Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - City Council - 03/18/2019
CITY COUNCIL 18 MARCH 2019 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 18 March 2019, at 6:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden Also Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; A. Lafferty, City Attorney; J. Rabidoux Public Works Director; I. Blanchard, Project Manager; J. Murray, Librarian; Col. D. Smith, Lt. C. Clark, Vermont National Guard; R. Speece, Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation; L. Lackey, Burlington International Airport; J. Fay, J. Temecki, J. Duncan, J. Nadeau, CWD; S. Kelley, P. Leduc, P. Tompkins, B. Britt, D. Crawford, J. Belter, D. Bugbee, J. Pasackow, P. Kahn, L. Kohrs, D. Bartlett 1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency: Mr. Dorn provided instructions on emergency evacuation of the building. 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the agenda: Mr. Leduc reminded members and the public of the Performing Arts Gala on 23 March. Proceeds got to funding scholarships for students pursuing studies in the arts. Mr. Fay introduced the new CWD Manager, Joe Duncan who will be replacing him when he retires in June. He noted that John Tomecki will also retire in June and introduced his replacement Jay Nadeau. 4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended in recent weeks. Mr. Dorn: Met with staff at the Gund Institute to discuss the cost-benefit analysis. The first meeting of the Planning Commission subcommittee looking at possible changes in the Form Based Code was held this afternoon. An MOU has been entered into with a Toronto company to do community surveys. The city will have maximum input on survey questions. There will be information to the public that this is happening. The Airport Master Plan advisory committee will meet at the Airport next week. Meetings have been set up with staff who support committees as to how best to do that. The City Attorney has put together the Charter change package and it is on its way to Montpelier. It should be voted on in this session of the State Legislature. 5. Committee reports from Councilors: Mr. Chittenden: Green Mountain Transit has balanced its budget utilizing new revenues and efficiencies. There will be some well-researched service changes, and South Burlington will get about 100 more hours of service and a 20-minute wait between buses (reduced from 30 minutes). There will be a public hearing next month, and feedback is important. Mr. Barritt: At the TDR committee meeting last week, the committee decided not to abandon TDRs. They heard feedback from Planning & Zoning regarding changing TDRs so they could possibly have another function, but this does not presently fit the statute. At the next meeting, they will discuss possible changes due to the recent Court decision. Ms. Riehle: Airport sound maps are still going through FAA compliance. The hope is to have them finalized by early May. Discussions continue with the Superintendent of School regarding sound mitigation at Chamberlin School, but nothing can be done until the sound maps are presented. The estimate is that the school portion of mitigation would cost between $1,000,000 and $4,000,000. Mitigation would only involve the ventilation system. This Friday, the State Refugee Resettlement Organization is having an open house at the Airport which will include dance, music and cultural events in honor of refugees who have settled in Vermont. Tickets are on sale for this event. There will be an update on the Airport Master Plan on 26 may, 5 p.m. The following week, there will be a public meeting with tables set up with consultants and survey information. Everything will be videotaped, and comments will be posted. Frontier Airline is going will with flights all booked. Revenues are us. A proposal has been submitted to the FAA to build the blast wall on the northwest corner near the parking garage at the point where plans turn toward the runway. 6. Consent Agenda: a. Approve & sign disbursements b. Approve a resolution to establish a 401a Retirement Plan for specified employees c. Approve system management contract with Champlain Water District (CWD) d. Acceptance of Stormwater Easements on the Commerce Square Stormwater Detention Pond e. Approve a grant application for a stormwater project on Helen Avenue f. Approve a grant application for engineering work on the Muddy Brook (Kimball Avenue) culvert g. Award the Picard Circle Stormwater project bid to Dirt Tech Excavating h. Regarding notice of an application for a Certificate of Public Good to replace an existing utility pole located at 825 Williston Rd. and thereon install wireless communications equipment to be filed with the Public Utility Commission, resolve not to request either that the applicant attend a public meeting with the City Council or that the Department of Public Service retain personnel to provide information essential to a full consideration of the application i. Approve request from Affordable Housing Committee to replace Tom Bailey with John Simson as representative to the TDR Interim Zoning Committee Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Update on Air National Guard Environmental Restoration Program: Col. Smith introduced Lt. Clark, Richard Speiss of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and Shannon Kelley and noted Mr. Kelley’s 22years experience in resource management. The Colonel stressed that the Guard takes their environmental program very seriously and has had a restoration program for over 30 years to remediate contaminants on the base, and the fact that area is served by LCWD. The most recent concern is with PFOAs and PFOSs which were used in the 1970’s but are no longer used. Unlike other areas of the state, there has been no contamination of drinking water because of the contaminants on the base. The Colonel also noted that the Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation has been partner in the clean-up efforts and that an expanded program will begin this spring. Mr. Kelley reviewed the regulatory background and noted there is regulatory framework on both the federal and state levels. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) identifies, investigates and remediates hazardous substances, pollutants and/or contaminants from such sources as jet fuel and solvents. Mr. Kelley noted that past practices led to contamination. Current practices do not permit discharge or release of hazardous waste. Over $34,000,000 has been spent on remediation. Mr. Kelley showed an overhead photo of the Airport and identified the specific restoration sites as follows: 1. Fire Training Area (south of Country Club Estates) – this area has been remediated and approved for closure 2. A stretch of property leading to the Griswold property – subject to jet fuel contamination with a 20+ year clean‐up period 3. A site with contamination from leaking pipes – remediation should be completed within 1‐2 years 4. A site with underground storage tanks – also should be completed within 1‐2 years 5. A refueling pit which has now been approved for closure 6. The former landfill which has a 4-6 year remediation program. Mr. Kelley noted that there are no longer any underground storage tanks. Ms. Emery asked about the one well that was contaminated. Mr. Kelley showed the approximate location on the map. Mr. Dorn noted it is on the Belter Farm. Mr. Barritt asked what remediation consists of. Mr. Kelley said it involves pulling the contaminants out of the soil. There is a process in which wells are drilled and air is injected into the soil and the contaminants are recovered above-ground. There is also a carbon injection process that soaks up the contaminants. Mr. Speiss showed the areas where these techniques are being used and explained why some methods take longer. Mr. Barritt noted one site that leads directly to a stream and asked if the discharge meets state standards. Mr. Speiss said it does. He also stressed that the historic contaminants are contained on the base. Mr. Kelley them reviewed the timeline from 1970 to the present and noted that in May of 2019 there will be a PFAS expanded site investigation. Ms. Riehle asked what has happened to the Belter Farm well. Col. Smith said it is still being used with a carbon filtration system so the water is clean, even though the well is still contaminated. Mr. Speiss noted that the milk from the Belter cows was tested and is below the level of concern for consumption. Mr. Kelley then addressed fire-fighting foam. He noted the product is very effective in suffocating a petroleum fire; however, because of contamination it cannot now be used for training. Mr. Kelley then identified current mitigation efforts including modification of an existing contract to install a granular activated carbon system, disconnection from the South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant, and continued monitoring of the treated to ensure results continue to be below Vermont regulatory limits. Regarding PFAS, initial site investigation showed where there were areas of concern. An expanded investigation will identify any migration from the base (ground water, surface water and soil), and the results of this will inform a remedial investigation/feasibility study as to the next steps. Ms. Emery encouraged the Belters to let the City know if any issues arise. 8. Public Hearing on amendments or repeal of City Ordinances: a. Emergency Management Ordinance – Adopted in 1995, this ordinance has since been largely duplicated by state ow and is warned for repeal. b. Motor Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance – Adopted in 1958, this ordinance, amended at least 18 times, is warned to repeal and to adopt a new ordinance in form that provides the Council flexibility to amend street sign locations, speed limits, etc., by resolution c. Parking Ordinance – Along with the repeal of the 1958 Motor Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance, this proposed ordinance creates a standalone parking ordinance that will provide for general parking prohibitions in the City, a uniform schedule of fines, and administrative appeal process d. Conduct in Parks Ordinance – Proposed amendment to require that dogs in Jaycee Park be required to be under owner control by a leash no longer than six feet at all times within the park Mr. Chittenden moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. No public comment was received regarding the repeal of the Emergency Management Ordinance. Ms. Lafferty explained the history of the Motor Vehicle and Parking Ordinances. These ordinances would not be effective on passage because field information is still being confirmed. Mr. Britt expressed concern that there is no mention of right turn conflict where a turner has to yield to bikes and/or pedestrians. He also asked that in the parking ordinance in Section 2B the words “Rec Path” be added so there is no overnight parking on the rec paths. In Section 2-O, Mr. Britt questioned the words “same location.” In Section 2C, questioned the “no parking” within 50 feet of an intersection and asked why this has changed from 30 feet. In Section 3, Mr. Britt felt that “unregistered motor vehicles” should include boat trailers and felt the restriction should not apply only to unregistered vehicles. Ms. Lafferty said she would like to check on a few of these concerns and did not know the reason for the change from 30 to 50 feet. Mr. Barritt was concerned not to prohibit people from parking on their own street, except where banned (e.g. East Terrace and the winter snow ban). Mr. Chittenden felt that if a regulation was already in place, he had no issue with it. He was hesitant to apply a new rule city-wide. Members agreed to delay action on (b) and (c) until there is more clarification. It was noted that in Section 10 of the Public Parks Ordinance, Jaycee Park should be added and Dorset Park changes to Veterans Memorial Park. Mr. Chittenden then moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Barritt moved to approve “a” and “d” as presented or amended. