such as ranked-choice voting or instant
runoff voting. Another creative option might be, if a two-year term and a three-year term were on
the ballot, the top vote-getter could have the three-year seat and the individual with the second
most votes could have the two-year seat. The Committee believes these options should or could
receive further consideration.
Another option could be a form of public campaign financing or spending cap to reduce
spending and the influence of money in local elections and level the playing field for candidates.
However, the City Attorney advised the Committee that this would be very difficult to do at a
city level.
Finally, the Committee notes that the public raised several issues in our forums and
survey that were beyond the Committee’s charge, such as whether the Planning Commission
should be elected. The Committee suggests that the City Council review the survey responses to
our final, open-ended question for community feedback on this process and other, unrelated
topics.
Appreciation
The Charter Committee thanks City Manager Jessie Baker for her truly invaluable
assistance with this process and City Attorney Colin McNeil for his good counsel throughout. We
appreciate Sue Alenick’s clear minutes of our meetings, including the public forums. The
Committee also acknowledges Councilor Meaghan Emery, our Council Liaison.
Charter Committee Members
Peter Taylor, Chair Wendell Coleman
Chuck Hafter, Vice Chair Paul Engels
Donna Kinville, Clerk Elizabeth Fitzgerald
Kate Bailey Carter Higgins
Travia Childs Anne LaLonde
8
Attachments:
Charter Committee Pros/Cons document
Charter Committee handout seeking public feedback (attached to Jessie’s May 3
email to the committee)
Dan Albrecht’s one-page handout on Demographics of South Burlington’s 4
Census Districts
Elizabeth Fitzgerald’s letter on behalf of former School Board Directors
Link to synopsis of survey data (including all written comments as shared by the
community)
Minutes of July 12 Charter Committee meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington Charter Committee
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
RE: Charter Change Process
DATE: June 22, 2023 meeting
We have been asked to outline the process this Committee and the City Council must take
if the Committee recommends a change to the City of South Burlington Charter. This
memorandum provides an overview of the relevant legal requirements and that process.
Background
The process to amend the City of South Burlington Charter is laid out in Vermont
Statutes. Title 17 V.S.A. §2645 sets forth the requirements. It provides:
1) A proposal to adopt, repeal, or amend a municipal charter (“Proposal”) may be made by
the City Council.
2) The Proposal shall be voted on by the legal voters of the municipality at the next annual
meeting, primary, or general election.
3) Prior to the vote, the City Council must hold at least two public hearings.
4) The first public hearing must be held at least 30 days before the vote.
Notice for this first public hearing must be made in accordance with 17 V.S.A.
§2641 which requires:
Notice must be posted in at least two public places in the municipality and
in or at the Clerk’s office not less than 30 nor more than 40 days prior to
the hearing.
Notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
municipality at least five days prior to the hearing.
5) The second public hearing must take place after the first and before the vote.
Notice for the second public hearing must also be made in accordance with 17
V.S.A. §2641.
6) Ten (10) days prior to the first public hearing, an official copy of the Proposal must be
filed as a public record in the office of the clerk.
7) If all these requirements are met, the City Clerk shall certify the Proposal to the Vermont
Secretary of State who shall file copies of the Proposal with the Attorney General, the
Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, and the chairs of the committees
concerned with municipal charters of both houses of the General Assembly.
8) The Proposal shall become effective upon affirmative enactment of the proposal by the
General Assembly, either as proposed or as amended by the General Assembly.
The process by which any recommendation from this Charter Committee is brought to
the City Council is as stated in the Resolution adopted by the City Council on February 22, 2022.
Relevant to this process, this Resolution states:
1) WHEREAS, this City Council from time to time convenes a Charter Committee to
consider and review charter changes and solicit input from the community
2) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council charges the Charter Committee with
conducting a comprehensive public process to solicit feedback from South Burlington
residents on governance models.
Analysis
Vermont Statutes and the City Council’s Resolution include no specific requirements for
the Charter Committee other than it conduct a “comprehensive public process”. Accordingly, if
the Charter Committee intends to recommend to the City Council that the Charter be amended,
the only requirement, beyond conducting a comprehensive public process, is that it must make its
recommendation in time for the City Council to abide by the required statutory process.
