Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 12/16/2019AGENDA SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Monday, December 16, 2019 1.Pledge of Allegiance. (6:30 – 6:31 PM) 2. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency. Kevin Dorn (6:31 – 6:32 PM) 3.Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items. (6:32 – 6:33 PM) 4.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. (6:33 – 6:43 PM) 5.Announcements and City Manager’s Report. (6:43 – 6:58 PM) 6.Consent Agenda: (6:58 – 7:00 PM) A. *** Consider and Sign DisbursementsB.*** Approve Grant Application for Design of UVM Hort Farm Stormwater Treatment Practice C.*** Approve Grant Application for Kimball / Marshall Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilitiesover Muddy Brook 7.FY21 Budget considerations and Council discussion - Tom Hubbard (7:00 – 7:30 PM) 8.***Public Hearing: Public comment, consideration and possible approval or amendment to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) – (7:30 – 7:45 PM) WARNED FOR 7:30 9.Possible continuation of Budget discussion, potential March ballot items and Council discussion –(7:45 – 8::00 PM) 10.Possible Executive Session to receive advice from legal counsel regarding the Appeal of ANRWetlands General Permit 3-9026, Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division Docket No. 142-12-18 Vtec (8:00 – 8:15 PM) 11.Consider and possibly approve settlement of Appeal of ANR Wetlands General Permit 3-9026, Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division Docket No. 142-12-18 Vtec (8:15 – 8:25 PM) 12.*** Receive Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Analysis Report and discusspossible next steps (8:25 – 9:00 PM) 13.Review & possibly approve the Errors & Omissions Report from Tax Assessor for the 2019 Grand List -Tom Hubbard (9:00 – 9:15 PM) 14.*** Convene as the South Burlington Liquor Control Commission to consider the following application:(9:15 – 9:20 PM) Weird Window Brewing, LLC – 1st Class Restaurant/Bar License 15. Reports from Councilors on Committee assignments (9:20 – 9:30 PM) 16.Council discussion and possible approval of a proposal from Earth Economics to conduct acost/benefit analysis of certain properties within the City of South Burlington – Kevin Dorn (9:30 –9:40 PM) 17.Council discussion and possible approval of amendment to the Natural Resources Committeeauthorization that would adjust the number of members on the Committee and the number of members to achieve a quorum – Kevin Dorn (9:40 – 9:50 PM) 18.Other Business (9:50 – 9:55 PM) 19.Possible executive session to receive confidential attorney-client communications related to thepending appeal of City of Burlington Zoning Permit #20-0514CA and to discuss matters related to the extension of a extending a right of first refusal related to the conservation of property. (9:55 – 10:15PM) 20.Possible Council action on extending the right of first refusal related to the conservation of property. (10:15 – 10:20 PM) 21. Adjourn (10:20 PM) Respectfully Submitted: Kevin Dorn Kevin Dorn, City Manager *** Attachments Included South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 12/17/19 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid 12/17/2019 4000 Bevins & Son Inc.7,130.00 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid12/9/2019 VI-14988 18483 7,130.00 7,130.00 12/17/2019 4001 Erik Copeland 143.23 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid12/2/2019 VI-14983 REFUND 143.23 143.23 12/17/2019 4002 Champlain Water District 58,141.37 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 11/30/2019 VI-14975 SBWD-356 58,141.37 58,141.37 12/17/2019 4003 Champlain Water District 147,580.76 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 11/30/2019 VI-14976 SBWD-349 627.48 627.48 11/30/2019 VI-14977 NOVEMBER 146,953.28 146,953.28 12/17/2019 4004 E.J. Prescott, Inc.2,826.01 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 11/20/2019 VI-14979 5639876 2,426.34 2,426.34 11/18/2019 VI-14982 5639997 85.03 85.03 11/27/2019 VI-14986 61.41 61.41 11/22/2019 VI-14987 5639285 204.00 204.00 12/3/2019 VI-14990 5645132 49.23 49.23 12/17/2019 4005 Ferguson Waterworks #576 487.28 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 11/18/2019 VI-14978 0927779 146.04 146.04 11/21/2019 VI-14980 0921787 177.04 177.04 12/5/2019 VI-14989 0930400 164.20 164.20 12/17/2019 4006 Office Essentials 252.98 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 11/8/2019 VI-14981 36618 252.98 252.98 12/17/2019 4007 City Of South Burlington 276,678.04 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid 12/9/2019 VI-14984 NOVEMBER SEWER 276,678.04 276,678.04 12/17/2019 4008 City Of South Burlington 123,048.62 Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid12/9/2019 VI-14985 NOVEMBER STORMWATER 123,048.62 123,048.62 Printed: December 12, 2019 Page 1 of 2 South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 12/17/19 Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid Total Amount Paid:616,288.29 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Printed: December 12, 2019 Page 2 of 2 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: December 5, 2019 Re: Grant Application for Design of UVM Hort Farm Stormwater Treatment Practice Bartlett Brook is on the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) list of impaired waterbodies. The primary reason for impairment is identified as uncontrolled stormwater runoff. The ANR released a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Bartlett Brook watershed that was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The TMDL document sets a target for flow modification in the stream during the 1 year storm event. In order to meet the flow reduction target set in the Bartlett Brook TMDL, the Stormwater Utility worked with consultants to develop Flow Restoration Plans (FRPs), which identify a suite of Stormwater Treatment Practices (STPs) that are capable of attaining the required flow reduction target. In order to implement these projects in a cost effective and timely manner, the City is pursuing all grant funding opportunities available. Therefore, the City must take advantage of the opportunity to apply for the Enhanced BMP Grant by the Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP). This project has the support from the University of Vermont (UVM), as detailed in the attached letter of support. While the project will be located on UVM property, it will not treat the University’s impervious surfaces, rather it will treat runoff form City roadways, Overlook Park and some residential properties. The University’s interest in this project is for use as an irrigation pond at the Horticulture Farm. I am requesting that Council indicate their support for this project and the City’s grant application to the LCBP’s Enhanced BMP Grant. I am requesting that council take a formal vote on this matter and approve submission of the attached 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 ___________________________ _____December 3, 2019_______ Name and title of person completing this form (Project Manager) Date 1. Name/title of grant and submittal deadline date: Lake Champlain Basin Program: Enhanced BMP Grants. Due: October 3, 2019 2. What specifically is the grant’s purpose? This grant provides funding to for the design of a stormwater treatment practice in the Bartlett Brook watershed. 3. What does the grant fund and not fund (be specific)? We are requesting this grant so that we can hire an engineer to design a stormwater treatment practice, located on the UVM Horticulture Farm property, that will treat stormwater runoff from Spear Street, Overlook Park, and some residential properties along Spear Street. This project has support from UVM. 4. Total Project Cost: a. Amount of grant: $42,500 b.Is there a City match required, how much and in what fiscal year(s)? No match is required but it is encouraged by the grant agency. We are proposing to provide a 17% match, which will amount to $7,500 in order to cover the remaining design costs above the $42,500 requested in the grant. This is in addition to staff time for project management. 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? Match (cash contribution) will be paid from the stormwater utility budget. Specifically, it will be paid from line item 402-12-7100-81.00 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)? The grant is for the design of a stormwater treatment practice that is part of both the Bartlett Brook Flow Restoration Plan (FRP), as well as the City’s Phosphorous Control Plan (PCP). 8. Length of grant - will the grant cross fiscal year(s)? May 2020 – March 2021. It will cross fiscal years. 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? Very likely. We have a strong project that aligns with the goal of the grant. We have also received grants from this organization before. 12. Who will manage (project manager) grant and grant paperwork if approved (if different person than who is filling out this form), what are any grant compliance requirements, how much time will this take and how is that time available? 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? Tom DiPietro will serve as the project manager for this grant. To comply with the grant, we need to complete 4 quarterly reports and a final report. These reports will be completed by City staff. 13. Describe grant payment process – method of cash flow: The City will complete work approved in the grant scope of work and request reimbursement from the Lake Champlain Basin Program. These reimbursements can occur as often as the City would like to request them. 14.Should a Council-appointed Committee, Board, or Commission review this request? The work proposed under this grant is typical of work completed by stormwater utility staff. For these reasons, a board or committee appointment seems unnecessary. 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. It is the stormwater utility’s charge to improve stormwater management in the City. ___________________________________ _______________________________ 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. [ I 'lhe University of Vermont would benefit from capture and redirection of stormwater from Spear Street and Deerfield Drive neighborhoods away from Laurel Hill and into a stormwater retention and settling pond. This agreement would serve the needs of both parties while preserving the present arrangement of duties, where the CSB maintains existing ponds and HREC maintains the irrigation infrastructure needed to water crops on the facility from the stored water. Terence Bradshaw Vice President University Relations & Administration Asst. Professor and HREC Manager cc: Lisa Kingsbury, Interim Co-Director, and Planning Relations Manager, Campus Planning Services Joanna Birbeck, Interim Co-Director, and Campus Space Manager, campus Planning Services Robert Vaughan, Director, Capital Planning & Management Richard Cate, Vice President, Finance Jean Harvey, Interim Dean, UVM College of Agriculture & Life Sciences CAMPUS PLANNING SERVICES 109 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405-0016 Telephone (802) 656-7878, Fax (802) 656-8895 Page212 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: December 2, 2019 Re: Grant Application for Kimball / Marshall Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities over Muddy Brook The stream crossing over Muddy Brook on South Burlington’s border with the town of Williston failed in 2017. At that time, a temporary bridge was installed that allowed traffic to continue despite the failure of the culvert beneath. The temporary bridge does not include facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. During the 2019 Halloween storm the failed culvert washed out completely. Damage from the storm required that the temporary bridge be closed until such time as measures can be taken to stabilize the stream crossing and protect bridge abutments. This work is underway. Prior to the Halloween 2019 storm event and since the initial incident in 2017, work has been underway to design a permanent crossing in this location that provides safe pedestrian facilities to connect South Burlington and Williston. This has long been a goal in the region as evidenced by past studies (2006 & 2010) completed by the CCRPC and available at: https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/SharedUsePathOverMuddyBrook_20061221.pdf https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Supplemental-Info- Report-10-04-10.pdf The municipalities of South Burlington and Williston are strongly committed to advancing this replacement structure, improving the bicycle and pedestrian facilities in this area, and improving the non-vehicular connection between our two communities. In order to move this effort forward, we would like to apply for a Transportation Alternatives (TA) grant to help defray the cost of construction. Included with this memo please find a copy of the TA grant application, as well as a grant request form to council. We trust you will find this application complete, but if you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me. I am requesting that Council indicate their support for this project and the City’s grantapplication to the Transportation Alternatives Grant program. I am requesting that council take a formal vote on this matter and approve submission of the attached grant application. If you have any questions, please contact me at (802) 658 – 7961 x6113 ortdipietro@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 ___________________________ _____November 27, 2019_______ Name and title of person completing this form (Project Manager) Date 1. Name/title of grant and submittal deadline date: 2020 Transportation Alternatives Program. Due November 22, 2019. 2.What specifically is the grant’s purpose? The Transportation Alternatives (TA) grant program provides funding for the construction, planning and design of on-road and off-road facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. It provides funds for projects that will provide safe routes for non-drivers. The program also provides funds for any environmental mitigation activity that addresses stormwater management or reduces vehicle-caused wildlife mortality. 3. What does the grant fund and not fund (be specific)? This grant will fund construction of a new culvert on Muddy Brook located on Kimball Avenue at the City’s border with the Town of Williston. This project includes pedestrian facilities across Muddy Brook that will connect South Burlington and Williston. 4. Total Project Cost: $2,145,000 a. Amount of grant: $300,000 b.Is there a City match required, how much and in what fiscal year(s)? Yes. A 20% match is required. Remaining project costs will be shared by the City and the Town of Williston. We anticipate incurring expenses in FY21 and FY22. c.Are there other grants “tied into” or being used as a match for this grant of which are matching funds for this grant? Nothing is “tied into” this grant, but the City previously received a grant to complete a scoping study (completed) and is currently working under another grant for design engineering. Neither of these grants can be used as match for this grant. 5.From what budget line will match be paid, and is there unencumbered money to pay it? Match (cash contribution) will be paid from the stormwater utility budget. Specifically, it will be paid from line item 402-12-7100-80.00. We will be splitting project costs with the Town of Williston. 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)? The grant is for the construction of a new stream crossing, including pedestrian facilities, on Muddy Brook. It is a stand alone project. 8. Length of grant - will the grant cross fiscal year(s)? This grant will require work in FY21 and FY22. It will cross fiscal years. 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? Very likely. We have a strong project that aligns with the goal of the grant. We have also received grants from this organization before and the project is a regional priority. 12. Who will manage (project manager) grant and grant paperwork if approved (if different person than who is filling out this form), what are any grant compliance requirements, how much time will this take and how is that time available? 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? Tom DiPietro will serve as the project manager for this grant. He will be supported by other Stormwater Utility staff (Dave Wheeler and Emmalee Cherington). This project needs to be completed regardless of whether or not we receive the grant, so the only additional work is related to grant management. We estimate this to be approximately 60 hours over the term of the grant. Time spent by City staff on administration could be used as match, but since the total project cost will be well in excess of our 20% required match we are not proposing to utilize our time as match in this instance 13. Describe grant payment process – method of cash flow: The City will complete work approved in the grant scope of work and request reimbursement from VTrans. These reimbursements can occur as often as the City would like to request them. 14.Should a Council-appointed Committee, Board, or Commission review this request? The work proposed under this grant is typical of work completed by stormwater utility staff. For these reasons, a board or committee appointment seems unnecessary. 