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Update on Community Center Design and Related Issues: Ms. Blanchard said 100% of the constructions are in review. A firm is being commissioned to look into the air tightness of the building. Permitting documents are being prepared. Ms. Blanchard then reviewed design elements of the building exterior. She showed a site plan which has been approved by the School District and indicated where the displaced parking spaces have been replaced. She also showed the location of ponds to address stormwater issues. Regarding safety, Mr. Blanchard noted the “ponds” will actually be a graveled wetland with plant material. They will only have water when there is a heavy rain. Ms. Blanchard showed a close-up of the front of the building, indicating landscaping and location of benches. She pointed out where the building name (still to be determined) will be placed. The corner of the building will be lighted at night. The building exterior will vary from different shades of zing to granite and brick. All HVAC equipment will be at the back of the building. Ms. Blanchard indicated the location of solar panels. Ms. Blanchard then reviewed details of the building interior including the information desk, auditorium and City Clerk’s office on the first floor. The auditorium will have fixed seating (sample seats were available for member and the public to try out). There will also be fixed cameras that can be plugged into. The second and third floors are virtually the same as previously reviewed. Next steps include finishing the stormwater design, getting permits, bidding out the project, approving a contract for a Clerk of the Works and breaking ground. 10. Council discussion and possible guidance to staff related to Court’s decision in Environmental Court matter Snyder Group, Inc., PUD Final Plat: Ms. Riehle noted the Court’s decision centered on what they perceive is a lack of clarity on 2 elements related to TDRs. Options include fixing the items, doing nothing, or appealing the Court’s decision. Ms. Emery noted that an Interim Zoning (IZ) Committee is currently reviewing TDRs. She did not feel the decision should be appealed but favored revising the LDRs to make them sound. Mr. Barritt said ideally he’d like to appeal, but it could be long and costly. He noted the situation of the Vermont Land Trust which owns a number of TDRs, and he didn’t want to see them “stranded.” The best choice, he felt, was to fix the problems and still provide for potential to save southern areas of the Southeast Quadrant. Ms. Lafferty said there were 2 points to the Court’s decisions: The LDRs did not accomplish 2 requirements regarding the definition of development rights and there was not a sufficient delegation to the DRB as to how they determine how many TDRs are appropriate. Ms. Lafferty believed it is possible to amend the regulations to respond to these issues. Mr. Dorn noted that Snyder-Braverman has not yet made a decision as to whether to appeal the Court’s ruling. Ms. Riehle questioned whether it makes more sense to wait until the IZ Committee comes back with recommendations so the Council can address the judge’s issues and what the city wants after IZ. Ms. Lafferty noted the IZ bylaw was adopted in November for 9 months. If the Council were to ask for amendments to respond to the Court decision the process would take about 3 months from the time staff starts the process. She felt it wouldn’t take long to get language to address the Court’s ruling. Ms. Riehle asked Mr. Barritt whether clarifying the 2 issues would be counterproductive to what the IZ TDR committee is doing. Mr. Barritt said the committee could review the changes and respond to them. Mr. Chittenden said he would agree to that if that is what the City Attorney recommends. Ms. Lafferty said the only issue is whether there is a need to provide for certainty in the meantime. Mr. Barritt said the IZ TDR committee could discuss this on Wednesday and see if they want to come up with language to fix the current program. Mr. Dorn felt the best course would be for the committee to have draft language to work from. Ms. Riehle suggested Ms. Lafferty bring language to the City Council who can pass it on to the TDR-IZ committee to review. Mr. Crawford noted that the “unknowns” are causing “chaos.” 11. Council discussion and possible guidance to staff related to the outcomes of ballot items placed before voters on March 5th: Ms. Riehle cited the desire to work hard to get the Legislature to approve the ½ cent voter approved tax on rental cars. Mr. Chittenden said he wished they had asked for more. Ms. Riehle also felt the defeated item lost because it wasn’t tied to a specific project. She wouldn’t discount going to the voters again with a defined project that the public supports. Mr. Barritt felt the 1% rooms/meals tax might have passed and that it was the sales tax that voters rejected. Ms. Riehle felt there needs to be more discussion of an indoor recreation center and the possibility of other funding options (e.g., donations from some leagues that would use the facility). She also felt the design could include the possibility to hold athletic events that would draw people to the city. Mr. Barritt cited the possibility of using tax money from developments that come on line (i.e., Cider Mill II). Members were OK with continuing the design process for an indoor recreation center. Ms. Emery felt the bridge over the interstate should be a regional effort as should the Arts Center. 12. Authorize City Manager to Execute Interlocal agreement with Chittenden Water District related to projects in Red Rocks Park: It was noted that the plan is to give CWD permission to chip the logs and take them off site. Mr. Chittenden moved to authorize the City Manager to execute the interlocal agreement with CWD related to projects in Red Rocks Park as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 13. Council Review and Possible Approval of a letter to Members of the Vermont Legislature related to hate speech in Vermont: Members reviewed the draft of a letter provided by Ms. Emery. Ms. Emery noted that Monica Ostby had some issues and wanted to remove the mention of issues involving a prior City Council Chair and also the name of the perpetrator (in order not to give him publicity). Mr. Chittenden said he supports the spirit and intent of the letter. Intolerance and racism are not appropriate tools to affect public policy. He questioned whether there could be liability on the part of the Council for such a letter and suggested it be vetted by Counsel. Ms. Emery said she was willing to remove the perpetrator’s name. Ms. Riehle said she would keep the reference to what happened in South Burlington as it shows the city understands what this is about. Several edits were made to the letter. Mr. Chittenden then moved to approve as revised the letter to members of the Vermont Legislature related to hate speech in Vermont. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 14. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Chittenden moved the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0 Members reviewed the following applications: Applebee’s – First Class License CVS Pharmacy #10690 – 2nd Class License Champlain Farms (1118 Williston Rd.) – 2nd Class License Cheese Traders & Wine Sellers – 2nd Class License Chipotle Mexican Grill – First Class Restaurant/Bar License Eagles Club – First Class License for club and outside consumption Healthy Living Market & Café – Second Class License Jiffy Mart #468 – 2nd Class License Magic hat Brewing Company – First Cass Restaurant/Bar License (only) Maplefields at the Airport – 2nd Class License Moe’s Southwest Grill – First Class Restaurant/Bar License & Outside Consumption Permit Price Chopper #228 (Hinesburg Rd.) – 2nd class License Pulcinella’s - First Class Restaurant/Bar License & Outside Consumption Permit Skinny Pancake @ the Airport – First Cass Restaurant/Bar License Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the applications as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Chittenden moved to reconvene as City Council. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 15. Other Business: Ms. Riehle noted receipt of a letter from Patricia Gustavson regarding speed on Kennedy Drive, noting that it is difficult to cross anywhere. She would like an agenda item to discuss this. Mr. Chittenden noted that the former Police Chief had told him there was no official speed limit on that road. He didn’t know if that had been corrected. Ms. Riehle said she will pursue an additional Steering Committee meeting to see how the City and School Board can better communicate. Ms. Riehle asked members to advise of their summer vacation schedules when they know them. As there was no further business to come before the Council, Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. ________________________________ Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. Memo To: South Burlington City Council From: Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director of Public Works CC: Kevin Dorn, City Manager Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works Date: February 22, 2019 Re: Acceptance of Stormwater Easement on the Commerce Square Stormwater Detention Pond The City of South Burlington, and our project partners at Pomerleau Real Estate, finished construction of the Commerce Square stormwater detention pond in late 2018. This project provides treatment of stormwater runoff for over 40 acres of impervious surface before discharging this treated water to tributary 3 of Potash Brook. This project will have significant benefits for Potash Brook and Lake Champlain. South Burlington City Council provided its support for this project in a vote that took place on October 17, 2016. Now that the project is complete the City needs to officially accept the easements surrounding the pond so that stormwater utility staff can access the area and maintain the pond going forward. Included with this memo please find a copy of the easement deed and easement map associated with this project. These easement documents were reviewed by the City’s outside legal counsel and are in good order. The project was completed as anticipated and a sufficient amount of time has passed so that we are confident that the quality of construction work performed is acceptable. I recommend that Council vote to accept easements around the Commerce Square stormwater detention pond as described in the attached easement deed dated October 13, 2014. If you have any questions, please contact me at (802) 658 – 7961 x6108 or tdipietro@sburl.com. Memo To: South Burlington City Council From: Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director of Public Works CC: Kevin Dorn, City Manager Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works Date: March 6, 2019 Re: Grant Application for the Helen Ave Cul-De-Sac Stormwater Project Potash Brook is on the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) list of impaired waterbodies. The primary reason for impairment is listed as uncontrolled stormwater runoff. The ANR released a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Potash Brook watershed that was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2006. The TMDL set targets for flow modification in the stream. The high