As we understand it, the goal of this Committee and the City Council is that any proposed
Charter amendment be voted on by the City’s legal voters on Town Meeting day 2024. Town
Meeting day 2024 will take place on March 5, 2024.
Counting backwards from there:
The first public hearing must take place prior to or on February 4, 2024.
First hearing notice must be issued approximately early January 2024 / late December
2023 (specific dates are dependent on when the first hearing is scheduled).
City Council Proposal to adopt, repeal, or amend the Charter must be made
approximately December 2023 / November 2023 (Council’s proposal must be made and
approved prior to notice for the first public hearing).
With those dates in mind, the Charter Committee must make its recommendation to the
Council in the fall of 2023. Providing the recommendation in September or October 2023 would
likely allow the City Council sufficient time to initiate its statutory process.
We trust that the forgoing is adequately responsive to your request. Should you require
any further response or analysis, please do not hesitate to request it of us.
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Verm ont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
To: South Burlington City Council
From: Jessie Baker, City Manager
Martha Machar, Finance Director
Date: November 16, 2023
Re: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Next Steps
The remaining unallocated funds from the ARPA award are $1,871,853. ARPA funds are kept in a separate
interest‐bearing bank account. To date, the interest earned on ARPA revenues totals $246,191. This brings the
total unallocated ARPA revenues balance to $2,118,044. As a reminder, the City of South Burlington received a
total allocation of $5,654,533.00. Under the Act, these funds must be allocated by December 31, 2024 and
expended by December 31, 2026. As we took these funds as “lost revenue” they can be used for any
municipal purpose.
Council Approved ARPA Allocations to Date
Total ARPA Award $ 5,654,533.00
Interest Earned to date $ 246,191.47
Total ARPA Revenues $ 5,900,724.47
Council Approved Allocations
Re‐fund and restore 3 City staff
(total over 5 years (FY22‐FY26) step down approach) $ 860,679.73
Fund deferred capital projects & expenses
(total over 4 years (FY23‐FY26) step down approach) $ 1,755,000.00
Grant Match ‐ Affordable Housing Investment $ 1,000,000.00
Grant match ‐ for Illuminate VT $ 32,000.00
Grant match ‐ Ash tree replacement (1/3/23) $ 20,000.00
City Green‐for place making (8/7/23) $ 35,000.00
Hinesburg Road and Market Street Signal (10/16/23) $ 80,000.00
Total Allocated $ (3,782,679.73)
Unallocated Balance $ 2,118,044.74
Additional Discussions to Date: Since FY22, the Council has had the following discussions:
On June 6, 2022 the Council approved a community engagement process to collect feedback on the
use of the remaining ARPA funds.
On September 6, 2022 the Council allocated $1M of ARPA funds to three affordable housing projects
recommended by the Affordable Housing Committee.
Also at the September 6, 2022 meeting, the Council received the community survey data and discussed
the findings. At that meeting, the Council requested to hear from the Committees on their
recommendations.
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Verm ont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
At a Special Meeting of the City Council on November 30, 2022, Committees were invited to present
their recommendations for using ARPA funds to the Council.
At the January 3, 2023 Council meeting, the decision was made to hold on future decisions of the use
of the remaining ARPA funds until the new Council was seated after Town Meeting Day.
At the April 17, 2023, May 1, 2023, and September 18, 2023 Council meetings, the Council continued
conversations about how to allocate the funds.
At your September 18, 2023 meeting, you discussed a slate of possible projects for funding. Those included:
Idea Funding
1 Hinesburg and Market Street Light $350,000
2 Arts and Culture Master Plan $50,000
3 Village Green $1,000,000
4 Parks Capital Improvement Plan $280,000
5 Climate Action Plan $312,500
6 DPW electric lawn mower $18,500
7 System Modernization $150,000
8 Pennies for Path match $200,000
9 Child Care grants $400,000
10 Parks Master Plan $150,000
Subtotal $2,911,000
Available $2,118,044
Balance ($792,956)
Council Action: Provide direction to staff on areas for further investigation, financial modeling, or timing. We
recommend making allocations after the presentation of the proposed FY25 Budget.