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 culvert in this location failed during the Halloween storm causing a road closure. The City is currently working to re-open the road utilizing temporary measures, but a long term solution needs to be put in place. There could be significant traffic and environmental impacts until such time as the new culvert is installed. Maintaining and replacing this type of infrastructure aligns with the Stormwater Utility’s mission. In addition, the DPW maintains and improves pedestrian facilities. Providing a safe route for pedestrians and bicyclists across Muddy brook has long been a regional goal. This project will achieve that goal. ___________________________________ _______________________________ 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. November 22, 2019 Attn: Scott Robertson VTrans Municipal Assistance Bureau Scott.robertson@vermont.gov Re: Kimball / Marshall Avenue and Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities over Muddy Brook TA Grant Application Dear Scott, Please find this enclosed application for the SFY 2020 Transportation Alternatives Program. As discussed during the development of this application, this is an important project to both the communities of South Burlington and Williston. This project has already completed the Scoping Study under the VTrans MAB Municipal Highway and Stormwater Mitigation Program, and is currently under design for the selected alternative. Our application enclosed is mainly for grant assistance with the funding of construction for this important project, with a small portion of the funding will be for design services to account for added review and coordination with the VTrans MAB group as well as VTrans Environmental and ROW departments. Having completed the scoping study under the MAB program and now in the early phases of design, the schedule of this project will benefit by incorporating these reviews into the design schedule. Providing safe pedestrian facilities across Muddy Brook and connecting facilities within South Burlington and Williston has long been a goal in the region. Please reference the past CCRPC 2006 Study and 2010 update located here: https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/SharedUsePathOverMuddyBrook_20061221.pdf https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Supplemental-Info-Report-10-04- 10.pdf The municipalities of South Burlington and Williston are strongly committed to advancing this replacement structure and added bicycle and pedestrian facilities to construction as soon as possible. We trust you will find this application complete and if you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me. Sincerely, Tom DiPietro City of South Burlington Deputy Director - Department of Public Works Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2019 1 VTrans Fall 2019 Transportation Alternatives (TA) Grant Application (Note: Most TAP grant projects reach construction in approximately 3 to 4 years) Thoroughly read the Vermont Transportation Alternatives Fall 2019 Application Guide before you begin your application. It includes important program information and step-by-step instructions. Pay particular attention to the application process requirements. Applications are due in hand or by e-mail by Friday November 22, 2019. Please e-mail the completed application to: Scott.robertson@vermont.gov Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement (Project Name/Title) Tom Dipietro (Municipality contact person responsible for the management of this project) South Burlington/Williston (Town) 05403 (Zip Code) 104 Landfill Road (Mailing Address) (802) 658-7961 ext. 6108 (Phone) tdipietro@sburl.com (e-mail address) $300,000 Amount of Federal Funds requested (no more than 80% of the project cost estimate). $1,510,000 Amount of Local Match. Example: Federal Award = $300,000 (80% of total), Local Match = $75,000 (20% of total), Total Project Cost = $375,000 (100% of the total) County: Chittenden County Town/Village/City: South Burlington/Williston Specific location, street or road: Kimball Avenue/Marshall Avenue Regional Planning Commission: Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission If a linear project, what is the length in feet? 650’ Is the project on or intersecting to a State maintained highway? Yes ☐ No ☒ ·Note: If yes, be sure to include documentation that you have notified the VTrans District Transportation Administrator of the intent to apply for TA funding and have provided them with a brief (one paragraph) description of the proposed project. Project type being applied for: ☐Scoping ☒Design/Construction Is this the first time this municipality has applied for a Transportation Alternatives grant? Yes ☐ No ☒ Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2019 2 The municipality understands that a typical construction project utilizing Transportation Alternatives Program funds will take roughly three years (min.) in the Design and ROW phases prior to going to construction (as pointed out in the TA Program Application Guide)? Yes ☒ No ☐ Does this project have a previously completed scoping or feasibility study? Yes ☒ No ☐ Note: Reference the Scoping Study for project maps and photos. Fiscal Information: Accounting System Automated ☒ Manual ☐ Combination☐ DUNS # 01-950-6690 Fiscal Year End Month June Property Ownership: If the proposed project is on private property that will need to be acquired by the Municipality through purchase, easement, or eminent domain (includes temporary construction rights) in accordance with the “Uniform Act”, then the municipality is committed to exercising its right of eminent domain to acquire the rights to construct the project if necessary. Yes ☒ No ☐ Funding: Does this project already have existing funding? If so, please describe. Yes ☒ No ☐ There is an existing Town Highway Structures Grant for the Engineering Design Phase services. Remainder of funding will be covered through a combination of future Town Highway Structures Grants and municipal bonding split between South Burlington and Williston. Will you accept an award less than you applied for? Yes ☐ No ☒ ·If yes, please indicate whether local funds will be used to make up the shortfall, or if the project scope will be reduced. If the project scope is to be reduced, describe what part of the project (please be specific) you would accept partial funding for. The full funding amount of $300,000 is required. The cost of this project is substantial, with construction cost estimate of $1,810,000. Public Meeting Requirement: In order to apply, the project must have been discussed as an agenda item at a warned public meeting within the last year. When and where was this meeting held? Please attach documentation of the meeting warning and a meeting summary. This project was discussed at a Local Concerns Meeting and the Public Information Meeting held at the Williston Town Hall on June 19, 2018. The selected preferred alternative was also presented at a South Burlington City Council Meeting. Public meeting advertisement and minutes are attached in the appendices of the Scoping Study. Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2019 3 Regional Planning Commission Letter of Support: In order to apply, the project must have a letter of support from the regional planning commission. Is a letter of support attached? Yes ☒ No ☐ Application Scoring Criteria: 1. Please give a brief description of the project (be sure to indicate the primary facility type being applied for and be concise). (10 points max.) The Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement project at Kimball & Marshall Avenue will replace a failed culvert and temporary bridge at a crucial traffic crossing with a permanent culvert structure that will provide safe facilities for all users. This project will include a 10’ shared use path separated by a 10’ green space along with 4’ widened shoulders to accommodate and encourage bicycle and pedestrian users of all experience levels while improving connectivity between Williston and South Burlington; and providing a long term stormwater quality solution. 2.What is the feasibility of this project? Feasibility (or Scoping) study applications will not be scored on this criterion. Also, please describe the extent of project development completed to date. (10 points max.) A scoping study was completed in January 2019 through the VTrans MAB program. Over the summer of 2019 the culvert structure further collapsed and has since completely failed after being washed out by a large storm on October 31, 2019 resulting in a road closure due to sliding slopes in close proximity to the temporary bridge abutments. The project is currently under assessment for emergency remediation measures to be done in order to reopen the bridge and roadway which shall remain in-place until the construction of the permanent solution submitted here-in. The project has strong support from both the communities of South Burlington and Williston. With 2 road closures since 2017 and a temporary bridge in place, the municipalities have incentive to see the permanent structure constructed asap. Tying the benefit of improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities is a large goal/need that adds significant cost to the project, but delivers a substantial facility connection benefits. 3.Does this project address a need identified in a local or regional planning document? If so, please describe. (5 points max.) The CCRPC completed a study for the Shared Use Path Connection over Muddy Brook in 2006 which was then updated in 2010 (reference links provided in cover letter). This project includes a key extension of the existing shared use path across Muddy Brook that contributes to the bicycle and pedestrian facility connection goals for this region. Additionally, it was identified during the development of the Scoping Study that the Cross Vermont Trail Association identifies Kimball / Marshall Ave as part of a network of trails and on-road facilities for an East-West Vermont bicycling route. 4.Does this project benefit a State Designated Center per the link below (i.e., Downtown, Village, New Town Center, Growth Center, or neighborhood recognized by the Vermont Department of Economic, Housing and Community Development? (10 Points Max.) http://maps.vermont.gov/ACCD/PlanningAtlas/index.html?viewer=PlanningAtlas Only by providing a missing connection to bike/ped facility networks: Williston Growth Center is approximately 1 mile east of the project, South Burlington New Town Center is approximately 2 miles west of the project. Commuter cyclists prefer this East-West route to the busier / parallel Williston Road. Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2019 4 5.Provide a project cost estimate below (project costs below include both federal dollars and local dollars). Projects will be scored based on whether the cost appears realistic for the size and scope of the project. For scoping studies, use PE and Local Project Management lines only. Note: If you are applying for additional funds for an existing project, show the amount being requested for this grant in the PE, ROW, Construction, Construction Engineering, and Municipal Project Management rows below. Also, be clear regarding total project cost and other funding amounts and sources in the additional funding comments box below. (10 points max.) Preliminary Engineering (PE) (Engineering, Surveying, Permitting) $ 154,313 Right-of-way / Acquisition (ROW) (appraisals, land acquisition and legal fees) $ 0 Construction (construction costs with reasonable contingency) $ 1,810,000 Construction Engineering (cost to provide inspection during construction) $ 130,000 Municipal Project Management Costs (minimum of 10% of total PE, ROW and Construction Phases). $ 195,000 Total Project Cost $ 2,145,000 Addition Funding Comments: (ex. Total and additional funding for existing projects) $144,313 of Preliminary Engineering Costs are already accounted for through a Town Highway Structures Grant. Additional $10,000 cost included in this application to assist with review comment and response for VTrans review (including ROW and Permitting). Reference Scoping Study for breakdown of construction costs. ROW impacts are minimal with easements expected to be completed by the City of South Burlington Attorney 6.Select the eligibility category below (A, B, C or D) that best fits your project and answer the corresponding questions for that category (choose only one category). 10 bonus points will be awarded to projects that are primarily Bicycle or Pedestrian facilities. ☒A. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (includes Safe Routes for Non-Drivers and Conversion of abandoned railroad corridors. (i) Will the project contribute to a system of pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities? (10 points max.) Yes, this project will extend an existing shared use path from the South Burlington side across the Muddy Brook to Williston. Williston is currently conducting a study to connect this to their bike/ped facilities network east of the project. The project will also will aid in a long term goal of the Cross Vermont Trail Association to connect this path and on-road facilities to the network east of the project. This project will also extend Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2019 5 widened shoulders through project limits connecting to existing widened shoulders on the South Burlington and Williston sides. (ii) Will the project provide access to likely generators of pedestrian and/or bicyclist activity? (10 points max.) Yes, extending the existing shared use path across the bridge will open the connectivity of the existing pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure throughout South Burlington and Williston. In addition, the separated shared use path offers a more comfortable option which will encourage use by pedestrians and less experienced bicyclists. (iii) Will the project address a known, documented safety concern? (10 points max.) Yes, the current temporary bridge has no shoulders for pedestrians or cyclists to safely cross which was brought up as a concern in the previously referenced Local Concerns Meeting in Williston. This project includes a separated shared use path as well as widened shoulders to accommodate safe, dedicated crossing for cyclists and pedestrians. Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2019 6 ☐B. Community Improvement Activities: i. Explain how the project improves the economic wellbeing of the community and/or provide a benefit to state tourism? (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. ii. Describe the anticipated impact to the public; degree of visibility, public exposure and/or public use. (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. iii. Answer only one of the following based on the type of project: a) Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas as related to scenic or historic sites. To what extent will the project provide a view of a highly unique and scenic area? (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. b) Preservation or rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities. Describe the historic significance of the historic transportation facility and the importance of the facility to the state. (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. c) Archeological planning and research related to impacts from a transportation project. Describe the associated transportation project and benefit of the proposed activities. (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. d) Vegetation management in transportation rights of way to improve roadway safety, prevent invasive species, and provide erosion control. Describe the extent of the current problem; impact on the site and surrounding area. (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2019 7 ☐C. Environmental Mitigation Activity Related to Stormwater and Highways i. Please describe how this application provides environmental mitigation relating to stormwater runoff and highways. (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. ii. What information or data is provided to substantiate the current stormwater problem and associated environmental impacts? (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. iii. What substantiating data or information is provided to show that the proposed application is an effective and maintainable solution to the problem? (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. ☐D. Environmental Mitigation Activity Related to Wildlife i. Please describe how this application will reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or will restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats. (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. ii. What information or data is provided to substantiate the current problem and associated environmental impacts? (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. iii. What substantiating data or information is provided to show that the proposed application is an effective and manageable solution to the problem? (10 points max.) Click here to enter text. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com To: Kevin Dorn, City Manager From: Martha Machar, Deputy Finance Officer Subject: Date: Background: Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program – Public Hearing December 12, 2019 The draft presented is the proposed amendment to replace the existing FY 2020-2029 CIP in its entirety as the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program. Edits have been made to the Highway/Parks, Police, City Center and Recreation & Parks CIP draft forms for fiscal year 2021 since the CIP was presented to the Council in November. The edits reflect reduction in the amount proposed for paving and removal of infected ash trees, a reduction in the number of vehicles by one cruiser for PD, and a reduction in the proposed amount to fund the City Center Reserve. The edits also include a change in timing for new bleacher systems for recreation parks from FY2021 to FY2022. These edits reduce the proposed FY2021 general funds needed by $526,000. Capital Improvement Program History A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a tool used to improve coordination in the timing of major projects, plan for capital replacement and future major maintenance costs, and reduce fluctuations in the tax rate. The attached draft CIP reflects the following potential capital expenditures: 1)Forecasted big ticket costs related to maintaining South Burlington’s current level of service through refreshing, rebuilding and replacingexisting capital equipment and infrastructure such as repaving roadways,replacing vehicles, emergency apparatus and roofs, and routine upgrades toCity utility infrastructure. 2) Estimated spending related to building public infrastructure that will result in a new downtown – City Center – including those projects eligible forTIF District financing such as new roadways, streetscapes and bridges,municipal facilities, parks, structured parking, wetland mitigation andstormwater management systems. 