flow target requires a 16.5% reduction in stream flow during the 1 year storm event. In order to meet the flow reduction targets set in the Potash Brook TMDL, the Stormwater Utility worked with a consultant to develop a Flow Restoration Plan (FRP), which identifies a suite of Best Management Practices (BMPs) capable of attaining the flow reduction targets. The FRP identified 107 projects to be constructed in the Potash Brook watershed prior to 2032. In order to implement these projects in a cost effective manner, the City is pursuing all grant funding opportunities available. In order to implement these projects in a timely manner, the City must take the opportunity to apply for the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) Grant funding. As identified in the Potash Brook FRP, there is a large cul-de-sac at the end of Helen Ave that could be used to site an underground stormwater treatment practice to treat runoff from a 5 acre residential area. The ERP grant funding would allow for the engineering design of the system. I am requesting that Council indicate their support for this work and the City’s grant application to the DEC ERP grant program. I am requesting that council take a formal vote on this matter and sign the attached letter for inclusion with our grant application. If you have any questions, please contact me at (802) 658 – 7961 x6108 or tdipietro@sburl.com. City Of South Burlington, Grant Request Form Prior to applying for a grant please complete this form and submit to Assistant City Manager.. Please submit at least two weeks prior to City Council approval meeting. Extenuating circumstances which do not permit two weeks notice should be brought to the attention of the Assistant City Manager as soon as possible. Please attach actual grant application form – either blank or completed Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director March 5, 2019 Name and title of person completing this form (Project Manager) Date 1. Name/title of grant and submittal deadline date: Ecosystem Restoration Program Grant. 2. What specifically is the grant’s purpose? Funding for the engineering design associated with installing a stormwater treatment practice within the footprint of the Helen Ave cul-de-sac. 3. What does the grant fund and not fund (be specific) The grant will fund 50% of costs for project planning and design. 4. Total Project Cost: a. Amount of grant: The project design is estimated to cost $46,000. b. Is there a City match required, how much and in what fiscal year(s)? Yes the City will be required to provide a 50% match in FY19 and FY20. c. Are there other grants “tied into” or being used as a match for this grant of which are matching funds for this grant? No. 5. From what budget line will match be paid, and is there unencumbered money to pay it? The match will be paid through the stormwater utility’s capital improvement line item. 6. Is there a cost to the city upon grant conclusion, and if yes, please describe? No. 7. Is grant for stand alone project, and if no, how does grant fit into another project (describe in some detail)? Grant funding will be for design phase of project. The City anticipates applying for construction grant funding once the project design is complete. 8. Length of grant - will the grant cross fiscal year(s)? Yes. Design work would likely begin in FY19 and end in FY20. 9. Who will apply for grant (name/title)? Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director of Public Works. 10. How much time will it take to complete grant application form? 4 hours. 11. How likely is it that we will receive grant? We have a very good chance to receive this grant funding. The project meets all eligibility requirements indicated on the application form. 12. Who will manage (project manager) grant and grant paperwork if approved (if different person than who is filling out this form), Tom DiPietro what are any grant compliance requirements, how much time will this take and how is that time available? Compliance with the grant will require review by the State DEC program. Are there funds available in the grant to pay for our administrative costs? Can in-kind service be used as part of the City match? Stormwater utility staff will handle grant related work and paperwork. Yes, In-kind service can be used as part of City match. 13. Describe grant payment process – method of cash flow: The City would pay design service expenses and then submit invoices and copies of cashed checks to VT DEC for reimbursement. 14. Should a Council-appointed Committee, Board, or Commission review this request? If yes, please update status: A request for project support has been submitted to council to accompany the project’s grant application. 15. In terms of priority, with 5 being highest and 1 being lowest, please rate this grant in terms of how it fits into your primary mission as approved by City Council and current projects to complete that mission: 5. The project and grant would be to fund stormwater improvements in a stormwater impaired watershed. ___________________________________ _______________________________ Reviewed by Asst. City Manager, Date If approved, grant money will be in this fund ____________________________________ _______________________________ Approved by City Manager, Date Not Approved By City Manager, Date ___________________________________________ ______________________________________ Approved By City Council, Date Not Approved By City Council, Date 2/17/11 Procedure Regarding Grant Request Form 1) No City of South Burlington staff member or volunteer shall apply for a grant without completing and receiving approval of the attached Form. 2) All Form questions must be answered – if you need assistance on financial questions please contact the Assistant City Manager (846-4112). 3) As a rule the Form needs to be submitted to the Assistant City Manager at least two (2) weeks before the City Council Meeting where the application will be reviewed. Exceptions can be made especially when the funding source(s) do not provide sufficient lead time 4) Attach any supporting documentation to the Form. 5) Assistant City Manager will review Form for accuracy and completeness – Assistant City Manager does not approve or reject application. 6) After being reviewed if the Form is complete the Assistant City Manager will submit form to City Manager for approval or rejection. 7) City Manager may request meeting with applicant for clarification. 8) City Manager will determine whether to approve or reject the application and have the project manager informed of the decision. Project manager can request a meeting with City Manager prior to Form being reviewed by Council. 9) Whether Form is approved or rejected by City Manager the Form will be reviewed by the City Council. Project manager will be given the opportunity to discuss Form with Council. 10) Council will make final decision as to whether to approve or reject grant application. Council will also have to formally approve accepting the grant itself if/when it is awarded. 11) If Council approves Form the project manager will be expected to use his/her Form responses to guide the actual grant application. 12) Project manager will update Assistant City Manager in writing as to grant writing, submittal, approval, and implementation progress. 13) If grant is accepted by granting authority project manager will submit to Assistant City Manager and Deputy Finance Officer a monthly progress report on grant implementation and financials – upon request of project manager report time frame can be modified by Assistant City Manager based on actual grant conditions. 14) Deputy Finance Officer will maintain a spread sheet of all grants that tracks grant progress related to financials. 15) Grant spread sheet will be included in yearly Budget Book. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.658.7961 fax 802.658.7976 www.sburl.com Physical Address: 104 Landfill Road South Burlington To Whom it May Concern, The City of South Burlington Stormwater Utility is working to provide stormwater treatment for untreated residential runoff in the Potash Brook watershed. A component of this work is to evaluate the siting of a stormwater treatment practice within the footprint of the Helen Ave cul-de-sac. On March ___, 2019 the South Burlington City Council voted to support the Stormwater Utility’s plan to design a stormwater treatment practice for this location. In addition, City Council supports the Stormwater Utility’s grant application to the VTDEC ERP program. We authorize our Deputy Director of Public Works, Thomas DiPietro Jr., to act as the City’s authorized representative when dealing with matters related to this project and the associated applications. Tom can be reached at (802) 658-7961 x6108 or tdipietro@sburl.com Sincerely, South Burlington City Council ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Memo To: South Burlington City Council From: Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director of Public Works CC: Kevin Dorn, City Manager Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works Date: March 11, 2019 Re: Grant Application for Design Engineering Work for Muddy Brook Culvert Crossing In 2017 the culvert that carries Muddy Brook beneath Kimball Avenue failed. This failure became evident at the road surface where a significant sinkhole developed. In order to restore traffic, South Burlington DPW worked with the Vermont Agency of Transportation to obtain and install a temporary bridge. Traffic was restored, but issues associated with the failure of the existing culvert were not addressed. The City then applied for and received a VTrans grant to complete a scoping study. This study investigated options and provides a clear path forward regarding the work necessary to replace the existing structure. We are now requesting council’s approval to submit a Town Highway Structures grant so that we can complete engineering design work for this culvert crossing. I am requesting that Council indicate their support for this work and the City’s grant application to the Town Highway Structures Grant Program by taking a formal vote on this matter and signing the attached letter for inclusion with our grant application. If you have any questions, please contact me at (802) 658 – 7961 x6108 or tdipietro@sburl.com. City Of South Burlington, Grant Request Form Prior to applying for a grant please complete this form and submit to Assistant City Manager.. Please submit at least two weeks prior to City Council approval meeting. Extenuating circumstances which do not permit two weeks notice should be brought to the attention of the Assistant City Manager as soon as possible. Please attach actual grant application form – either blank or completed Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director March 11, 2019 Name and title of person completing this form (Project Manager) Date 1. Name/title of grant and submittal deadline date: Town Highway Structures Grant. 2. What specifically is the grant’s purpose? Engineering design phase services for replacement of the failed culvert that carries Kimball Avenue over Muddy Brook. 3. What does the grant fund and not fund (be specific) The grant will fund 50% of costs for design of the new crossing. 4. Total Project Cost: a. Amount of grant: The project design is estimated to cost $175,000. b. Is there a City match required, how much and in what fiscal year(s)? Yes the City will be required to provide a 50% match in FY20. Since this culvert is on our border with the Town of Williston these match costs will be split between the municipalities c. Are there other grants “tied into” or being used as a match for this grant of which are matching funds for this grant? No. 5. From what budget line will match be paid, and is there unencumbered money to pay it? The match will be paid through the stormwater utility’s capital improvement line item. 6. Is there a cost to the city upon grant conclusion, and if yes, please describe? No. 7. Is grant for stand alone project, and if no, how does grant fit into another project (describe in some detail)? Grant funding will be for design phase of project. The City anticipates applying for construction grant funding once the project design is complete. 8. Length of grant - will the grant cross fiscal year(s)? Yes. Design work would likely begin in FY20 and end in FY21. 9. Who will apply for grant (name/title)? Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director of Public Works. 10. How much time will it take to complete grant application form? 1 hour. 11. How likely is it that we will receive grant? We have a good chance of receiving this grant funding. The project meets all eligibility requirements indicated on the application form. In addition, we completed a scoping study using a VTrans grant, so the grant agency is well aware of the need for this project. 12. Who will manage (project manager) grant and grant paperwork if approved (if different person than who is filling out this form), Tom DiPietro what are any grant compliance requirements, how much time will this take and how is that time available? Compliance with the grant will require review by VTrans staff. Are there funds available in the grant to pay for our administrative costs? Can in-kind service be used as part of the City match? Stormwater utility staff will handle grant related work and paperwork. We will track staff time spent on this project and attempt to use these costs as in-kind match. 13. Describe grant payment process – method of cash flow: The City would pay design service expenses and then submit invoices and copies of cashed checks to VT DEC for reimbursement. 14. Should a Council-appointed Committee, Board, or Commission review this request? If yes, please update status: A request for project support has been submitted to council to accompany the project’s grant application. 15. In terms of priority, with 5 being highest and 1 being lowest, please rate this grant in terms of how it fits into your primary mission as approved by City Council and current projects to complete that mission: 5. We currently have a temporary bridge in place that allows traffic to cross Muddy Brook in this location. This short terms solution needs to be replaced with a permanent structure so that there are not continued negative impacts to the traveling public and the environment. ___________________________________ _______________________________ Reviewed by Asst. City Manager, Date If approved, grant money will be in this fund ____________________________________ _______________________________ Approved by City Manager, Date Not Approved By City Manager, Date ___________________________________________ ______________________________________ Approved By City Council, Date Not Approved By City Council, Date 2/17/11 Procedure Regarding Grant Request Form 1) No City of South Burlington staff member or volunteer shall apply for a grant without completing and receiving approval of the attached Form. 2) All Form questions must be answered – if you need assistance on financial questions please contact the Assistant City Manager (846-4112). 3) As a rule the Form needs to be submitted to the Assistant City Manager at least two (2) weeks before the City Council Meeting where the application will be reviewed. Exceptions can be made especially when the funding source(s) do not provide sufficient lead time 4) Attach any supporting documentation to the Form. 5) Assistant City Manager will review Form for accuracy and completeness – Assistant City Manager does not approve or reject application. 6) After being reviewed if the Form is complete the Assistant City Manager will submit form to City Manager for approval or rejection. 7) City Manager may request meeting with applicant for clarification. 8) City Manager will determine whether to approve or reject the application and have the project manager informed of the decision. Project manager can request a meeting with City Manager prior to Form being reviewed by Council. 9) Whether Form is approved or rejected by City Manager the Form will be reviewed by the City Council. Project manager will be given the opportunity to discuss Form with Council. 10) Council will make final decision as to whether to approve or reject grant application. Council will also have to formally approve accepting the grant itself if/when it is awarded. 11) If Council approves Form the project manager will be expected to use his/her Form responses to guide the actual grant application. 12) Project manager will update Assistant City Manager in writing as to grant writing, submittal, approval, and implementation progress. 13) If grant is accepted by granting authority project manager will submit to Assistant City Manager and Deputy Finance Officer a monthly progress report on grant implementation and financials – upon request of project manager report time frame can be modified by Assistant City Manager based on actual grant conditions. 14) Deputy Finance Officer will maintain a spread sheet of all grants that tracks grant progress related to financials. 15) Grant spread sheet will be included in yearly Budget Book. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.658.7961 fax 802.658.7976 www.sburl.com Physical Address: 104 Landfill Road South Burlington To Whom it May Concern, The City of South Burlington Department of Public Works (DPW) is working to replace the failed drainage structure that allows Muddy Brook to flow beneath Kimball Avenue. The next step in this process is to complete engineering design work that implements the preferred solution as defined in the recently completed Scoping Study (2018). City Council continues to support this project. We approve of the DPW’s Town Highway Structures grant application for design phase work. We authorize our Deputy Director of Public Works, Thomas DiPietro Jr., to act as the City’s authorized representative when dealing with matters related to this project and the associated applications. Tom can be reached at (802) 658-7961 x6108 or tdipietro@sburl.com Sincerely, South Burlington City Council ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Municipal Highway Grant Application APPLYING FOR: Structures Class 2 Roadway Emergency MUNICIPALITY: MUNICIPAL CONTACT (name): Phone: E-Mail: DISTRICT CONTACT (name): Phone: SCOPE OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY GRANTEE Location of Work. The work described below involves the following town highway / structure: TH# ____, (Name)_________________________ which is a class ____ town highway. Bridge #_______, which crosses ___________________________________________________ Culvert # ___, for which the original size was _________ and the replacement size is ____________ Causeway: ______________________________________________________________________ Retaining Wall: ______________________________________________________________________ Problem: Proposed Scope of Work: Estimated Project Amount: $ E-Mail: DUNS #:Grantee FY End Month (mm format): FY MAILING ADDRESS: ACCOUNTING SYSTEM: Automated Manual Combination Reason For Problem: Detailed Cost Estimate (below or attached): Estimated Completion Date: Latitude:Longitude:MM (If Available): Below this line to be filled in by VTrans staff: Recommended Award Amount: District Staff Approval: (name) ___________________________Date: _________________________ Note: Projects may involve impacts to protected historic or archaeological resources. For more information, responsible parties are encouraged to contact the District staff. Municipality has adopted Codes & Standards that meet or exceed the State approved template? YES NO Municipality has a current Network Inventory? (less than 3 years old) YES Municipality MUST complete the following environmental resource checklist: EXISTING STRUCTURES: (check all that apply) Steel Tube Culvert Concrete Box Culvert Stone Culvert Concrete Bridge Ditch Rolled Beam/Plate Girder Bridge Metal Truss Bridge Wooden Covered Bridge There are foundation remains, mill ruins, stone walls or other Stone Abutments or Piers Buildings (over 50 yrs old) within 300 feet of work PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (check all that apply) The project involves engineering / planning only The project consists of repaving existing paved surfaces only The project consists of reestablishing existing ditches only within existing footprint All work will be done from the existing road or shoulder The structure is being replaced on existing location / alignment There will be excavation within 300 feet of a river or stream There will be excavation within a flood plain Road reclaiming, reconstruction, or widening Tree cutting / clearing Temporary off-road access is required New ditches will be established The roadway will be realigned The municipality has included photos of the project. Must show infrastructure and surrounding features as much as possible. YES NO Masonry Structure Other: New structure on new alignment Repair/Rehab of existing structure Municipality has complied with 19V.S.A. Section 309(d) regarding "complete streets." YES NO NO NO mage Sou e Figure 1 – Location Map Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement Northing 712572.6603 Easting 1473646.2950 City of South Burlington / Town of Williston Chittenden County * Project Area Data FEMA Flood Zone: Yes - Zone A Significant Wetlands: Yes – Upstream and Downstream Threatened/Endangered Species: Yes – Northern long-eared bat Historic District: No National Register of Historic Places: No Annual Average Daily Traffic: 7,385 vehicles/day (2017) Project Location I rc : Google Earth 10/2018 1 REMOVE SIDEWALK TRAVELWAY OVERHEAD UTILITIES 4' SHOULDERS MUDDY BROOK APPROX. R.O.W. SHARED USE PATH EXISTING CULVERT PROPOSED BURNETT, WAYNE A & JEAN V 1600 MARSHALL AVE APPROXIMATE SLOPE IMPACT LIMITS BRIDGE GUARDRAIL ARCHEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY AREAS 4' MEDIAN LEGEND Shoulders Brook Fill Slope/Grass Shared Use Path Roadway Paved Apron Stoned Slopes (>2:1) WETLAND BOUNDARY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHEPARD, MARY ANN REVOC TRUST 1655 MARSHALL AVE PAVED DRIVEWAY APRON Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement - Design Phase Estimate City of South Burlington / Town of Williston Project Design Phase - Meeting MAB Project Development Process 2/1/2019 TOTAL TOTAL DIRECTHOURSCOSTS TASK DESCRIPTIONS $160.00 $150.00 $110.00 $110.00 General 0.01 Project Kickoff Meeting 13 9 10 4 36 $4,970.00 0.02 Grant Procurement Assistance 12 0 0 4 16 $2,360.00 Phase A - Project Definition (Complete through Scoping Study) 1.00 Data Collection 12 4 24 10 50 $6,260.00 1.02 Conceptual (25%) Plans 17 30 144 64 255 $30,100.00 1.03 Public Informational Meeting 13 2 19 2 36 $4,690.00 1.04 Environmental Impact Resolution 1 24 4 2 31 $4,420.00 Phase B - Project Design 2.01 Preliminary Plans Development 15 34 128 80 257 $30,380.00 2.02 Utility Relocation 20 4 24 4 52 $6,880.00 2.03 Permits (3 environmental permits assumed for this project)4 33 8 12 57 $7,790.00 2.04 Re-evaluation of Categorical Exclusion 1 4 0 2 7 $980.00 2.05 Right-of-Way Acquisition 9 2 10 4 25 $3,280.00 2.06 Final (85%) Plans 14 22 32 38 106 $13,240.00 2.07 Contract (100%) Plans 6 4 8 8 26 $3,320.00 TOTAL LABOR HOURS 137 172 411 234 954 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR $21,920.00 $25,800.00 $45,210.00 $25,740.00 $118,670.00 SUBCONSULTANTS:DIRECT ENGINEERING COSTS:$118,670 