3) Projects (generally related to transportation and parks) that are included in impact fee ordinances, funded through specific voter authorizations suchas Penny for Paths or Open Space, requested by committees or thecommunity, or shown in long range plans or studies that improve the level of service, respond to growth or changes in service demands such as reconstructing Spear Street, connecting recreation paths on Dorset Street and expanding recreation fields. A CIP is a road map to guide budget preparation based on an estimate of future projects and costs consistent with current City priorities and fiscal outlook. The CIP incorporates Council priorities; committee recommendations which are solicited annually; adopted plans and ongoing projects; and equipment and facility maintenance, replacement and upgrade needs. As a financial planning tool, the CIP responds to the estimated fiscal capacity for each year going forward. It is not a static document and changes from year to year. The first year (FY21) of the FY2021-30 CIP will be incorporated into the City’s 2020-2021 budget for approval in March. Attachments: •Resolution Amending the Capital Improvement Program for FiscalYears 2021-2030. •Summary Pages – Capital Improvement Program FY2021-2030 •Updated Police, Highway/Parks, City Center and Recreation & ParksPages •(link to online document) Draft Capital Improvement Program forFY2021-2030 Recommendation Consider approving the attached resolution to amend the City’s Capital Improvement Program R – 2019 - RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2021-2030 WHEREAS, the City’s Capital Improvement Program was first adopted October 4, 1993, and amended in 1999, 2001, 2006, 2013, 2014, 2015 (July), 2015 (December), 2017 (January), 2017 (December) and 2018 (December); and, WHEREAS, on June 18, 2012, the Council adopted a policy that requires that the City Manager prepare a capital improvement program update annually for review by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4443, a properly warned hearing was held on 12/16/2019 and a copy of the proposed Fiscal Year 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program was provided to the Planning Commission and City Clerk; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Fiscal Year 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program has been made available to the public online and in the City Clerk’s Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby amends the Capital Improvement Program by striking the 2019 FY 2020-2029 amendment in its entirety, and replaces it with the City’s Fiscal Year 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program (Exhibit A) attached hereto. APPROVED this _____ day of ______________ , 2019. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL __________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Tom Chittenden __________________________________ David Kaufman FY 2021‐2030 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMI.GENERAL FUNDOverview of Totaled Expenditure Costs & Funding Sources (Revenue) summed by TypeOverview broken out by Department/Service Area of Totaled Expenditure Costs & Funding Sources summed by TypeCIP Projects (Expenditures) Listed by Department/Service Area or Category & Cost Per YearIndividual Project Detail SheetsHighways/ParksFire and Ambulance DepartmentRoad ImprovementsPolice DepartmentRecreation and ParksOpen Space ProjectsBicycle and Pedestrian ImprovementsITAdministrationLibraryCity CenterEnergy ProjectsII.SEWER FUNDIII.STORMWATER FUNDIV.WATER FUNDA Capital Improvement Program is a tool used to improve coordination in the timing of major projects, plan for capital replacement and major maintenance costs, and reduce fluctuations in the tax rate.A program is not a budget, but a road map to guide budget preparation based on an estimate of future projects and costs consistent with City priorities and fiscal outlook.  The Capital Improvement Program  is prepared yearly during the budget process but is adopted after the approval of the budget.  A summary of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY21‐30 is included in the annual budget book.Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 1 of 144 I. GENERAL FUNDPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 2 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEGENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW:SUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Eng., Inspection, GC, Legal3,300                3,794                2,441                1,235                902 545 310 421 2  2             12,952 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ 20 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 50 4,221               ‐          4,391 Construction14,743             23,574             37,203             14,068             8,552               2,326               4,295               1,899               2,508                1,068 110,236 Furniture & Equipment1,391               1,974               1,609               3,308               1,390               2,438               643 1,213               1,117               986         16,069 Bond Payment Obligations (aggregate)729 609 590 570 550 457 440 423 405  387         5,160 Note Repayments677 1,399               1,396               1,960               1,956               1,953               1,949               1,630               1,630                1,630 16,180 City Center Bond Anticipated Repayment971 989 1,005               995 985 972 961 952 939  924         9,693 TIF District Debt Repayment467 1,234               1,997               3,206               3,268               3,634               3,616               3,596               3,676                3,665 28,359 To City Center Reserve Fund750 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860  860         8,490 Total CIP Costs:23,027 34,453 47,151 26,203 18,464 13,185 13,124 11,044 15,358  9,522 211,531 Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund (sourced from Property Taxes)2,999               4,306               4,314               3,239               3,997               4,661               2,713               3,089               3,493                2,862 35,674 CIP Reserve Fund1,939               1,846               1,863               1,854               1,845               1,833               1,823               1,815               1,803                1,790 18,413 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds580 433 163 300 170 100 200 230 150  ‐          2,326 Sewer Fund90 170 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐          360 Grant/Donation/Developer1,462               3,583               7,517               2,262               549 808 531 830 4,811               ‐          22,354 Open Space Debt Proceeds474 200 57 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐          731 Anticipated Debt Proceeds30 40 10 ‐ 400 250 2,596               ‐ ‐  ‐          3,326 City Center Debt Proceeds10,418             13,350             19,350             7,720               ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐          50,839 Highway Impact Fee381 ‐ ‐ ‐ 115 275 ‐ 120 ‐  ‐          891 Recreation Impact Fee295 263 176 137 100 108 108 50 100  ‐          1,337 Public Facility Impact Fee131 205 204 203 202 201 200 199 198  196         1,938 Police Impact Fee110 110 110 110 110 97 80 63 45  27           861 TIF District Financing ‐ Proceeds3,017               8,099               10,560             5,974               6,455               ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐          34,106 Trade‐In Generated Revenues3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4  4             38 Other ‐ Open Space, Rents, Facility use fees, Energy etc.630 610 725 1,193               1,248               1,213               1,253               1,048               1,078               978         9,977 TIF District Revenues (Increment)467 1,234               1,997               3,206               3,268               3,634               3,616               3,596               3,676                3,665 28,359 Total CIP Revenues23,027 34,453 47,151 26,203 18,464 13,185 13,124 11,044 15,358  9,522 211,531 This page totals all General Fund capital expenditure (CE) costs by summed by cost types and funding sources annually.   Information reflected on this page includes bond payments for prior capital projects.  The City makes cash payments for maintenance and replacement in lieu of debt where possible in order to preserve debt capacity to undertake larger City priorities, i.e. the envisioned City Center.  The General Fund has reserve fund related to capital projects: City Center Reserve Fund, for City Center expenditures. Costs below fall into three categories: project related (studies, property rights, construction, furniture & equipment), debt (payment on financing) and funding CIP reserve funds.  NOTE that this is a program of planned expenditures and revenues and all costs are estimated and time tables are tenative and subject to change.Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 3 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Justin RabidouxSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Eng., Inspection, GC, Legal 25                      ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    25                    Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                   Construction890                   1,200                1,450                1,200                1,200                1,150                1,000                1,000                1,000                1,000                11,090             Furniture & Equipment250                   300                   250                   300                   300                   350                   320                   325                   325                   325                   3,045               Bond ObligationsTotal CIP Costs:1,165               1,500               1,700               1,500               1,500               1,500               1,320               1,325               1,325               1,325               14,160             Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund1,140                1,500                1,660                1,500                1,500                1,500                1,320                1,325                1,325                1,325                14,095             Grant/Donation/Developer‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                   Secured Bond‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                   Anticipated Bond‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                   Highway Impact Fee‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                   Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                   Other‐Fueling Station Reserve Fund25                     ‐                    40                     ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    65                     Total Funding Sources:1,165               1,500               1,700               1,500               1,500               1,500               1,320               1,325               1,325               1,325               14,160             The Highway/Parks CIP includes identified maintenance needs throughout the City for general operations and  maintenance such as paving, fleet replacement, a garage and salt/sand shed expansion, replacement of fuel pumps, etc. HIGHWAYSPARKS CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 4 of 144 GENERAL FUNDHIGHWAYS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURECIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Justin RabidouxChanges from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Paving750          1,000       1,000       1,000       1,000       1,000       1,000      1,000  1,000       1,000      9,750 Fleet Replacement250          300          250          300          300          350          320         325                325          325         3,045 Garage Expansion40  ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐          ‐                 ‐           ‐          40 Fueling System Replacement25  ‐           250          ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐          ‐                 ‐           ‐          275 Removal of infected ash trees100          200          200          200          200          150          ‐          ‐                 ‐           ‐          1,050 TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:1,165  1,500  1,700  1,500  1,500  1,500  1,320 1,325  1,325  1,325 14,160   0The HIGHWAY/PARKS CIP includes identified maintenance needs to keep current levels of service throughout the City.  These include general operations and highway maintenance such as paving, fleet replacement, a garage and salt/sand expansion, and the replacement of fuel pumps.  0Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 18 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Justin RabidouxSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Eng., Inspection, GC, Legal ‐               ‐               50                 ‐               315              325              100              369              ‐               ‐               1,159          Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐                4,221           ‐               4,221          Construction‐               ‐               ‐               200              200              ‐                2,596           ‐               ‐               ‐               2,996          Furniture & Equipment‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐              Bond ObligationsTotal CIP Costs:‐              ‐              50                200              515              325               2,696          369               4,221          ‐              8,376          Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐                            Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Projects  ‐               ‐               10                 50                 10                 ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               70                Grant/Donation/Developer‐               ‐               30                  100              160              ‐               ‐               179               4,121           ‐               4,590          Anticipated Bond‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐                2,596           ‐               ‐               ‐               2,596          Highway/Road Impact Fee‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               115              275              ‐               120              ‐               ‐               510              Recreation Impact Fee‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               100              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               100              Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐              Other‐               ‐               10                 50                  130              50                  100              70                  100              ‐               510              Total Funding Sources:‐              ‐              50                200              515              325               2,696          369               4,221          ‐              8,376          ROAD IMPROVEMENTS CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:The Road IMPROVEMENTS CIP projects (not including City Center which are presented seperately) address long range road projects related to transportation studies.  Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 5 of 144 GENERAL FUND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREROADS IMPROVEMENTS CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Justin RabidouxChanges from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Intersection Improvements Airport Parkway‐Lime Kiln  ‐              ‐             50               200             200            ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             450 Williston Road Street Improvements (Road)‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              100             369             4,221 ‐             4,690 Spear Street Widening (Road)‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              315             325             2,596 ‐              ‐              ‐             3,236 ‐ TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:‐ ‐ 50  200 515 325  2,696 369  4,221 ‐ 8,376 The Road IMPROVEMENTS CIP projects (not including City Center which are presented seperately) address long range road projects related to transportation studies.  Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 25 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Terry FrancisSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Eng., Inspection, GC, Legal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Construction59 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500 ‐ 559 Furniture & Equipment10 414 792 69 774 1,701                12 498 450 282 5,002 Debt Repayment216 212 208 205 201 197 194 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,433 Debt Repayment (WPC Note for Pumper)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ To Fire/Ambulance Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total CIP Costs:285 626 1,000 274 975 1,898 206 498 950 282 6,993 Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund285 626 1,000                274 975 1,898                206 498 950 282 6,993 Fire Impact Fee‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Grant/Donation/Developer‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Secured Bond‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Anticipated Bond‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Funding Sources:285 626 1,000               274 975 1,898               206 498 950 282 6,993 FIRE AND AMBULANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:The ten‐year projection of capital expenditures for the Fire Department includes replacement costs for all rolling stock, replacement of equipment and gear.Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 6 of 144 GENERAL FUNDFIRE AND AMBULANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURETotal Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Terry FrancisChanges from FY 19‐28 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Communication Tower216           212           208           205           201           197           194           ‐            ‐           ‐                1,433           Vehicle Replacement‐Fire ‐                ‐                740               ‐                730                1,350            12 40 40 40 2,952           Vehicles‐AMB‐            359           ‐            ‐            ‐            275           ‐            350           350          ‐                1,334           Fire and Ambulance Equipment10 55 52 69 44 76 ‐                108               60 142               616 Fire Stations59 ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                500               100               659 TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:285  626  1,000 274  975  1,898 206  498  950  282 6,993 0   CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:FIRE AND AMBULANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT:  Vehicle and equipment replacement schedule and cost estimates for all rolling stock and major equipment assigned to Fire  Department and building improvements. This excludes note payments and transfers to Reserve Funds (see Costs and Funding Summary). Specifically replacing staff vehicle0Updated cost estimates/pricingPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 30 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Shawn BurkeSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Construction50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 500 Furniture & Equipment270 420 357 276 280 271 274 359 277 280 3,064 Current Bond Obligations536 521 506 490 473 457 440 423 405 387 4,637 Total CIP Costs:856 991 913 816 803 778 764 832 732 717 8,201 Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund (sourced from Property Taxes)333 467 390 292 279 267 270 355 273 276 3,201 Grant/Donation/Developer‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Secured Bond‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Anticipated Bond‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Police Impact Fee110 110 110 110 110 97 80 63 45 27 861 Trade‐In Generated Revenues3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 38 Other‐Rooms & Meals Tax & 19 Gregory Lease Rev410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 410 4,100 Total Funding:856 991 913 816 803 778 764 832 732 717 8,201               The Police Department capital improvement program is almost entirely equipment replacement.  Projections have been made to take into account the normal life cycle of the more expensive equipment utilized in police operations.  Funds are designated for anticipated building repairs and improvements.POLICE CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 7 of 144 GENERAL FUNDPOLICE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURECIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact: Shawn P. BurkeChanges from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Police Station Financing Debt Service536  521  506  490  473  457  440  423  405  387 4,637 Vehicle Replacement129  155  155  188  189  144  147  192  147  150 1,596 Building Stewardship Fund50               50               50               50               50               50               50               50               50               50              500 Taser/Handgun Replacement‐ 35               40               ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 40               ‐  ‐ 115 Security and Building Access Equiptment65               ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 65 Communications, Computers, Electronics76               230  162 88               91               127  127  127  130  130 1,288 TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:856  991  913  816  803  778  764  832  732  717 8,201 0The POLICE DEPARTMENT capital improvement program is almost entirely equipment replacement.  Projections have been made to take in to account the normal life cycle of the more expensive equipment utilized in police operations.  Funds are designated for anticipated building repairs and improvements.0Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 37 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Holly ReesSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Leg‐                     100                    ‐                     50                      ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     150                   Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                    Construction460                    655                    210                    165                    765                    250                    ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     2,505               Furniture & Equipment30                      105                    70                      ‐                     ‐                     50                      ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     60                      315                   Bond Obligations‐                    Debt Payment‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                    Total CIP Costs:490                   860                   280                   215                   765                   300                   ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    60                     2,970               Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund (sourced from Property Taxes)265                    695                    210                    150                    250                    50                      ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     60                      1,680               Grant/Donation/Developer‐                     ‐                     ‐                     50                      100                    ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     150                   Secured Debt Proceeds (Open Space Projects Fun‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                    Anticipated Debt Proceeds‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     400                    250                    ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     650                   Recreation Impact Fee195                    150                    10                      ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     355                   Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                    Other‐Facility Use fees30                      15                      60                      15                      15                      ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     ‐                     135                   Total Funding Sources490                   860                   280                   215                   765                   300                   ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    60                     2,970               The Recreation & Parks Department is responsible for planning for future active and passive recreational needs for the community, including the purchase and development of additional land for parks, and expanding and improving facilities and equipment.  RECREATION & PARKS PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 8 of 144 GENERAL FUNDRECREATION AND PARKS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURERECREATION AND PARKS CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Holly ReesChanges from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:145             125            ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             270           35               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             35             ‐              ‐              ‐             50               500             250            ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             800           ‐             10               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             10             15               ‐             45               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             60             20               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             50               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             70             ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             60              60             ‐              500            ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             500           120            ‐              ‐              ‐              100            ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             220           ‐              ‐             50               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             50             ‐              ‐              150             150             150            ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             450           15               15               15               15               15               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             75             ‐             15               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             15             60               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             60             ‐              100            ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             100           30               70               10               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             110           50               25               10               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             85             TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:490           860           280           215           765           300           ‐            ‐            ‐            60             2,970       Fleet ReplacementDog Park‐ AmmenitiesRecrowning of Athletic Fields at VetBaseball Field Dugout ReplacementVeteran Memorial Park UpgradesVet Memorial Basketball CourtsParks System Master PlanIrrigation System UpgradesJaycee Park Neighborhood FacilityBleacher ReplacementJaycee Park ImprovementsSzymanski Park ImprovementsFarrell Playground ReplacementRed Rocks Facility ReplacementWheeler House ImprovementsOverlook Park0The Recreation & Parks Department is responsible for planning for future active and passive recreational needs for the community, including the purchase and development of additional land for parks, as well as  maintaining, expanding and improving facilities and equipment.  0South Village Soccer FieldPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 45 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Ashley ParkerSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Leg220 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 220 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Construction359 350 57 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 766 Furniture & Equipment‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Bond Obligations‐ Debt Payment125 125 125 125 125 125 125 ‐ ‐ ‐ 876 Total CIP Costs:704 475 182 125 125 125 125 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,862 Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund (sourced from Property Taxes)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path)50 75 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 125 ‐ Grant/Donation/Developer5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 Secured Debt Proceeds (Open Space Projects Fun474 200 57 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 731 Anticipated Debt Proceeds‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Recreation Impact Fee50 75 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 125 ‐ ‐ ‐ Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Open Space Funds125 125 125 125 125 125 125 ‐ ‐ ‐ 876 Total Funding Sources704 475 182 125 125 125 125 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,862               OPEN SPACE CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:The Recreation & Parks Department is responsible for planning for future active and passive recreational needs for the community, including the purchase and development of additional land for parks, as well as  maintaining, expanding and improving facilities and equipment. Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 9 of 144 GENERAL FUNDOPEN SPACE PROJECTS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREOPEN SPACE CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Ashley ParkerChanges from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Open Space Debt Payment125             125             125             125             125             125             125            ‐              ‐              ‐             876 Underwood Property 270             225            17               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             ‐  512 Red Rocks Improvements 159            75               20               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             254 Wheeler Homestead & Nature Park Upgrades 150            50               20               ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             ‐  220 TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:704 475 182 125 125 125 125 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,862 0The Recreation & Parks Department is responsible for planning for future active and passive recreational needs for the community, including the purchase and development of additional land for parks, as well as  maintaining, expanding and improving facilities and equipment. 0Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 64 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Ashley ParkerSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Eng., Inspection, GC, Legal290                  130                  189                  125                  ‐                  208                  208                  50                    ‐                  ‐                  1,200                 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐                  20                    50                    ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  50                    50                    ‐                  ‐                  170                  Construction440                  476                  400                  1,349              449                  808                  581                  831                  940                  ‐                  6,274              Furniture & Equipment‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  Total CIP Costs:730                 626                 639                 1,474             449                 1,016             839                 931                 940                 ‐                  7,644             Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund (sourced from Property Taxes)‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  Secured Debt Proceeds (Penny for Path Fund)530                  358                  153                  250                  160                  100                  200                  230                  150                  ‐                  2,131              ‐                  Grant/Donation/Developer150                  230                  320                  1,087              289                  808                  531                  651                  690                  ‐                  4,756              Secured Debt Proceeds ‐                  Bond_Future‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  Highway Impact Fee‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  Recreation Impact Fee50                    38                    166                  137                  ‐                  108                  108                  50                    100                  ‐                  757                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  Other‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                   Total Funding Sources:730                 626                 639                 1,474             449                 1,016             839                 931                 940                 ‐                  7,644             The BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENT CIP projects (not including those listed as part of the City Center, Open Space and Roads CIP that are listed separately) address identified facility needs in the City's bicycle and pedestrian transportation and recreational infrastructure.  