Geotechnical Investigation & Structure Foundation / Scour $30,000 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES (1%):$1,187 Archeological Phase B Assessment $10,000 SUBCONSULTANTS:$55,000 Topographical & ROW Survey (and Easement Plan Preparation)$15,000 SUBTOTAL:$55,000 TOTAL:$174,857 SR ENGINEER / SCIENTIST JR ENGINEER CADD DESIGNER PROJECT MANAGER / QC City of South Burlington / Town of Williston Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement - Design Phase Estimate 2/8/2019 TOTALTOTALDIRECTHOURSCOSTS TASK DESCRIPTIONS $156.00 $167.00 $147.00 $147.00 $106.00 $106.00 $133.00 $110.00 $80.00 PM/Struc QC Bridge Roadway Roadway Struc/Hyd Permitting CADD AdminGeneral 0.01 Project Kickoff Meeting A. Meeting Organization and Preparation 8 2 2 2 2 2 18 $2,400.00 B. Meeting Participation 4 4 4 12 $1,636.00 C. Meeting Summary & Distribution 1 1 4 6 $727.00 0.02 Grant Procurement Assistance A. Preparation of Grant Applications (2 included) - based on VTrans MAB format 12 4 16 $2,192.00 Phase A - Project Definition (Complete through Scoping Study) 1.00 Data Collection A. Topographic and ROW Boundary Survey 4 8 6 18 $2,132.00 B. Soil Borings at proposed footing locations (assume 2 days)4 16 2 22 $2,540.00 C. Phase 2B Archaeological Assessment 4 4 2 10 $1,376.00 1.02 Conceptual (25%) Plans A. Hydraulic Analysis (with survey data)1 4 24 29 $3,288.00 B. Plan Development including Structure Layout & Roadway/Pathway Geometry 1 8 8 12 56 40 60 185 $21,208.00 C. Traffic Detour Plan & VTrans District 5 Coordination/Meeting (1)4 2 8 4 18 $2,206.00 D. Cost Estimate 1 2 2 2 8 8 23 $2,774.00 1.03 Public Informational Meeting A. Present Conceptual Plans (2 Meetings - 1 at each Municipality)12 1 1 14 1 2 31 $3,976.00 B. Meeting Minutes 1 4 5 $580.00 1.04 Environmental Impact Resolution A. Categorical Exclusion (CE) - ASSUMED 1 2 2 24 2 31 $3,992.00 Phase B - Project Design 2.01 Preliminary Plans Development A. Structural Design of Culvert & Footings 1 8 40 49 $5,572.00 B. Finalize Roadway & Bikepath Design 1 6 20 27 $3,158.00 C. Final Hydraulic Analysis / Stream Stabilization Design 1 4 20 25 $2,864.00 D. Plan Development (including EPSC Plan)1 8 4 4 12 12 80 121 $14,012.00 E. Cost Estimate 1 2 4 4 12 12 35 $4,210.00 2.02 Utility Relocation A. Identify Temporary and Permanent Relocations on Plans 2 2 4 4 12 $1,470.00 B. Meeting with Utility Representatives 8 4 12 $1,672.00 C. Utility Relocation Agreements 2 2 8 12 $1,454.00 D. Property Owner Visits (Impacted by Utility Relocations)8 8 16 $2,096.00 2.03 Permits (3 environmental permits assumed for this project) A. Stream Alteration Permit 1 2 8 2 13 $1,652.00 B. VTDEC Wetlands Permit 1 16 8 25 $3,164.00 C. US Army Corp of Engineers Permit 1 2 8 2 13 $1,652.00 Project Design Phase - Meeting MAB Project Development Process PROJECT MANAGER I QC REVIEWER SENIOR ENGINEER III SENIOR ENGINEER III ENGINEER II ENGINEER II ENV COORDINATOR III CADD TECHNICIAN III PROJECT ASSISTANT I D. State Highway Access Permit (Section 1111)1 1 4 6 $727.00 2.04 Re-evaluation of Categorical Exclusion A. Review for Changes during Preliminary Design/Permitting 1 4 2 7 $908.00 2.05 Right-of-Way Acquisition A. Draft Temporary and Permanent Easement Plans & Narratives 1 2 8 4 15 $1,738.00 B. Coordination with Owners & Municipal Attorneys 8 2 10 $1,460.00 2.06 Final (85%) Plans A. Plan Development 1 4 1 1 8 8 30 53 $6,114.00 B. Specifications & Special Provisions 1 4 8 8 8 29 $3,816.00 C. Identify Material Sampling & Testing Requirements 1 1 1 1 4 4 12 $1,465.00 D. Cost Estimate 1 1 1 1 4 4 12 $1,465.00 2.07 Contract (100%) Plans A. Final Revisions to PS&E 4 2 2 2 4 4 8 26 $3,274.00 TOTAL LABOR HOURS 105 32 48 58 194 217 66 220 14 954 TOTAL DIRECT LABOR $16,380.00 $5,344.00 $7,056.00 $8,526.00 $20,564.00 $23,002.00 $8,778.00 $24,200.00 $1,120.00 $114,970.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES:DIRECT LABOR COSTS:$114,970 TRAVEL- MILEAGE, ETC.$74 POSTAGE & COMMUNICATION $40 PRINTING $550 SUBCONSULTANTS: LODGING AND MEALS $0 includes admin. fee of 5%$57,750 GPS UNIT $300 Other $0 SUBTOTAL DIRECT LABOR, FIXED FEE, SUBCONSULTANTS:$172,720 SUBTOTAL:$964 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES: SUBCONSULTANTS:includes admin. fee of 0%$964 Geotechnical Investigation & Structure Foundation / Scour Recommendations $30,000 TOTAL:$173,684 Archeological Phase B Assessment $10,000 Topographical & ROW Survey (and Easement Plan Preparation)$15,000 $0 SUBTOTAL:$55,000 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSE ESTIMATE H:\Public Works\Budget\Budget\2020\Highway\General\Vtrans\[Copy of SBurl-Williston Muddy Brook Culvert Design Cost Estimate.xlsx]Grant Summary City of South Burlington / Town of Williston Calc. By: Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement - Design Phase Estimate Check By: #REF! 43504 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES FULL SIZE FULL SIZE POSTAGE TOTALBLACK &COLOR PAPER MYLAR MILEAGE TOLLS LODGING MEALS AND GPS Unit EXPENSEWHITE COPIES COPIES PLAN SHEET PLAN SHEET COMMUNICATION PERTASK DESCRIPTIONS $0.10 $1.30 $1.80 $12.00 $0.545 TASK $0.00 General $0.00 0.01 Project Kickoff Meeting $0.00 A. Meeting Organization and Preparation $0.00 B. Meeting Participation 15 $8.18 C. Meeting Summary & Distribution $0.00 0 $0.00 0.02 Grant Procurement Assistance $0.00 A. Preparation of Grant Applications (2 included) - based on VTrans MAB format $0.00 0 $0.00 Phase A - Project Definition $0.00 (Complete through Scoping Study)$0.00 0 $0.00 1.00 Data Collection $0.00 A. Topographic and ROW Boundary Survey 15 150 $158.18 B. Soil Borings at proposed footing locations (assume 2 days)30 $16.35 C. Phase 2B Archaeological Assessment $0.00 0 $0.00 1.02 Conceptual (25%) Plans $0.00 A. Hydraulic Analysis (with survey data)$0.00 B. Plan Development including Structure Layout & Roadway/Pathway Geometry 80 8 150 $298.36 C. Traffic Detour Plan & VTrans District 5 Coordination/Meeting (1)$0.00 D. Cost Estimate 20 $2.00 0 $0.00 1.03 Public Informational Meeting $0.00 A. Present Conceptual Plans (2 Meetings - 1 at each Municipality)15 $8.18 B. Meeting Minutes $0.00 0 $0.00 1.04 Environmental Impact Resolution $0.00 A. Categorical Exclusion (CE) - ASSUMED $0.00 0 $0.00 Phase B - Project Design $0.00 0 $0.00 2.01 Preliminary Plans Development $0.00 A. Structural Design of Culvert & Footings $0.00 B. Finalize Roadway & Bikepath Design $0.00 C. Final Hydraulic Analysis / Stream Stabilization Design $0.00 D. Plan Development (including EPSC Plan)100 $180.00 E. Cost Estimate 20 $2.00 0 $0.00 2.02 Utility Relocation $0.00 A. Identify Temporary and Permanent Relocations on Plans $0.00 B. Meeting with Utility Representatives 15 $8.18 C. Utility Relocation Agreements $0.00 D. Property Owner Visits (Impacted by Utility Relocations)15 $8.18 0 $0.00 2.03 Permits (3 environmental permits assumed for this project)$0.00 A. Stream Alteration Permit $20.00 $20.00 B. VTDEC Wetlands Permit $20.00 $20.00 C. US Army Corp of Engineers Permit 8 $20.00 $24.36 D. State Highway Access Permit (Section 1111)$20.00 $20.00 0 $0.00 2.04 Re-evaluation of Categorical Exclusion $0.00 A. Review for Changes during Preliminary Design/Permitting 0 2.05 Right-of-Way Acquisition A. Draft Temporary and Permanent Easement Plans & Narratives B. Coordination with Owners & Municipal Attorneys 15 0 2.06 Final (85%) Plans A. Plan Development 100 B. Specifications & Special Provisions 400 C. Identify Material Sampling & Testing Requirements D. Cost Estimate 20 2.07 Contract (100%) Plans A. Final Revisions to PS&E 0TOTAL ITEMS 460 0 280 0 136TOTAL EXPENSE COSTS $46.00 $0.00 $504.00 $0.00 $74.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $80.00 $300.00 $1,004.12 TRAVEL- MILEAGE, ETC.$74.12 POSTAGE & COMMUNICATION $80.00 PRINTING $550.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES: LODGING AND MEALS $0.00 includes admin. fee of 0%$1,004.12 GPS Unit $300.00 TOTAL:$1,004.12 0 Description Printing Expenses Travel Expenses MATERIAL TESTING ESTIMATE H:\Public Works\Budget\Budget\2020\Highway\General\Vtrans\[Copy of SBurl-Williston Muddy Brook Culvert Design Cost Estimate.xlsx]Grant Summary City of South Burlington / Town of Williston Calc. By:Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement - Design Phase Estimate Check By: #REF! 43504 CONCRETE -CONCRETE TOTALSOIL FIELD NUCLEAR GRAIN SIZE STD/MOD COMPR.PROJECT EXPENSETECHMILEAGEDENSOMETERANALYSISPROCTORTESTMANAGEMENTOTHEROTHERPER TASK DESCRIPTIONS $44.00 $0.58 $75.00 $90.00 $120.00 $15.00 $85.00 TASKPER HOUR PER MILE PER DAY PER EACH PER EACH PER EACH PER HOUR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL ITEMS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSE COSTS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES:includes communication fee of 4.5%$0.00 TOTAL:$0.00 Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. 150 Dow Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03101 - 1227 Revised 9/13 0 Memo To: South Burlington City Council From: Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director of Public Works CC: Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works Date: March 11, 2019 Re: Award of Construction Contract for Picard Circle Stormwater Infiltration and Drainage Improvements On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, the City of South Burlington held a bid opening for the Picard Circle Stormwater Infiltration and Drainage Improvements Project. This project includes the construction of a stormwater infiltration system within the footprint of the Picard Circle right-of-way, as well as improvements to a portion of the drainage system along Airport Parkway. This infiltration system will be installed on City owned property. We received seven (7) responsive bids from contractors to complete this work (Table 1). The low bid for this project was submitted by Dirt Tech Company, Inc. for the amount of $685,435.00. This cost is approximately 5% higher than the engineer’s estimate for the project ($650,460.00). The project team has reviewed the bid package and determined that all required materials and bonds were included, all contract addenda were received by the contractor, and all necessary documents had been signed. Table 1. Summary of Bids Received for the Picard Circle Stormwater Infiltration Project Contractor Total Bid Price Dirt Tech Company, LLC $ 685,435.00 All Seasons Excavating, Inc. $ 697,975.00 Don Weston Excavating, Inc. $ 722,417.00 Courtland Construction Corp. $ 731,940.00 J. Hutchins, Inc. $ 738,295.00 Munson Earth-Moving Corporation $ 788,280.00 S.D. Ireland Brothers Corporation $ 1,156,675.00 Based on this, I am requesting that City Council authorize the South Burlington Department of Public Works to award the Picard Circle Stormwater Infiltration and Drainage Improvements Project to Dirt Tech Company, LLC. If you would like additional information on this project or the bid results, please contact Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director of Public Works, at (802) 658-7961 x6108. 6 Market Place, Suite 2 | Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 | tel (802) 879.7733 | a e e n g i n e e r s .c o m March 11, 2019 Dave Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent/Project Manager Department of Public Works 104 Landfill Road South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: Bid Analysis for Picard Circle Stormwater Infiltration and Drainage Improvements TAP TA17(6) City of South Burlington A+E Project 17041 Dear Dave: Aldrich + Elliott, PC has completed the bid analysis for the above referenced project. Included below is the bid analysis and our opinion. Attached for reference is a bid tabulation and further information regarding the low bid. Bid for the project were opened on March 5, 2019. There were a total of 7 bidders with bids ranging from a low of $685,435 to $1,156,675. The engineer’s estimate was $650,460.00. The low bid was submitted by Dirt Tech Company, Inc., of Colchester, VT and included the EEO Certification, Debarment and Non-Collusion Affidavit and a Bid Bond for 5% of the contractor’s bid amount. The second and third low bids were submitted by All Seasons Excavating and Landscaping and Don Weston Excavating, respectively. The highest bid was submitted by S.D. Ireland Brothers Corporation. There were no bid informalities noted. Dirt Tech’s (DT) bid of $685,435 was approximately 105% of the engineer’s estimate of $650,460 or a difference of $34,975.00. Out of 32 bid items, 18 items were lower than the engineer’s estimate. Ten of the 32 bid items were less than 75% of the engineer’s unit price estimate, and 6 of the 32 bid items were over 125% of the engineer’s unit price estimate. For the population (bidders not including Engineer’s Estimate), the engineer was within one standard deviation for 24 out of 32 bid items and the contractor was within one standard deviation for 22 out of 32 bid items. In each of these cases pricing was just outside of one deviation and no items were greater than two deviations. Of the 6 bid items that are over 125% of the engineer’s estimate 4 are considered low risk to the owner. These items include the following: •Item 604.20 – Precast Reinforced Concrete Catch Basin with Cast Iron Grate: This item was bid as a per each unit basis with an estimated total of 5. The contractor’s bid item was 185% of the engineer’s estimate, however both the engineer’s estimate and the contractor’s bid for this item were lower than the average across the bidders for this item. This quantity has been confirmed with the contract documents. So long as this quantity is controlled and a significant number of additional structures are added to the contract, this should not represent significant impact to the contract. •Item 641.10 – Traffic Control: This item was bid on lump sum basis. The contractor’s bid item was 136% of the engineer’s estimate representing a difference of $4,000. Both the engineer’s estimate and the contractor’s bid price for this item are lower than the average across the bidders for this item. As this is a lump sum unit, it is unlikely that this quantity will change unless the contract duration exceed the established completion date. This should not represent a significant impact to the contract. •Item 651.18 – Fertilizer: This item was bid as a per pound unit basis with an estimated total of 200 lbs. The contractor’s bid price was 246% of the engineer’s estimate and was higher than all other bid prices received and higher than the average. While this may represent a concern for a project overrun, the overall unit price for this item is $8.00/pound, and likely does not represent a significant impact to the contract. •Item 653.55 – Project Demarcation Fence: This item was bid as a per linear foot unit basis with an estimated total of 600 LF. The contractor’s bid price was 150% of the engineer’s estimate, however less than the project average across all bidders for this bid item. The unit cost of this item is $1.75 per foot and likely does not represent a significant impact to the contract. Of the 6 bid items that are over 125% of the engineer’s estimate 2 are considered of moderate to high risk to the owner. These items include the following: •Item 204.25 – Structure Excavation: This item was bid as a per cubic yard unit basis with an estimated total of 7,690 cubic yards. The contractor’s bid price was 190% of the engineer’s unit price for this item. The contractor’s unit price for this item was $21, which was the second highest of all the bid prices for this item across all bidders. Per the Vermont Agency of Transportation, 2018 Standard Specifications for Construction, this item includes compensation for such elements as dewatering, sheeting, shoring and bracing, among other items. Given that this item includes payment for these specific items, the applicable structure excavation (chamber system) should be well contained and monitored. Given the depth and horizontal dimensions of the excavation, it will be important for the contractor to utilized sheeting to control the limits of excavation. The contractor should be required to submit a sheeting, shoring and bracing plan prior to excavation that details how this substantial excavation effort will be executed. This item does represent a potential for a significant risk to the project and should be monitored very carefully during construction. •Item 406.25 – Bituminous Concrete Pavement: This item was bid on a per ton unit basis with an estimated total of 75 Ton. The contractor’s bid price was 212.12% of the engineer’s estimate for this bid item. The contractor’s bid price of $210/ton was the second highest of all bid prices across the 7 contractors. The paving quantity for the project was confirmed, however the high pricing for this unit is indicative of a potential for overrun. This item does represent a potential for a significant risk to the project and should be monitored very carefully during construction with respect to the trench limits. Based on the bid analysis, there are two items of concern with regard to providing an advantage to the contractor. However, provisions are in place to minimize this impact to the owner given that the contractor follows the appropriate contract requirements. Dirt Tech is currently on the VTrans prequalified list. Based on that fact, the Bid Analysis, and the unit and total bid prices for this project, Dirt Tech appears to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The low bid offers no advantage to the contractor or disadvantage to the municipality. It is recommended that the project be awarded to Dirt Tech Company, Inc., of Colchester, VT for the amount of $685,435.00. VTrans should provide separate written concurrence that the recommendation is acceptable. This will authorize the City of South Burlington to proceed with signing a contract with Dirt Tech Company, Inc. for the bid amount of $685,435.00. Please review and do not hesitate to contact our office if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Aldrich + Elliott, PC Jason R. booth, PE Vice-President CC: Scott Gurley, VTrans. City of South BurlingtonPicard Circle TAP TA17(6)Bid TabulationMarch 6, 2019Page 1 of 1AVGMedianBIDUNITTOTALUNITTOTALUNITTOTALUNITTOTALUNITTOTALUNITTOTALUNITTOTALUNITTOTAL$$%$$%LowHighDESCRIPTION OF ITEMQUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST PRICE COSTPRICE COST PRICE COST PRICE COST PRICE COST PRICE COST PRICE COSTRemoving Medium Trees4EA.667.47$ 2,669.88$ 300.00$ 1,200.00$ (1,469.88)$ 44.95%800.00$ 3,200.00$ 1,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 400.00$ 1,600.00$ 200.00$ 800.00$ 270.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 567.14$ (100.33)$ -15%400.00$ (267.47)$ -40%327.6197398239.52$ 894.76$ Removing Medium Stumps2EA.238.85$ 477.71$ 175.00$ 350.00$ (127.71)$ 73.27%250.00$ 500.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 78.00$ 156.00$ 150.00$ 300.00$ 175.00$ 350.00$ 400.00$ 800.00$ 246.86$ 8.00$ 3%175.00$ (63.85)$ -27%139.2658594107.59$ 386.12$ Trench Excavation of Earth1,000C.Y.16.63$ 16,632.00$ 18.00$ 18,000.00$ 1,368.00$ 108.23%20.00$ 20,000.00$ 15.00$ 15,000.00$ 6.50$ 6,500.00$ 20.00$ 20,000.00$ 23.00$ 23,000.00$ 30.00$ 30,000.00$ 18.93$ 2.30$ 14%20.00$ 3.37$ 20%6.67847593512.25$ 25.61$ Trench Excavation of Earth, Exploratory100C.Y.82.50$ 8,250.00$ 75.00$ 7,500.00$ (750.00)$ 90.91%55.00$ 5,500.00$ 110.00$ 11,000.00$ 63.40$ 6,340.00$ 50.00$ 5,000.00$ 21.00$ 2,100.00$ 75.00$ 7,500.00$ 64.20$ (18.30)$ -22%63.40$ (19.10)$ -23%25.3097383938.89$ 89.51$ Structure Excavation7,690C.Y.11.00$ 84,590.00$ 21.00$ 161,490.00$ 76,900.00$ 190.91%14.00$ 107,660.00$ 15.00$ 115,350.00$ 12.60$ 96,894.00$ 13.00$ 99,970.00$ 15.00$ 115,350.00$ 50.00$ 384,500.00$ 20.09$ 9.09$ 83%15.00$ 4.00$ 36%12.482608317.60$ 32.57$ Granular Backfill For Structures200C.Y.60.84$ 12,168.20$ 28.00$ 5,600.00$ (6,568.20)$ 46.02%45.00$ 9,000.00$ 27.00$ 5,400.00$ 41.70$ 8,340.00$ 30.00$ 6,000.00$ 42.00$ 8,400.00$ 50.00$ 10,000.00$ 37.67$ (23.17)$ -38%41.70$ (19.14)$ -31%8.50994616229.16$ 46.18$ Subbase of Crushed Gravel, Fine Graded225C.Y.45.94$ 10,335.60$ 30.00$ 6,750.00$ (3,585.60)$ 65.31%29.00$ 6,525.00$ 30.00$ 6,750.00$ 42.00$ 9,450.00$ 32.00$ 7,200.00$ 40.00$ 9,000.00$ 45.00$ 10,125.00$ 35.43$ (10.51)$ -23%32.00$ (13.94)$ -30%6.18424594929.24$ 41.61$ Subbase of Dense Graded Crushed Stone430EA.55.10$ 23,692.57$ 30.00$ 12,900.00$ (10,792.57)$ 54.45%29.00$ 12,470.00$ 30.00$ 12,900.00$ 42.00$ 18,060.00$ 32.00$ 13,760.00$ 30.00$ 12,900.00$ 45.00$ 19,350.00$ 34.00$ (21.10)$ -38%30.00$ (25.10)$ -46%6.11788945927.88$ 40.12$ Bituminous Concrete Pavement75TON99.00$ 7,425.00$ 210.00$ 15,750.00$ 8,325.00$ 212.12%150.00$ 11,250.00$ 150.00$ 11,250.00$ 202.00$ 15,150.00$ 200.00$ 15,000.00$ 270.00$ 20,250.00$ 250.00$ 18,750.00$ 204.57$ 105.57$ 107%202.00$ 103.00$ 104%42.01651765162.55$ 246.59$ 12" CPEP (SL)15L.F.46.15$ 692.18$ 43.00$ 645.00$ (47.18)$ 93.18%87.00$ 1,305.00$ 72.00$ 1,080.00$ 350.00$ 5,250.00$ 100.00$ 1,500.00$ 84.00$ 1,260.00$ 95.00$ 1,425.00$ 118.71$ 72.57$ 157%87.00$ 40.86$ 89%96.0144546922.70$ 214.73$ 24" CPEP (SL)20L.F.58.44$ 1,168.86$ 59.00$ 1,180.00$ 11.14$ 100.95%226.00$ 4,520.00$ 103.00$ 2,060.00$ 364.00$ 7,280.00$ 100.00$ 2,000.00$ 108.00$ 2,160.00$ 110.00$ 2,200.00$ 152.86$ 94.41$ 162%108.00$ 49.56$ 85%98.4659891654.39$ 251.32$ 30" CPEP (SL)500L.F.66.61$ 33,302.50$ 65.00$ 32,500.00$ (802.50)$ 97.59%80.00$ 40,000.00$ 72.00$ 36,000.00$ 111.00$ 55,500.00$ 113.00$ 56,500.00$ 110.00$ 55,000.00$ 133.00$ 66,500.00$ 97.71$ 31.11$ 47%110.00$ 43.40$ 65%23.4564294374.26$ 121.17$ Precast Reinforced Concrete Catch Basin with Cast Iron Grate5EA.3,535.63$ 17,678.16$ 6,550.00$ 32,750.00$ 15,071.85$ 185.26%6,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 6,600.00$ 33,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 7,592.86$ 4,057.23$ 115%6,600.00$ 3,064.37$ 87%1960.3987525,632.46$ 9,553.26$ Precast Reinforced Concrete Manhole with Cast Iron Cover3EA.4,103.88$ 12,311.64$ 3,850.00$ 11,550.00$ (761.64)$ 93.81%4,500.00$ 13,500.00$ 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 10,780.00$ 32,340.00$ 5,200.00$ 15,600.00$ 7,600.00$ 22,800.00$ 4,500.00$ 13,500.00$ 6,632.86$ 2,528.98$ 62%5,200.00$ 1,096.12$ 27%2628.6156834,004.24$ 9,261.47$ Cast-In-Place Concrete Curb, Type B345L.F.64.38$ 22,212.14$ 48.00$ 16,560.00$ (5,652.14)$ 74.55%29.00$ 10,005.00$ 26.00$ 8,970.00$ 37.00$ 12,765.00$ 25.00$ 8,625.00$ 25.00$ 8,625.00$ 30.00$ 10,350.00$ 31.43$ (32.95)$ -51%29.00$ (35.38)$ -55%7.79848232223.63$ 39.23$ 4" PVC Sewer60L.F.38.50$ 2,310.00$ 33.00$ 1,980.00$ (330.00)$ 85.71%36.00$ 2,160.00$ 44.00$ 2,640.00$ 71.00$ 4,260.00$ 70.00$ 4,200.00$ 42.00$ 2,520.00$ 100.00$ 6,000.00$ 56.57$ 18.07$ 47%44.00$ 5.50$ 14%22.7524387633.82$ 79.32$ 3/4" Seamless Copper Water Tube60L.F.34.56$ 2,073.72$ 41.00$ 2,460.00$ 386.28$ 118.63%38.00$ 2,280.00$ 85.00$ 5,100.00$ 70.00$ 4,200.00$ 70.00$ 4,200.00$ 52.00$ 3,120.00$ 100.00$ 6,000.00$ 65.14$ 30.58$ 88%70.00$ 35.44$ 103%21.2093548943.93$ 86.35$ Crushed Stone Bedding2,850TON29.70$ 84,645.00$ 30.00$ 85,500.00$ 855.00$ 101.01%27.50$ 78,375.00$ 16.00$ 45,600.00$ 17.10$ 48,735.00$ 34.00$ 96,900.00$ 30.00$ 85,500.00$ 27.50$ 78,375.00$ 26.01$ (3.69)$ -12%27.50$ (2.20)$ -7%6.32126311319.69$ 32.34$ Flaggers500HRS32.30$ 16,148.00$ 40.00$ 20,000.00$ 3,852.00$ 123.85%32.00$ 16,000.00$ 25.00$ 12,500.00$ 37.00$ 18,500.00$ 33.00$ 16,500.00$ 32.00$ 16,000.00$ 30.00$ 15,000.00$ 32.71$ 0.42$ 1%32.00$ (0.30)$ -1%4.46299981528.25$ 37.18$ Mobilization/Demobilization1L.S.48,182.23$ 48,182.23$ 9,500.00$ 9,500.00$ (38,682.23)$ 19.72%54,900.00$ 54,900.00$ 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 20,500.00$ 20,500.00$ 70,000.00$ 70,000.00$ 51,000.00$ 51,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ 51,557.14$ 3,374.91$ 7%51,000.00$ 2,817.77$ 6%35744.2046115,812.94$ 87,301.35$ Traffic Control 1L.S.11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 136.36%13,400.00$ 13,400.00$ 20,217.00$ 20,217.00$ 6,600.00$ 6,600.00$ 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 11,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 16,602.43$ 5,602.43$ 51%13,400.00$ 2,400.00$ 22%10339.678416,262.75$ 26,942.11$ Durable 6 Inch Yellow Line30L.F.16.50$ 495.00$ 16.00$ 480.00$ (15.00)$ 96.97%28.00$ 840.00$ 12.00$ 360.00$ 61.00$ 1,830.00$ 30.00$ 900.00$ 18.00$ 540.00$ 10.00$ 300.00$ 25.00$ 8.50$ 52%18.00$ 1.50$ 9%16.274432188.73$ 41.27$ Geotextile For Silt Fence110S.Y.7.95$ 874.83$ 4.00$ 440.00$ (434.83)$ 50.30%5.50$ 605.00$ 4.00$ 440.00$ 6.70$ 737.00$ 10.00$ 1,100.00$ 4.50$ 495.00$ 10.00$ 1,100.00$ 6.39$ (1.57)$ -20%5.50$ (2.45)$ -31%2.4479895963.94$ 8.83$ Seed120LB9.34$ 1,120.68$ 10.00$ 1,200.00$ 79.32$ 107.08%5.00$ 600.00$ 10.00$ 1,200.00$ 6.00$ 720.00$ 6.00$ 720.00$ 5.00$ 600.00$ 10.00$ 1,200.00$ 7.43$ (1.91)$ -20%6.00$ (3.34)$ -36%2.2587697575.17$ 9.69$ Fertilizer200LB3.25$ 649.00$ 8.00$ 1,600.00$ 951.00$ 246.53%4.00$ 800.00$ 3.00$ 600.00$ 1.25$ 250.00$ 6.00$ 1,200.00$ 3.00$ 600.00$ 3.00$ 600.00$ 4.04$ 0.79$ 24%3.00$ (0.25)$ -8%2.08920941.95$ 6.12$ Agricultural Limestone1TON808.38$ 808.38$ 700.00$ 700.00$ (108.38)$ 86.59%1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 800.00$ 800.00$ 611.00$ 611.00$ 1,120.00$ 1,120.00$ 350.00$ 350.