BIKE/PEDS IMPROVEMENT CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 10 of 144 GENERAL FUNDBIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREBIKE/PED IMPROVEMENTS CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Ashley ParkerChanges from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Williston Road Crosswalk Locations (TBD)150              150              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               300 Allen Rd. Shared Use Path (Upper)100              100              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               200 S. Dorset Street Shared Use Path100              50                 350              360              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               860 Kennedy Dr/Twin Oaks Crosswalk100              10                 ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               110 Spear Street Jug Handle Sidewalk100              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               100 Hinesburg Road Crosswalk Locations80                30                 ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               110 Airport Drive/Parkway Sidewalk & On‐Road Bike Lanes to Lime Kiln Road40                 186              ‐               ‐               ‐               100              100              300              300              ‐               1,026          RRFB Upgrades 30                 ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               30 Dorset Street Barriers20                 ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               20 City Rec Path Wayfinding Project10                 ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               10 Spear Street Bike/Ped Improvements‐               50                 100              500              ‐               ‐               50                 100              300              ‐               1,100          Queen City Park Road Sidewalk ‐               50                50                 ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               100 Kimball Avenue Shared Use Path‐               ‐               66                 304              159              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               529 Hinesburg Rd Bike Facilities‐               ‐               50                50                 150              250              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               500 Shelburne Rd Crosswalk Imp‐               ‐               23                93                 ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               116 Allen Rd. Sidewalks (Lower)‐               ‐               ‐               167              140              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               307 Shelburne Road Ped/Bike Facilities‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               58                 289              231              ‐               ‐               578 Queen City Park Road Shared Use Path‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               50                 250              ‐               ‐               ‐               300 Vale to Spear/Swift Streets  Path‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               558              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               558 Spear Street/UVM Bike/Ped Infrastructure‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               150              300              340              ‐               790 ‐ TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:730 626 639  1,474          449  1,016          839 931 940 ‐ 7,644          The BIKE/PED IMPROVEMENT CIP projects (not including those listed as part of the City Center, Open Space and Roads CIP that are listed separately) address identified facility needs in the City's bicycle and pedestrian transportation and recreational infrastructure.  Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 70 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Al ReedSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Furniture & Equipment29 35 30 63 37 66 37 31 65 39 432 ‐ Anticipated Debt Repayment‐ Debt Repayment ‐ 19 Gregory Fit UP‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Public Art‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total CIP Costs:29 35 30 63 37 66 37 31 65 39 432 Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund29 35 30 63 37 66 37 31 65 39 432  Grant_Donation_Developer Contribution‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Bond_Existing‐ ‐ Bond_Future‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 19 Gregory Drive Lease Payment‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Funding Sources29 35 30 63 37 66 37 31 65 39 432 IT CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:IT projects include purchase of computers for new employees, and replace and upgrade computers that have reached End of Life. Replacement of existing servers as they reach End of Life.  Includes all departments except Police Department.Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 11 of 144 GENERAL FUNDIT OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURETotal Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Changes from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:IT Hardware17  17  18  18  18  19  19  19  20  20 185 Servers12  18  12  45  19  47  18  12  45  19 247 TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:29  35  30  63  37  66  37  31  65  39 432 CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW: IT capital projects: IT projects include purchase of computers for new employees, and replace and upgrade computers that have reached End of Life. Replacement of existing servers as they reach End of Life. Includes all departments except Police Department.  Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 92 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Varies, see indiv sheetsSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Project  ten‐years:Financing ten‐years:Estimated Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal186                 1,652              2                       122                 2                      2                      2                      2                      2                      2                       1,974              Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  Construction6,003              11,033           20,018           6,018              18                   18                   18                   18                   18                   18                    43,180           Furniture & Equipment‐                  700                 ‐                  2,600              ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  3,300              Debt Repayment 336                 1,062              1,062              1,630              1,630              1,630              1,630              1,630              1,630              1,630              13,871          To CIP Reserve FundTotal CIP Costs:6,525             14,447          21,082          10,370          1,650             1,650             1,650             1,650             1,650             1,650             48,454          13,871          Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund5                      35                   20                   20                   20                   20                   20                   20                   20                   20                   200                 Reserve Fund303                 956                 956                 956                 956                 956                 956                 956                 956                 956                 8,906             Grant_Donation_Developer Contribution‐                  ‐                  1,000              1,000              ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  2,000              Bond_ExistingCity Debt Proceeds6,184              13,350           19,000           7,720              ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                   46,254           ‐                  Public Facility Impact Fee34                   106                 106                 106                 106                 106                 106                 106                 106                 106                 990                Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  ‐                  Other‐                  ‐                  ‐                  568                 568                 568                 568                 568                 568                 568                 3,976             Total Funding Sources6,525             14,447          21,082          10,370          1,650             1,650             1,650             1,650             1,650             1,650             48,454          13,871          ADMINISTRATION CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:The Administration portion of the CIP includes the expenses for public art  city‐wide, the planned recreation center at Vetrans Memorial Park, and a proposed Performing Arts Center.Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 12 of 144 GENERAL FUNDADMINISTRATION OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURECIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Changes from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Indoor Recreation Facility6,184        13,350     ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐           19,534 Public Art5                35  20  20  20  20  20  20  20  20 200 Performing Arts Facility‐            ‐            20,000      8,720       ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐           28,720 TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:6,189  13,385  20,020 8,740 20  20  20  20  20  20 48,454 ADMINISTRATION includes capital projects managed by the City Manager's Office but excluding those in City Center, Parks, and recreation paths and sidewalks.The indoor recreation facility has been moved from the City Center portion of the CIP to the Administration.  Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 96 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEBOND OBLIGATIONS CIP PROJECT:Department Contact:  City Manager's Office ‐ Tom HubbardFINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction‐ Furniture & Equipment‐ Bond Obligations193 88 84 81 77 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 523 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:193 88 84 81 77 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 523 Funding Sources:General Fund (sourced from Property Taxes)193 88 84 81 77 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 523 ‐ Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution‐ Bond_Existing‐ Bond_Future‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐ Other‐ TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:193 88 84 81 77 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 523 Includes all bond obligations for which there are no other sources of funding.  This includes the Public Works Facility (2000), Emergency Communications (2003), Dorset Street Fire Station Improvements (2004), Kennedy Drive (2004), Lime Kiln Bridge Replacement (2004). It excludes the Police Station which has funding sourced from impact fees and local option tax and is shown within the Police Department portion of the Capital Improvement Program and the 2017 TIF District Bond which is shown on the City Center portion.  Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 13 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Library‐Jennifer MurraySUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Lega‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Furniture & Equipment‐ ‐ 110 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 110 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total CIP Costs:‐ ‐ 110 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 110 Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund‐ ‐ 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Grant_Donation_Developer Contribution‐ ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 Bond_Existing‐ Bond_Future‐ ‐ ‐ Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐ 19 Gregory Drive Lease Payment‐ Total Funding Sources‐ ‐ 110 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 110 Replace the Bookmobile in order to coninue providing library materials to summer camps and special events, and begin delivery to housing for older adults.LIBRARY CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 14 of 144 GENERAL FUNDLIBRARY OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURECIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Changes from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Bookmobile replacement‐            ‐            110           ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐            ‐           110         ‐          TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:‐           ‐           110         ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐          110         Library ‐Replace the Bookmobile in order to coninue providing library materials to summer camps and special events, and begin delivery to housing for older adults.Intention that BKM will last through summer 2020. Fundraising for new book van will begin in FY21 towards a purchase in FY 22.  Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 101 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDepartment Contact:Lou BreseeSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Leg130 110 10 ‐ ‐ 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 260 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Construction100 930 300 50 ‐ 50 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,480 Furniture & Equipment‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Bond Obligations‐ Debt Payment‐ Total CIP Costs:230 1,040 310 50 ‐ 60 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,740 Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund (sourced from Property Taxes)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Current Bond‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Sewer Fund90 170 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 360 Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution70 770 120 25 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 985 Anticipated Debt Proceeds30 40 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 80 ‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ Other ‐ Energy Revolving Fund40 60 80 25 ‐ 60 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 315 ‐ Total Funding Sources230 1,040               310 50 ‐ 60 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,740               ENERGY CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:These projects are designed to reduce both the cost and use of energy in the City. The funds include study contracts and implementation costs if the studies indicate an appropriate benefit.Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 15 of 144 GENERAL FUNDENERGY PROJECTS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURECIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:Lou BreseeChanges from FY 2019‐2028 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Facility Stewardship20  30  ‐           ‐           ‐           60  50  ‐            ‐           ‐          160 Adaptive Signal Control110          110          110          50  ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐            ‐           ‐          380 Sewer Outfall Turbine100          900          200          ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐           ‐            ‐           ‐          1,200 ‐ TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:230  1,040 310 50  ‐  60  50  ‐  ‐  ‐ 1,740 0ENERGY PROJECTS CIP: These projects are designed to reduce both the cost and use of energy in the City. The funds include study contracts and implementation costs if the studies indicate an appropriate benefit.0Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 104 of 144 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCECITY CENTER CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Department Contact:Economic & Community Development/Ilona BlanchardSUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)Prior YearsFY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Reserve ten‐years:Project  ten‐years:Financing ten‐years:Estimated Costs Subtotaled:Studies, Design, Eng., Insp., GC, Legal5,775                 2,449            1,802            2,190            938               585               ‐              ‐               ‐              ‐               ‐               7,964 Land1,092                 ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐              ‐               ‐              ‐               ‐               ‐ Construction21,128               6,382            8,880            14,718          5,036            5,870            ‐              ‐               ‐              ‐               ‐               40,886     Furniture & Equipment‐ 802               ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐              ‐               ‐              ‐               ‐               802 City Debt Service583 971               989                1,005            995               985               972             961              952             939              924              9,693 TIF District Debt Service390 467                1,234            1,997            3,206            3,268            3,634          3,616          3,596          3,676           3,665           28,359     To City Center CIP Reserve Fund3,821                 750               860               860               860               860               860             860              860             860              860              8,490        8,490 38,053 Total Project Costs (Estimated): 27,995               9,633 10,682         16,908         5,974 6,455 ‐ ‐              ‐              ‐ ‐               49,652 Funding Sources Subtotaled:General Fund3,821                 750               860               860               860               860               860             860              860             860              860              8,490        City Center CIP Reserve Fund589  1,637            890               907               899               889               877             867              859             847              834              763  8,745 Grant, Capital Campaign, Developer Contribution6,155                 1,237            2,583            5,997            ‐                ‐                ‐              ‐               ‐              ‐               ‐               9,818 ‐ City Debt Proceeds10,756               4,234            ‐                350               ‐                ‐                ‐              ‐               ‐              ‐               ‐               4,585 Highway Impact Fee1,780                 381               ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐              ‐               ‐              ‐               ‐               381 Recreation Impact Fee110 ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐              ‐               ‐              ‐               ‐               ‐  ‐ Public Facility Impact Fee‐ 97 99 98 97 96 95               94                93                91                90                 949 TIF District Financing Proceeds9,032                 3,017            8,099            10,560          5,974            6,455            ‐              ‐               ‐              ‐               ‐               34,106     Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐ Other156 ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐                ‐              ‐               ‐              ‐               ‐               ‐  ‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)390 467                1,234            1,997            3,206            3,268            3,634          3,616          3,596          3,676           3,665           28,359     Total Project Funding:27,995               9,633 10,682         16,908         5,974 6,455 ‐ ‐              ‐              ‐ ‐ 49,652    Total Debt Service:390 1,438           2,222           3,002           4,202           4,253           4,606         4,577         4,548         4,615          4,589          38,053 Total Reserve Funding Sourced From General Fund3,821                 750               860               860               860               860               860 860 860             860 860              8,490 Summary of costs and expenditures for TIF District elibible capital City Center projects including stormwater/wetland impact mitigation.  