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 825.86$ 17.48$ 2%800.00$ (8.38)$ -1%279.2696744546.59$ 1,105.13$ Hay Mulch2TON1,093.57$ 2,187.13$ 700.00$ 1,400.00$ (787.13)$ 64.01%1,400.00$ 2,800.00$ 800.00$ 1,600.00$ 490.00$ 980.00$ 1,100.00$ 2,200.00$ 400.00$ 800.00$ 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 841.43$ (252.14)$ -23%800.00$ (293.57)$ -27%326.033678515.39$ 1,167.46$ Topsoil300C.Y.57.97$ 17,391.00$ 34.00$ 10,200.00$ (7,191.00)$ 58.65%49.00$ 14,700.00$ 40.00$ 12,000.00$ 61.30$ 18,390.00$ 54.00$ 16,200.00$ 38.00$ 11,400.00$ 45.00$ 13,500.00$ 45.90$ (12.07)$ -21%45.00$ (12.97)$ -22%8.8803153137.02$ 54.78$ Project Demarcation Fence600L.F.1.17$ 699.60$ 1.75$ 1,050.00$ 350.40$ 150.09%3.00$ 1,800.00$ 4.00$ 2,400.00$ 0.87$ 522.00$ 1.00$ 600.00$ 1.30$ 780.00$ 1.00$ 600.00$ 1.85$ 0.68$ 58%1.30$ 0.13$ 11%1.1124472010.73$ 2.96$ Deciduous Trees4EA.532.30$ 2,129.20$ 525.00$ 2,100.00$ (29.20)$ 98.63%575.00$ 2,300.00$ 1,800.00$ 7,200.00$ 1,480.00$ 5,920.00$ 1,300.00$ 5,200.00$ 375.00$ 1,500.00$ 500.00$ 2,000.00$ 936.43$ 404.13$ 76%575.00$ 42.70$ 8%531.7069164404.72$ 1,468.14$ Special Provision - 10" Pre-Insulated Ductile Iron Pipe, Cement-Lined20L.F.132.00$ 2,640.00$ 130.00$ 2,600.00$ (40.00)$ 98.48%469.00$ 9,380.00$ 450.00$ 9,000.00$ 378.00$ 7,560.00$ 200.00$ 4,000.00$ 440.00$ 8,800.00$ 500.00$ 10,000.00$ 366.71$ 234.71$ 178%440.00$ 308.00$ 233%133.3574298233.36$ 500.07$ Special Provision - Stormwater Chamber System1L.S.203,500.00$ 203,500.00$ 204,500.00$ 204,500.00$ 1,000.00$ 100.49%220,400.00$ 220,400.00$ 270,000.00$ 270,000.00$ 256,000.00$ 256,000.00$ 221,000.00$ 221,000.00$ 278,000.00$ 278,000.00$ 235,000.00$ 235,000.00$ 240,700.00$ 37,200.00$ 18%235,000.00$ 31,500.00$ 15%25709.8647214,990.14$ 266,409.86$ TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE 650,460.20$ 685,435.00$ 697,975.00$ 722,417.00$ 731,940.00$ 738,295.00$ 788,280.00$ 1,156,675.00$ Bid Informalities:NoneNotes:The information tabulated above accurately reflects bids received by the City of South Burlington on March 5, 2019Jason Booth, PEVice PresidentAldrich + Elliott, PCEngineers representing the City of South Burlington, Vermont.All Seasons Excavating & Landscaping, Inc.ITEMBASE BIDNO.VTRANSEngineer's EstimateDirt Tech Company, LLCDifference of Extended AmountsBid Unit Price as a % of Estimated Unit PriceDon Weston Excavating, Inc. Courtland Construction Corporation J. Hutchins, Inc. Munson Earth-Moving Corporation S.D. Ireland Brothers Corporation301.26301.35406.25601.2605201.15201.20204.20204.22204.25900.65651.20651.25651.35653.55656.30646.43649.51651.15651.18900.64Difference between Average and Engineer's EstiamteDifference between Median and Engineer's EstiamteStandard DeviationRange641.10629.23629.54630.15635.11601.2620601.2625604.20604.21616.28628.35204.30 Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington City Council FROM: Amanda S. E. Lafferty, South Burlington Deputy City Attorney DATE: 03-18-2019 City Council meeting RE: Notice of application for a Certificate of Public Good for 825 Williston Road to be filed with the Public Utility Commission Background Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248a(a), the construction or installation of telecommunications facilities1 that are to be interconnected with other such facilities proposed or already in existence, requires a certificate of public good (“CPG”) issued by the Public Utility Commission (“PUC”). An applicant for a CPG for a telecommunications facility in South Burlington must provide to the City Council written notice of the application to be filed not less than 60 days prior to filing the application. On the request of the City Council, the applicant shall attend a public meeting with the Council within the 60-day notice period before filing an application for a CPG. See 30 V.S.A. § 248a(e)(2). On the City Council’s request, the Department of Public Service (“Department”) also shall attend, and in making recommendations to the PUC on the application and in determining whether to retain additional personnel to provide information essential to a full consideration of the application, shall consider the comments made and information obtained. See 30 V.S.A. §§ 20, 248a(e)(2), (o). The Council also may request that the Department retain an expert to review the applicant’s colocation assessment. See 30 V.S.A. § 248a(e)(3), (o). If the applicant submits the application for a CPG, the Council has the right to participate and to submit comments thereon and the PUC’s decision shall include a detailed written response to each of the Council’s recommendations. 1 “Telecommunications facility" means a communications facility that transmits and receives signals to and from a local, State, national, or international network used primarily for two-way communications for commercial, industrial, municipal, county, or State purposes and any associated support structure that is proposed for construction or installation which is primarily for communications purposes, and any ancillary improvements that are proposed for construction or installation and are primarily intended to serve the communications facilities or support structure. An applicant may seek approval of construction or installation of a telecommunications facility whether or not the telecommunications facility is attached to an existing structure. 30 V.S.A. § 248a(b)(6). Page 2 of 2 Project New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility – 825 Williston Road, submitted under cover letter dated February 19, 2019. In summary and based on the submitted documents in your packet, applicant proposes to replace an existing utility pole owned by Green Mountain Power with a pole that is seven inches taller and to install wireless communications equipment on the Pole. If Council desires to request that the applicant attend a public meeting with the City Council or that the Department of Public Service retain personnel, please remove this item from the consent agenda for discussion later in this meeting. 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager, City of South Burlington FROM: Ashley Parker, City Project Manager Cc: Holly Rees, Director of Recreation & Parks SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with Champlain Water District for Projects at Red Rocks Park DATE: March 18, 2019 On January 3, 2019, Holly Rees, Director of Recreation and Parks; Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works; Craig Lambert, City Arborist; and myself met with representatives from the Champlain Water District (CWD) to discuss the removal of 10 trees in Red Rocks Park near their water intake plant. CWD needs to replace some large equipment in the plant and the use of a large crane is needed to accomplish the task. The City Arborist agreed that the removal of the trees was necessary to provide clearance for them to maneuver the equipment and as a safety measure to limit the chance of contacting the trees which could result in breakage and pose a risk to personnel working on the site. Some of the identified trees are also dead and/or structurally compromised and could pose a risk to park users as there are several trails in the vicinity. City staff have collaborated with CWD on this effort to minimize the project’s impacts to the park as a whole, and have been working to notify neighboring landowners and project stakeholders. The CWD has agreed to provide the City with $3,000.00 to use towards the purchase and installation of small native trees, native seed, and native herbaceous material along the slope at the water intake plant. This vegetation will assist the City in its effort to reduce the impacts of stormwater erosion at that location and thus improve the water quality in the lake. There is no connection between the City’s erosion project at the water intake plant and the trees that are being removed. Attached to this memo is the Interlocal Agreement for this project. Please let me know if you have any questions about this agreement and the projects associated with it. Staff is requesting authorization for the execution of the attached Interlocal Agreement with the Champlain Water District. March 18, 2019 Dear Honorable Legislators Killacky, LaLonde, Pugh, and Townsend: As public officials representing the residents of South Burlington, a city that acutely experienced the effects of racism with recent incidents of racially motivated harassment and assault, we are writing to express our sympathy and solidarity with past Representative Ruqaiyah “Kiah” Morris from Bennington. We are also writing to express our concern over the harm that our state citizenry has endured as witness to her experience. Deeply invested in the public process, we are committed to upholding the rights protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We are also keenly aware of the exposure of elected officials to manifestations of anger or retaliation in instances of political disagreement. One of our past chairs required police protection after taking a vocal stand against the basing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at the Burlington International Airport. It was not the vague death threats or attempts at smearing her reputation alone that led to this protection; indeed, others have received similar treatment, failing to attain the degree of imminent threat that triggers police intervention. Rather physical damage to her private residence and car instigated this state protection. We believe that the state should have similarly protected Representative Morris and her family after an unknown individual or individuals vandalized her home and car. These are actionable offenses. Unfortunately, at the date of this writing, the perpetrators in both cases remain unknown. Sensitized to the undercurrent of racism in our city and state, our constituents have been following the discussion prior to and after Kiah Morris’s regrettable decision not to run for another term. We have weighed the decision of VT Attorney General T.J. Donovan not to prosecute her online harasser and are watching the progress of the House bill H.496, an