FY21 includes the construction of 180 Market Street (Library, City Hall & Senior Center), continues design and right of way acquisition for Garden Street and the Wlliston Road Streetscape.  Funds are shown for other potential projects. Funding is a mix of TIF District Financing, Reserve Funds, Impact Fees and anticipated or secured debt.  Grants and donations are included for the Williston Road Streetscape (secured) and the pedestrian bridge over I‐89 (unsecured).   Debt payments for completed projects (Market Street, City Center Park Phase I) are also shown.Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 16 of 144 GENERAL FUNDCITY CENTER OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITURECITY CENTER PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Total Estimated Revenues:Total Estimated Savings:Department Contact:   Ilona BlanchardChanges from FY 2020‐2029 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000) Prior YearsFY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total*Library, Senior Center, City Hall15,577             6,510            ‐               ‐               ‐ ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               6,510        Williston Road Streetscape316                 142               951               1,051           ‐ ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               2,144        Garden Street795                  1,560            5,182           ‐               ‐ ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               6,743        Pedestrian/Bicycle Access at I‐89 Exit 14180                  1,300            2,979           8,568           ‐ ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               12,847 City Center Park1,233               ‐                ‐               190              1,032              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               1,222        Urban Park & Festival Streets‐ ‐                300               3,249           813                  ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               4,362        Parking Garage‐ ‐                170               2,750           3,140              6,315           ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               12,375 Stormwater & Wetland Mitigation‐ 120                1,100           1,100           990                  140              ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               3,450        Market Street9,893               ‐                ‐               ‐               ‐ ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐               ‐ PROJECT TOTAL EXPENDITURES:27,995 9,633  10,682 16,908 5,974  6,455        ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 49,652 NOTES:  * Total excludes prior years; the estimated total expenditure for all years (prior & future) is:77,647$        See City Center Grand Total forTransfers from the General Fund to the Reserve Fund.0CITY CENTER:  Expenditures are proposed in FY2021 for the construction of a  Library, Senior Center and City Hall, reinitiated design for Garden Street and potential construction, continued engineering (ROW acquisition/final design) for the streetscape on the south side of Williston Road.   A placeholder for expenditures for  design costs related to a pedestrian/bicycle improvement at Exit 14 and Phase II of City Center Park is included.  Funding is a mixture of reserve funds, impact fees, grants, capital campaigns, and debt proceeds backed by TIF District increment, reserve funds, and impact fees.  See the Grand Total City Center CIP page or individual project pages for fund source breakdown.  All TIF Debt must be incurred by March 30, 2022 in FY 22.0Project expenditures reflect best information available.  Public Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 109 of 144 GENERAL FUND ‐ HIGHWAYSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:PavingDEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs (Expenses):Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐            Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐            Construction 750             1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000        9,750        Furniture & Equipment‐            TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:750            1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000        9,750       Funding Sources (Revenue):General Fund (sourced from property taxes)750             1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000        9,750        Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution‐            Current Bond‐            Anticipated Bond‐            Roads Improvement Impact Fee‐            Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐            Other‐            TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:750            1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000         1,000        9,750       STATUS: Annual maintenanceDESCRIPTION:  Restore and maintain City roadways through pavement resurfacing.  City‐wide.  OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT:  JUSTIFICATION:  Maintain city streets in a safe condition.  Vehicles create wear and tear on roadway surface which can result in potholes and other hazards.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT:   AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Public Works/Justin RabidouxPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 19 of 144 GENERAL FUND ‐ HIGHWAYSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Removal of infected ash trees0DEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction 100            200            200            200            200            150           1,050 Furniture & Equipment‐ TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:100  200  200  200  200  150 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 1,050 Funding Sources:General Fund100            200            200            200            200            150            ‐             ‐             ‐             ‐            1,050 Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution‐ Current Bond‐ Anticipated Bond‐ Road Improvement Impact Fee‐ Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐ Other‐ TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:100  200  200  200  200  150 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 1,050 STATUS:  Hope to begin this multi‐year effort in FY'20DESCRIPTION:  The City owns 770 ash trees and with the coming spread of EAB disease, we need to 1) remove the trees before they become infected and 2) replant the following year with a TBD species.OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: N/AJUSTIFICATION:  To avoid the loss of 770 city street trees to disease, we are proactively removing them and then replantingAVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: Year 1 is removal, all following years are removal and replantingAVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Public Works/Justin RabidouxPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 23 of 144 GENERAL FUND ‐ POLICE DEPARTMENTCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Vehicle Replacementn/an/aDEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction‐ Furniture & Equipment129 155 155 188 189 144 147 192 147 150 1,596 Bond Obligation‐ TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:129 155 155 188 189 144 147 192 147 150 1,596 Funding Sources:General Fund (sourced from Property Taxes)126 151 152 184 185 140 143 188 143 146 1,558 Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution‐ Current Bond‐ Anticipated Bond‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Trade‐In Generated Revenues3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 38 Other‐ TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:129             155             155             188             189             144             147             192             147             150             1,596 STATUS:  Regular ongoing replacement functionDESCRIPTION:  Routine fleet replacementOPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: noneJUSTIFICATION:  The organization has adopted a vehicle repalcement schedule that contemplates mitigating maintenance costs, technology, and operational needs.AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT:AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Police / Shawn P. BurkePublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 39 of 144 GENERAL FUND ‐ POLICE DEPARTMENTCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Communications, Computers, Electronicsn/an/aDEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction‐ Furniture & Equipment76                 230 162 88                91                 127 127 127 130 130 1,288 Bond Obligation‐ TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:76  230 162 88 91  127 127 127 130 130 1,288 Funding Sources:General Fund (sourced from Property Taxes)76                 230 162 88                91                 127 127 127 130 130 1,288 Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution‐ Current Bond‐ Anticipated Bond‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐ Other‐ TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:76  230             162             88 91  127             127             127             130             130             1,288 STATUS:DESCRIPTION:  Replacement of computer servers and components (switches, routers, patch panels), radios, and mobile data terminals.  Each cruiser is equiped with a in‐car video, mobile data terminal for field reporting,  to query  databases, and for wireless call dispatch.  Incremental radio replacement will insure that officers have communication with dispatchers and other officers.  Includes telephone systemOPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: noneJUSTIFICATION:  Computer, radio and electronics systems need to be operational at all times.    All infrastructure requires routine replacement.  Industry standard is to replace servers at approximate 5 year intervals while mobile video cameras  have a life cycle of approximately 10 years.  AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT: AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Police / Shawn P. BurkePublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 43 of 144 GENERAL FUND ‐ RECREATION AND PARKSCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Bleacher ReplacementN/A0DEPARTMENT/STAFF CONTACT:FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Engineering, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction‐ Furniture & Equipment 10            10 Anticipated Debt Repayment‐ TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS:‐ 10  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐           10 Funding Sources:General Fund‐           10            10 Grant/Donation/Developer Contribution‐ Current Bond‐ Anticipated Debt‐           ‐           ‐           ‐          ‐ Road Improvement Impact Fee‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ Trade‐In Generated Revenues‐ Other:  Open Space Fund‐ TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES:‐  10  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 10 STATUS:DESCRIPTION:  There are two damaged bleachers at Veteran’s Memorial that need to come out of rotation as they pose a safety threat to users.  This would allow for those two lower bleachers to be removed.  OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: noneJUSTIFICATION: Purchasing of two new portable bleachers to replace antiquated systems at Jaycee and Upper Farrell will bring us into full alignment at all parks. AVG ESTIMATED SAVINGS PER YEAR:FINANCIALS COMMENT:  AVE ESTIMATED REVENUES PER YEAR:Recreation & Parks |Holly ReesPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 49 of 144 II. SEWERPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 119 of 144 SEWERCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AGGREGATED BY COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCECIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Department Contact:SUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Costs Subtotaled:Current Bond Payments 1,272         1,272         1,272         1,272         1,272         1,272         1,272         1,272         1,272         1,272        12,721 Studies, Design, Eng., Inspection, GC, Legal450  450  350  150 50               ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 1,450 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐ Construction260  280  3,430         9,500         7,900         1,850        700  500  200 ‐ 24,620 Furniture & Equipment (Fleet Purchase)40               70               135 80               ‐ 75               ‐ 80               ‐  ‐ 480 Revolving Loan Repayment (New BB & Kennedy 3)‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 0‐ Total CIP Costs:2,022 2,072 5,187  11,002 9,222 3,197 1,972 1,852 1,472 1,272 39,271 Funding Sources Subtotaled:Colchester portion of Airport Parkway Bond742  742  742  742  742  742  742  742  742  742 7,423 State Revolving Loan Fund250  470  580  9,650         7,750         1,850        500  500 ‐ 21,550 Sewer Fund (Raised by Fees)1,030        860  3,865        610  730  605  730  610  730 53010,298 Total Funding Sources:2,022  2,072  5,187  11,002 9,222  3,197  1,972  1,852  1,472  1,272 39,271 Sewer Capital Expenditures are replacement and maintenance based to keep levels of service consistant, improve the quality of service or reduce maintenance costs from year to year.  Capital Expenditures related to Barlett Bay  upgrades may include a capacity expansion  to meet future demand increases.Justin Rabidoux | Public WorksPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 120 of 144 SEWERCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AGGREGATED BY COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCECIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Department Contact:Justin RabidouxChanges from FY 2018‐2027SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Fleet Replacement40              70              135            80  ‐             75  ‐             80 ‐                 ‐ 480 Airport Parkway Outfall50              270 230            ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             ‐                 ‐ 550 Bartlett Bay Updgrade400  400  3,200          8,000          6,000         ‐              ‐              ‐             ‐                 ‐ 18,000 Hinesburg Rd. PS and Dorset St. FM ‐  ‐  100             150             1,750          1,700         ‐              ‐             ‐                 ‐ 3,700 Lane Press Pump Station & Force Main‐  ‐ 50  1,500         ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             ‐                 ‐ 1,550 Inflow & Infiltration Reduction‐  ‐ ‐              ‐              ‐              150            ‐              ‐             ‐                 ‐ 150 Gravity Sleeves‐  ‐ ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              500             500            ‐                 ‐ 1,000 Pump Station Telemetry60              60              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐             ‐                 ‐ 120 Pump Station Upgrades200 ‐  200            ‐              200            ‐              200            ‐             200                ‐ 1,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:750  800  3,915 9,730 7,950 1,925 700 580 200 ‐ 26,550 Sewer Capital Expenditures are replacement and maintenance based to keep levels of service consistant, improve service quality or reduce maintenance costs from year to year.  