act relating to bias-motivated crimes and misconduct. It is clear that Ms. Morris and her family were wrongfully subjected to extreme emotional distress due both to the unlawful intrusion and damage done to their home and to the online trolling and heinous language of Max Misch. It is just as clear that, because Ms. Morris understandably deemed her family’s well-being more important than her commitment to her office, Mr. Misch’s actions have indirectly deprived the citizens of Bennington and of the state of a capable and competent representative and legislator. Nevertheless, given the careful balance of citizens’ constitutional protections and our limited knowledge of the facts as reported in the press, we are not prepared to counsel our top law enforcement officer and state lawmakers on the actions that they should take. We are mindful that it is difficult to define “hate speech”; and we also note that the bill’s language has been edited to state “bias-motivated” rather than “hate-motivated crime.” May this language pass the constitutional test all while maintaining the injured party’s basic freedoms and discouraging future such instances where intimidation can be used legally as a tactic to coerce an elected official to step down. Although we hesitate to prescribe a legislative and legal course of action with regard to racially biased speech, at the very basis of our protections contained within our social pact is our individual responsibility to speak out and censure actions that go beyond the bounds of decency and wrongly injure others. Therefore, we wish to state that we find Mr. Misch’s language acts abhorrent both for the torment they caused Ms. Morris and her family and for the pall they put on our democratic process, which is the bedrock of our society. The integrity of our political system depends on freedom of access to our lawmakers and government officials and on the willingness of individual citizens to run for public office. Based on these fundamentals of our political system, we believe that it is incumbent on us and on all decent people to condemn Mr. Misch’s acts unconditionally for the offenses he committed against Ms. Morris and her family and against our body politic. We condemn unconditionally Mr. Misch’s acts and charge him with degrading the political climate of this state in addition to destroying the peace of mind of a public servant and the private citizens in her life. We look to you and to ourselves to uphold as legislators the tenets of the law and as citizens the value of basic decency out of an abiding commitment to protect the rights enshrined in our U.S. Constitution as well as the public process and principles of open government on which our system was established. In so doing, may we work to restore what has sadly been taken away from the citizens of this state individually and collectively. Sincerely yours, ___________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair of the South Burlington City Council ___________________________ Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair of the South Burlington City Council ___________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk of the South Burlington City Council ___________________________ Thomas Chittenden ___________________________ David Kaufman CC: Kiah Morris Governor Phil Scott BILL AS INTRODUCED S.49 2019 Page 1 of 7 VT LEG #336928 v.2 S.49 1 Introduced by Senators Bray, Balint, Campion, and MacDonald 2 Referred to Committee on 3 Date: 4 Subject: Conservation and development; environmental health; water supply; 5 water quality; polyfluoroalkyl substances 6 Statement of purpose of bill as introduced: This bill proposes to adopt a 7 maximum contaminant level for polyfluoroalkyl substances under the Agency 8 of Natural Resources’s Water Supply Rule. The bill would require the 9 Secretary of Natural Resources to amend the Vermont Quality Standards to 10 include criteria or effluent limitations for polyfluoroalkyl substances. The bill 11 would also require landfills to treat leachate for polyfluoroalkyl substances 12 prior to delivery to a wastewater treatment facility or other facility where the 13 leachate would be discharged to the waters of the State. 14 An act relating to the regulation of polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking 15 and surface waters 16 BILL AS INTRODUCED S.49 2019 Page 2 of 7 VT LEG #336928 v.2 It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont: 1 Sec. 1. FINDINGS 2 The General Assembly finds that: 3 (1) Perfluoroalkyl, polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and other 4 perfluorochemicals are a large group of human-made chemicals that have been 5 used in industry and consumer products worldwide since the 1950s. 6 (2) PFAS may enter the environment when emitted during a 7 manufacturing process, from the disposal of goods containing PFAS, or from 8 leachate from landfills. 9 (3) Many PFAS do not break down and persist in the environment for a 10 very long time, especially in water, and, consequently, PFAS can be found in 11 many bodies of water and in the blood of humans and wildlife. 12 (4) More research is needed to determine the health effects to humans 13 from exposure to low levels of environmental exposure to PFAS, but some 14 studies in people have shown that certain PFAS may affect infant weight, 15 affect human growth, affect the learning and behavior of babies and older 16 children, lower a woman’s chance of getting pregnant, interfere with the 17 body’s natural hormones, increase cholesterol levels, affect the immune 18 system, and increase the risk of cancer. 19 (5) The Vermont Department of Health has adopted a health advisory 20 level for certain PFAS of 20 parts per trillion. 21 BILL AS INTRODUCED S.49 2019 Page 3 of 7 VT LEG #336928 v.2 (6) The Vermont Water Supply Rule provides that the Secretary of 1 Natural Resources may adopt a Vermont Department of Health advisory level 2 as a maximum contaminant level for a substance. 3 (7) The Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) has adopted the 20 parts 4 per trillion level as part of ANR’s Remediation of Contaminated Properties 5 Rule and Groundwater Protection Rule and Strategy, but not as part of the 6 Vermont Water Supply Rule or the Vermont Water Quality Standards. 7 (8) To adopt a precautionary approach to the regulation of PFAS, to 8 prevent further contamination of State water, and to reduce the potential 9 harmful effects of PFAS on human health and the environment, the State of 10 Vermont should adopt: 11 (A) a maximum contaminant level for PFAS under the Vermont 12 Water Supply Rule; 13 (B) water quality criteria or effluent limitations for PFAS under the 14 Vermont Water Quality Standards that protect human health and aquatic biota; 15 and 16 (C) standards for the treatment of landfill leachate prior to treatment 17 in a wastewater treatment facility or other facility where the leachate would be 18 discharged to State waters. 19 BILL AS INTRODUCED S.49 2019 Page 4 of 7 VT LEG #336928 v.2 Sec. 2. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 1 WATER SUPPLY RULE; MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL 2 (MCL) FOR POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES 3 Subchapter 21-6, Section 6.12, Table 6-1 of the Department of 4 Environmental Conservation Water Supply Rule is amended to read: 5 CONTAMINANT STANDARD MCL MCLG or Initial 6 or MRDL as noted MRDLG Source 7 (mg/l unless (as noted) Testing 8 otherwise noted)* Required 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 9. Polyfluoroalkyl MCLG 11 substances 12 Perfluorooctanoic 20 parts per trillion— --- Yes 13 acid sum of all five PFAS 14 Perfluorooctanesulfonic 20 parts per trillion— --- Yes 15 acid sum of all five PFAS 16 Perfluorohexane sulfonic 20 parts per trillion— 17 acid sum of all five PFAS --- Yes 18 Perfluoroheptanoic 20 parts per trillion— --- Yes 19 acid sum of all five PFAS 20 BILL AS INTRODUCED S.49 2019 Page 5 of 7 VT LEG #336928 v.2 Perfluorononanoic 20 parts per trillion— --- Yes 1 acid sum of all five PFAS 2 Sec. 3. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 3 WATER SUPPLY RULE; MONITORING FOR 4 POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES 5 Section 6.10a of Subchapter 21-6 of the Department of Environmental 6 Conservation Water Supply Rule is added to read: 7 § 6.10a. Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Monitoring Requirements 8 All public water systems shall conduct PFAS monitoring annually. 9 Sec. 4. VERMONT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS; WATER 10 QUALITY CRITERIA; POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES 11 On or before July 1, 2020, the Secretary of Natural Resources shall amend 12 the Vermont Water Quality Standards to include water quality criteria or 13 effluent limitations for the discharge of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to 14 the surface waters of the State. The amendment to the Vermont Water Quality 15 Standards shall, at a minimum, include criteria or effluent limitations for the 16 following PFAS individually and in combination: perfluorooctanoic acid, 17 perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, 18 perfluoroheptanoic acid, and perfluorononanoic acid. The amendment to the 19 rule may address additional PFAS. 20 BILL AS INTRODUCED S.49 2019 Page 6 of 7 VT LEG #336928 v.2 Sec. 5. 10 V.S.A. § 6605(d) is amended to read: 1 (d)(1) New landfills placed in operation after July 1987 shall be lined and 2 shall collect and treat leachate. Except as provided in section 6614 of this title, 3 or if, pursuant to information obtained through the pilot projects completed 4 under subsection 6604(b) of this title or from other sources, the Secretary 5 identifies particular waste components that will not be the source of leachate 6 harmful to health or the environment, the Secretary may waive the 7 requirements for liners in landfills or portions of landfills designated solely to 8 receive these wastes. Solid waste shall be included among these waste 9 components that will not be the source of harmful leachate, in situations where 10 all of the following apply: 11 (1)(A) material to be landfilled has been subjected to a hazardous waste 12 collection, diversion, and inspection program that removes at least 90 percent 13 of the hazardous and toxic waste, including that classified as hazardous 14 household waste and including that generated by small quantity generators; 15 (2)(B) material to be landfilled has had at least 90 percent of the 16 compostable material and marketable recyclables removed by source 17 separation or by a combination of source separation and mechanical 18 separation; 19 (3)(C) the municipality in which the landfill or any portion of the 20 landfill exists has permission of the facility operator to monitor landfill 21 BILL AS INTRODUCED S.49 2019 Page 7 of 7 VT LEG #336928 v.2 operations during operating hours, by means of a person appointed or hired by 1 town officials or elected by the voters of the municipality. 2 (2) On an after January 1, 2020, a landfill shall treat collected leachate 3 for polyfluoroalkyl substances on-site or at an Agency-approved, off-site 4 facility prior to delivery to a wastewater treatment facility or other facility 5 from which the leachate would be discharged to waters of the State. As used 6 in this subdivision, “wastewater treatment facility” has the same meaning as in 7 section 1295 of this title. 8 Sec. 6. EFFECTIVE DATES 9 (a) This section and Secs. 1 (findings), 2 (MCL for polyfluoroalkyl 10 substances), and 3 (monitoring of MCL for polyfluoroalkyl substances) shall 11 take effect on passage. 12 (b) The remaining sections shall take effect on July 1, 2019. 13