Capital Expenditures related to Barlett Bay  upgrades may include a capacity expansion to meet future demand increases.NonePublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 121 of 144 III. STORMWATERPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 131 of 144 STORMWATERCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES  AGGREGATED BY COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCECIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Department Contact:SUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Costs Subtotaled:Current Note‐ Studies, Design, Eng., Inspection, GC, Legal‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐ Construction1,481         1,930         1,250         1,000         1,576         2,047         2,000         2,200         2,000         2,000        17,484 Furniture & Equipment56              4                 306  254 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 620 To Reserve Fund115  115  115  520  150  200  200  200  200  200 2,015 Total Storm Water CIP Costs:1,652 2,049 1,671 1,774 1,726 2,247 2,200 2,400 2,200 2,200 20,119 Funding Sources Subtotaled:Reserve Fund61              9                 366  574 70               120  120  120  200  200 1,840 Grant_Donation_Developer Contribution725  819  324  250  125  125 125  125  125  125 2,868 TIF District Financing‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐ Other‐ Revenues (Water repayment)‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 80               80               80               80               ‐  ‐ 320 Other‐Shelburne Intermunicipal Agreement80               80               80               80               80               80               80               80               80               80              800 Stormwater Fund (Raised by Stormwater Fees)786  1,141        901  870  1,371         1,842         1,795         1,995         1,795         1,795        14,291 Total Identified Stormwater Funding Sources:1,652 2,049 1,671 1,774 1,726 2,247 2,200 2,400 2,200 2,200 20,119 The Stormwater CIP includes upgrades to the Stormwater management capacity of the City, specialized fleet vehicles used in maintenance operations. Funding is a mix of Stormwater Fund (raised by fees), reserve funds, grants and special assessments.Justin RabidouxPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 132 of 144 STORMWATERCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE (BY PROJECT)CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Department Contact:Justin RabidouxChanges from FY 2018 ‐2027 CIP:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Fleet Replacement171           119             421             774               150            200            200            200            200            200            2,635          Stormwater Projects1,481       1,930          1,250          1,000            1,576         2,047        2,000        2,200        2,000         2,000        17,484        ‐              TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:1,652       2,049          1,671          1,774            1,726         2,247        2,200        2,400        2,200         2,200        20,119        The Stormwater CIP includes upgrades to the Stormwater management capacity of the City and specialized fleet vehicles used in maintenance operations.  Funding is a mix of Stormwater Fund (raised by fees), grants and special assessments , and reserve funds.NonePublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 133 of 144 IV. WATERPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 136 of 144 WATERCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AGGREGATED BY COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCECIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Department Contact:SUMMARY FINANCIALS  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:Costs Subtotaled:Current Bond Payments 138  112  107  102 97              557 Studies, Design, Eng., Inspection, GC, Legal33               ‐  ‐ 43               20               ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 96 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐  ‐  ‐ 10               ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 10 Construction123  490 ‐  300  300  150 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 1,363 Furniture & Equipment‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 40               ‐  ‐  ‐ 40 Revolving Loan Repayment (New BB)‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 80               80               80               80               ‐  ‐ 320 Total CIP Costs:294  602  107  455  497  230  120 80  ‐  ‐ 2,386 Funding Sources Subtotaled:‐ State Revolving Loan Fund‐Interfund borrowing‐  ‐  ‐  320  300 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 620 Water Fund (Raised by Fees)294 602  107  135  197  230  120 80               ‐  ‐  1766Total Funding Sources:294  602  107  455  497  230  120 80  ‐  ‐ 2,386 Water Capital Expenditures are maintenance, replacement, or improvement based to sustain or improve levels of service, improve the quality of service or, reduce maintenance costs from year to year.Justin Rabidoux | Public WorksPublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 137 of 144 WATERCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AGGREGATED BY COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCECIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW:Department Contact:Justin RabidouxChanges SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES  (in $1,000)FY 21FY 22FY 23FY 24FY 25FY 26FY 27FY 28FY 29FY 30Total:High Service 2 By‐Pass5  50                 ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              55 AMR & Meter Replacement123 90                 ‐              213 Dorset Street East Tank Booster Station‐              ‐              ‐              353 380 80                 120 80                 ‐              1,013 National Guard Avenue PRV Vault‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              20                 150 ‐              ‐              170 U‐Mall Flow Control Valve Vault20                 150 ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              170 Dorset to Spear Interstate Crossing Line8  200 ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              ‐              208 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ TOTAL ESTIMATED CIP EXPENDITURES:156 490 ‐ 353 400 230 120 80 ‐ ‐ 1,829 Water Capital Expenditures are replacement, maintenance, and improvement based to keep levels of service consistent, improve service quality or reduce maintenance costs from year to year.NonePublic Hearing Draft FY 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Program - South Burlington, VT - Updated 12/12/2019Page 138 of 144 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager South Burlington City Council FROM: South Burlington Planning Commission c/o Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Report DATE: December 16, 2019 City Council meeting Enclosed with this memo please find the Analysis Report completed by the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Interim Zoning Committee. The Committee presented the Report to the Planning Commission on August 13th. At that meeting, the Commission requested some additional benchmarking, research, and outreach. That supplemental information was presented to the Commission on November 12th. Both the original report and supplemental findings are enclosed. The Commission reviewed the Interim Zoning Bylaw to confirm the expected deliverable: “Undertake an analysis of the program for the Transfer of Development Rights established in and by the Land Development Regulations and recommend options for its implementation.” The Commission determined at its November 12th meeting that this would be the appropriate time to check in the with Council. Based on the Interim Bylaw’s request, Commissioners considered it important to have the Council determine whether full review and evaluation of those recommendations, and preparation of amendments to the City’s Land Development Regulations / Comprehensive Plan – the principal recommended next step in the Report – should be prioritized during the remaining time under Interim Zoning. The Report contains recommendations for significant policy changes in the City. The Commission has begun to examine these recommendations, but determined it should have the Council weigh in on this question before spending significant time evaluating the recommendations and drafting any possible amendments to the Land Development Regulations or Comprehensive Plan. Requested Feedback: In providing the TDR Interim Zoning Committee’s Analysis Report to the Council, the Commission is requesting feedback on the following: 1.Whether the Draft TDR Interim Zoning Report as written meets the Councils direction with respect to form and subject areas addressed. 2.If the report does meet the Councils overall expectations, whether the Council wishes the Commission to undertake next steps on the TDR Interim Zoning Report (detailed review and policy determination, completion of recommendations,) 3.Whether the Council wishes the Commission to undertake development of amendments to the Land Development Regulations (and possibly the Comprehensive Plan) at this time 4.How to prioritize this work alongside the Commission’s other work under Interim Zoning 5.Any feedback Councilors or the Council may wish to provide on the recommendations contained within the TDR Analysis Report Timeline & Proposed Approach for TDR Work Should the Council choose to direct the Commission to undertake the next phases of work on this project, the Commission offers the following considerations: 1.Commission be directed to evaluate the TDR Analysis Report and present its policy recommendations to the City Council. Timeline: March/April 2020 2.Based on Council guidance in March, Commission be directed to assess specific possible sending & receiving areas, draft bylaw language and zoning map amendments establishing new sending and receiving areas and any other recommended changes to the Land Development Regulations, and to perform public outreach on same. Timeline: Fall 2020 Staff has provided the attached Status Report on each of the Commission’s assigned Interim Zoning projects for context. Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sbvt.gov Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Report - 7-30-19 Brief History of Zoning in the Southeast Quadrant prior to 2006 In the 1960s, the entire SEQ had 5-acre zoning i.e. minimum of 5 acres per house lot. Beginning in the 1970s, a new “Agricultural-Rural Residential” zone was established. Under these rules, housing was allowed at a density of 1 housing unit per 10 acres, except on parcels of 50 acres or more, where housing was allowed at 2 housing unit per acre. This inequity led to re-consideration of how to create a scheme where all lands, regardless of the underlying parcel size, could allow similar densities while still promoting conservation and clustering. In 1992, the City adopted new regulations after a four-year planning process. These regulations assigned a density of 1.2 units per acre, to all lands within the SEQ and introduced the “transfer” concept that is still in the zoning today. In 1999 the voters approved the one-cent open space tax (to be used by the City to acquire open space) and in the early 2000s, the City began to re-consider which areas were best designated as open space. The Open Space Strategy prepared in 2001 pointed out that the most important SEQ lands from a habitat and natural resource perspective were the lands East of Spear Street, the interior lands between Dorset Street and Spear Street, the lands East and West of Dorset Street and the lands along Muddy Brook, and other key wildlife travel corridors. The Arrowwood Ecological Assessment prepared in 2004 set out these general principles: •Do not bi-sect or otherwise fragment the remaining open spaces (especially woods and wetlands) •Give extra protection to larger wild parcels •Maintain natural corridors on the landscape •Maintain stepping stone small wildlife habitats •Maintain wide wildlife corridors •Do not surround important habitats with development •Protect natural corridors such as wetlands, streams, and ridges •Protect with protective buffers caves and other bat habitats In 2003, the City consolidated its Zoning and Subdivision regulations into the “Land Development Regulations” and also initiated a requirement for a Master Plan for certain types of development, including the development of more than 10 dwelling units in the SEQ. 2 In 2006, the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations’ SEQ chapters were completely re-written, establishing 5 subdistricts and, under the authority of 24 V.S.A. § 4423 (included as Attachment A), the current system of “transferable development rights” (TDRs). Two elements of the 1992 regulations were retained: 1.Overall density – and the density associated with all lands – would remain at 1.2 acres within the SEQ, so that no lands were “down-zoned” or “up-zoned”; and 2.The total theoretically allowable buildout density of 3,900 units would remain within the SEQ, and there would not be a “transfer” of that density out of the SEQ to other parts of the City. The 2006 Regulations divided the SEQ into five districts: •NRP-Natural Resource Protection •NR- Neighborhood Residential •NR-T-Neighborhood Residential Transition; residential or conservation district •VR-Village Residential •VC-Village Commercial Development in the NRP and NRT areas was limited. Generally, for lots in existence on or before June 22, 1992 in the SEQ-NRP sub-district where the lot is less than fifteen (15) acres in size, the Development Review Board may permit no more than one (1) single family dwelling. Where the lot is fifteen (15) acres or more in contiguous area, the Development Review Board may allow a subdivision of no more than three (3) lots and construction of one (1) single family dwelling unit on each of these lots.1 As a quid pro quo for imposing this restrictive zoning, the City provided NRP and NRT landowners (the “Sending Areas”) with the ability to sell 1.2 TDRs for every acre (or about 1 TDR per 0.83 acre) of gross NRP land. The TDRs may be sold to other landowners or developers in the SEQ outside of NRP and NRT zones (the “Receiving Areas”). Each TDR entitles a buyer to develop one incremental unit. Upon a transfer, the selling landowner is required to provide a permanent conservation easement in the relevant deed over a number of acres equal to the number of TDRs sold divided by 1.2. At inception of the program in 2006, there were approximately 2066 TDRs available for sale. Today, there are estimated to be 1357 TDRs remaining (1241 if 116 TDRs owned by the City are excluded). Thus, it would appear that approximately 584 TDRs were used of which approximately 114 were severed and transferred through the City’s Transfer of Development Rights program within the SEQ and 470 were used intra-parcel within the SEQ and the associated “conserved lands” do not seem to benefit from a permanent conservation easement. The committee recommends further investigation to determine whether action is required to permanently conserve these intra-parcel conserved lands 1 For more detail see Sections 9.05 and 9.12 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 3 As required by 24 V.S.A. § 4423, the City should develop and maintain a map of areas from which development rights have been severed. The process of developing this map would allow the City to definitively determine the impact of the TDR program to date and be the basis for an accurate database of TDRs used (severed) and TDRs remaining. In private transactions, rights similar to “TDRs” have been severed from land but have not been utilized by any Receiving Area as contemplated by the TDR program. There is no easily accessible listing of TDRs available for sale. Private negotiations between TDR holders and developers have set the price and account for the wide variation. The selling price for these TDRs has ranged from approximately $9,682 to $15,000, with an average price of approximately $12,000. State Defined Purpose for Establishing TDR Programs 10 V.S.A. § 6301. Purpose It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage and assist the maintenance of the present uses of Vermont's agricultural, forest, and other undeveloped land and to prevent the accelerated residential and commercial development thereof; to preserve and to enhance Vermont's scenic natural resources; to strengthen the base of the recreation industry and to increase employment, income, business, and investment; to enable the citizens of Vermont to plan its orderly growth in the face of increasing development pressures in the interests of the public health, safety, and welfare; and to encourage the use of conservation and preservation tools to support farm, forest, and related enterprises, thereby strengthening Vermont's economy to improve the quality of life for Vermonters, and to maintain the historic settlement pattern of compact village and urban centers separated by rural countryside. Title 24 § 4423. Transfer of development rights In order to accomplish the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 6301, bylaws may contain provisions for the transfer of development rights. The Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) has produced a memorandum with guidance for implementing TDR programs under this statute (the “TDR Guidance Document”). The VNRC’s TDR Guidance Document is included as Attachment C. The document indicates that the intent of the TDR statutory scheme is to shift development away from sensitive open space and into “downtowns, villages and other growth centers” and introduces the TDR program as such: “Municipal plans frequently designate areas for higher-density, compact development, such as growth centers, downtowns, villages, and also areas where little or no development is desired, including farm- and forestlands, natural resource protection areas, and open space areas. When communities try to implement plans by restricting development in outlying areas, they’re frequently faced with protests from landowners who argue that they’re being deprived of the economic value 4 tied to the potential development of their land. Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) is a tool that may help reconcile community and landowner interests.” The TDR Guidance Document also describes as an “important condition for a successful TDR program” that there be: “Sufficient market pressure in sending areas to establish development value and sufficient market demand for development in receiving areas to motivate the purchase of development rights and use of density bonuses.” The TDR Guidance Document also describes as an “important condition for a successful TDR program” that there be: “Some administrative mechanism … to connect potential buyers and sellers. This is particularly true in small communities where there are few potential buyers and sellers, and there may be no interested buyers when sellers wish to sell, or vice versa. Some form of brokerage or ‘banking’ of development rights—for example through a land banking program or local land trust—can help facilitate this process, but such efforts often require a service area larger than an individual municipality.” Evaluation of the TDR Program in South Burlington In South Burlington, the TDR program has successfully created only 95 acres of perpetually conserved land in the SEQ (a further 370 acres have been conserved within developments where TDR density has been used internally but do not seem to benefit from a permanent conservation easement). But, the limited receiving areas, as well as the absence of a mechanism to connect TDR holders with potential buyers, may not have created sufficient demand to develop a robust marketplace for TDR holders. Also, members of the community have expressed concern that the SEQ defined receiving areas may need to be updated given the growing importance to them of conserving open space and precious natural resources. From a purely conservation point of view the current South Burlington TDR Program is problematic in that TDR Sending and TDR Receiving areas are all in the SEQ which is where almost all of South Burlington’s remaining open space is located. The consequence can be dense developments in areas where our LDRs and Comprehensive Plan encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation and continued agriculture. 5 The Charge of the Interim Zoning TDR committee The charge of the Interim Zoning TDR Committee is to “undertake an analysis of the program for the Transfer of Development Rights established in and by the Land Development Regulations and recommend options for its implementation” for the reasons set forth in the City of South Burlington Interim Bylaws resolution adopted November 13, 2018. The “Purpose” section of the Interim Bylaw is included in Attachment C for reference. The Interim Bylaws resolution focuses on preserving open space and states “our community values a balance among our natural, open spaces and our developed, residential and commercial, spaces so that the flora and fauna coexist alongside human dwellings, schools, industries and services” and continues that “we must examine carefully the intensity and nature of development and its potential impacts on the balance that we seek to maintain… the City needs to review developable lands outside of the Transit Overlay District and certain business park areas, including undeveloped open spaces, forest blocks and working landscapes such as the City’s remaining large farms and parcels in the Institutional & Agricultural District.” The Interim Bylaws also focus on fiscal responsibility and states that “South Burlington must continue to safeguard against the possibilities that the costs of emergency services and construction and maintenance of sewers and roads will outstrip City revenues such that City residents and businesses will face the prospect of an acute increase in their tax burden.” The Committee also considers a commitment to the established TDR marketplace, to landowners in Sending Areas and to the need to continue efforts to address the acute shortage in the City of affordable housing at all price points, to be important, and has taken into account the increasing environmental conservation regulations being considered for adoption within the LDRs, as well as potential removal from development of certain areas as a result of the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee’s Prioritization review. These drivers, the principles set forth in the VNRC’s TDR Guidance Document and the sources cited in Attachment E inform the work and recommendations of the Interim Zoning TDR committee. 6 Committee Recommendations In response to its charge, the committee has considered four options: 1.Eliminate the TDR program and adopt more conventional zoning. 2.Retain current zoning but purchase and retire the outstanding TDRs. 3.Retain the TDR program substantially as is (subject to changes proposed in the Draft LDR, Article 9 Amendments - Attachment B). 4.Revise the TDR program to further the goals set forth above and in the City’s Comprehensive Plan - “Promote conservation of identified important natural areas, open spaces, aquatic resources, air quality, arable land and other agricultural resources, historic sites and structures, and recreational assets” (subject to changes proposed in the Draft LDR, Article 9 Amendments - Attachment B). Each of these options is discussed in more detail below. Options 1.Eliminate the TDR program and replace it with a Conservation Zoning District Under this option, the TDR program would be eliminated, and in its place, the following zoning changes would be adopted: a.Rezone the SEQ (or some portions of the SEQ) consistent with conservation zoning – e.g. one unit every 5, 10 or 25 acres b.Limit subdivisions and/or Set a minimum lot size c.Provide that developments shall not encroach into Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas, should minimize impacts on natural resource areas and shall be compact on any lot An example of this type of Conservation Zoning District: Purpose: The purpose of a Conservation District is to protect lands designated on a conservation zoning map which include areas of high public and environmental value or which present public hazards. Allowed Uses may include: Agriculture Forestry Outdoor Recreation (excluding structures) 7 Uses shall not adversely affect fragile soils or vegetation, impair the quantity or quality of surface and ground water or cause soil erosion. Land in the Conservation District may be considered with contiguous and noncontiguous land for a planned residential development or planned unit development in another zoning district, and such land may be counted for density and coverage purposes. In no case, however, shall a new residential use be allowed on land within the Conservation District. The principal impetus for this proposal is the perception that the TDR program is complex, and as such it’s impacts and implications are not well understood by the public. It is also acknowledged that the TDR program has been subject to various legal challenges and is presently not in effect by reason of a recent court decision. Finally, it is acknowledged that South Burlington is the only Vermont municipality that has adopted a meaningful TDR program (Stowe has a small TDR program that has been used to control the pattern of development along the Mountain Road (Route 108). Williston has also used TDRs in isolated cases.) If this approach were adopted, the City and residents would need to rely on more traditional conservation measures to preserve open space. Such measures could include contributions by landowners to land trusts, use of City open space funds, conservation organizations and private philanthropy to purchase land or to purchase and retire TDRs. The benefits of this approach are: •Simplicity and transparency •Consistency with the zoning and conservation tools utilized by other municipalities The detriments of this approach are: •There would likely be some development in areas now designated as NRP •TDR holders may feel unfairly treated •Rights purchased by intermediaries representing TDRs would become worthless. These intermediaries might feel aggrieved. •Future regulatory changes could change zoning and thus undermine the conservation intent of this option Counsel has advised that landowners/TDR holders should not have valid legal claims against the City if the TDR program were eliminated as proposed. 2.Retain current zoning but purchase and retire the outstanding TDRs. Under this option, the City would raise funds to purchase and retire TDRs. The City could use open space funds, issue bonds or try to enlist conservation organizations and private philanthropy to purchase TDRs. The goal of this approach would be to achieve the conservation goals originally contemplated by the TDR program, but retire the program and the perceived concerns associated with the program. 8 Setting a market price for the TDRs could be difficult. One option could be to hold a “Reverse Dutch Auction” where the City would begin by setting a low price for each TDR until a bidder agrees to sell at the stated price, with the bidding continuing until all TDRs have been purchased. Another could be for the City to establish a modest price which it holds open on offer for an extended period of time. The benefits of this approach are: •Current TDR holders will perceive that they have been treated fairly. •The original conservation goals of the City will have been achieved. The detriments of this approach are: •Purchase of all outstanding TDRs presents significant fiscal challenges. •Even though sending areas will be permanently conserved, the land may not qualify as “conserved” for purposes of Vermont’s current use program. (Landowners may be able to qualify for the “current use” program if the land is held for agriculture or is forested).2 3.Retain the TDR program substantially as is (subject to changes proposed in the Draft LDR, Article 9 Amendments - Attachment B). The benefits of this approach are: •Least disruptive to current landowner expectations •Is currently the only means by which the City can permanently conserve land in the SEQ short of buying land, buying easements, buying TDRs or (possibly) through a PUD •The amended SEQ Chapter of LDRs should remove legal uncertainty The detriments of this approach are: •Does not further the City’s open space goals as articulated in the Interim Bylaws and Comprehensive Plan •Does not expand the marketplace for TDRs 4.Revise the TDR Program Under this option the TDR program would be retained but the following revisions would be considered: A.Expand the TDR marketplace to Receiving Areas outside the SEQ: 2 Conserved land in the current use program is taxed at $109/acre to $145/acre. To qualify, the conserved land (not merely TDRs) must be held by a charitable organization. Forest land parcels of at least 25 acres may also be put into current and would be taxed similarly if managed according to an approved forest management plan. Agricultural land may also be put into current use and would be taxed at $362/acre. To qualify the land must either be (a) at least 25 contiguous acres in active agricultural use or (b) less than 25 acres if the land generates at least $2,000 annually from the sale of farm crops or is actively used agricultural land owned by or leased to a farmer. 9 •Establish Receiving Areas in zones outside the SEQ using a TDR Overlay District Map or other mapping tool and/or areas not identified by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee as high priority for conservation. Attachment F provides a draft map for consideration. The map uses TDRs in conjunction with current zoning to increase residential density and, in some cases, business uses not currently permitted. Privately owned lots within specific areas have been flagged as recommended receiving areas. This current draft would add an unknown number of TDRs to the marketplace. •If TDRs are sent beyond the SEQ, they will by nature increase density beyond current zoning and beyond the expectations of affected neighborhoods. B. Create new definitions for the use of a “dwelling unit”: •Amend SB LDRs to establish a maximum square footage per dwelling unit. Owners or developers could build larger units in exchange for the purchase of a requisite number of TDRs. •Amend SB LDRs to allow for an increase in Lot Coverage in exchange for the purchase of a requisite number of TDRs. •In circumstances where a developer requests a waiver from the DRB for additional building density/lot coverage and the DRB is inclined to grant such waiver the developer is required to purchase a requisite number of TDRs in exchange for the waiver. C. Add new Sending areas: •Designate areas in the SEQ that are presently Receiving Areas as Sending Areas to the extent a parcel is identified by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee as high priority for conservation. •Add new Sending Areas that are outside of the SEQ to the extent a parcel is identified by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee as high priority for conservation. D. Certain Receiving Areas in the SEQ would no longer be designated as such: •Sensitive areas in the SEQ identified by Interim Zoning Open Space Committee that are not “highest priority” could be developed, but not permitted to add units beyond their base density. E. There should be an attempt to ensure a balance between capacity for TDR usage and the supply in order to create a fair and well-functioning TDR market. As such, the Committee recommends that some attempt be made to estimate the potential total demand under the revised proposal. If necessary, the City might consider changing the formula of value. This could be done by revising the current TDR formula of 1 TDR per 0.83 acres in each Sending Area to more than 0.83 acres per TDR. F.The City could purchase and retire TDRs from select parcels that have the highest conservation value as indicated by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee. 10 G. The City should evaluate best practices to connect buyers and sellers of TDRs to create a fair TDR marketplace. 24 V.S.A. § 4423 states that the municipality shall maintain a map of areas from which development rights have been severed - the Sending areas. In addition to the completion and maintenance of a map showing all areas from which development rights have been severed, the committee recommends that the map also show the Receiving areas to which these development rights have been transferred including TDRs used across and within parcels . The VNRC's Guidance Document states that a successful TDR program should include administrative mechanisms to connect potential buyers and sellers and to ensure that the instruments transferring the conservation easements and the development rights are recorded. An administrative mechanism to connect potential buyers and sellers could be a “TDR Registry” or a “TDR Bank” administered by the City where owners of TDRs could voluntarily list or de-list their TDRs. The Registry or Bank shall be accessible to the public on the City’s website. The City shall establish and maintain a separate registry of deeds of transfer of development rights and associated conservation easements which shall be accessible to the public on the City’s website. The City shall create and maintain a TDR map showing in detail all areas and/or parcels from which TDRs have been used including across parcels and within parcels and all areas and/or parcels to which TDRs have been transferred. The TDR map shall be accessible to the public on the City’s website. The benefits of Option 4 are: • They are supportive of the City’s conservation goals. • The TDR program, as well as the density and conservation benefits, is retained in a meaningful form. The detriments of Option 4 are: • Complexity in determining sending and receiving areas • Estimating TDR demand, and therefore achieving some balance between TDR supply and demand, may be difficult • TDR values may be adversely impacted and TDR holders may feel unfairly treated Counsel has advised that the contemplated TDR uses are consistent with the uses contemplated by 24 V.S.A. § 4423. Counsel has further advised that landowners/TDR holders should not have valid legal claims against the City if the program were revised as proposed. 11 Of these options, the Committee recommends option 4 The Committee does not recommend option 3 The Committee does not recommend option 1 because future regulatory changes could change zoning and thus undermine the permanent conservation intent of this option 12 Attachment A 24 V.S.A. § 4423. Transfer of development rights (a)In order to accomplish the purposes of 10 V.S.A. § 6301, bylaws may contain provisions for the transfer of development rights. The bylaws shall do all the following: (1)Specify one or more sending areas for which development rights may be acquired. (2)Specify one or more receiving areas in which those development rights may be used. (3)Define the amount of the density increase allowable in receiving areas, and the quantity of development rights necessary to obtain those increases. (4)Define "density increase" in terms of an allowable percentage decrease in lot size or increase in building bulk, lot coverage, or ratio of floor area to lot size, or any combination. (5)Define "development rights," which at minimum shall include a conservation easement, created by deed for a specified period of not less than 30 years, granted to the municipality under 10 V.S.A. chapter 155, limiting land uses in the sending area solely to specified purposes, but including, at a minimum, agriculture and forestry. (b)Upon approval by the appropriate municipal panel, a zoning permit may be granted for land development based in part upon a density increase, provided there is compliance with all the following: (1)The area subject to the application is a receiving area, and the density increase is allowed by the provisions relating to transfer of development rights. (2)The applicant has obtained development rights from a sending area that are sufficient under the regulations for the density increase sought. (3)The development rights are evidenced by a deed that recites that it is a conveyance under this subdivision and recites the number of acres affected in the sending area. (4)The sending area from which development rights have been severed has been surveyed and suitably monumented. (c)The municipality shall maintain a map of areas from which development rights have been severed. Following issuance of a zoning permit under this section, the municipality shall effect all the following: (1)Ensure that the instruments transferring the conservation easements and the development rights are recorded. (2)Mark the development rights map showing the area from which development rights have been severed and indicating the book and page in the land records where the easement is recorded. 13 (d) Failure to record an instrument or mark a map does not invalidate a transfer of development rights. Development rights transferred under this section shall be valid notwithstanding any subsequent failure to file a notice of claim under the marketable record title act. 14 Attachment B – Draft LDR Amendments Article 9. South East Quadrant - SEQ 9.01 Purpose 9.02 Comprehensive Plan 9.03 Uses 9.04 Designation of SEQ Sub-Districts and SEQ Zoning Map 9.05 Residential Density 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts 9.07 Regulating Plans 9.08 SEQ-NRT SEQ-NR, and SEQ-NRN Sub-Districts; Specific Standards 9.09 SEQ-VR Sub-District; Specific Standards 9.10 SEQ-VC Sub-District; Specific Regulations 9.11 Supplemental Standards for Arterial and Collector Streets 9.12 SEQ-NRP; Supplemental Regulations 9.13 SEQ Review and Approval Process 9.01 Purpose A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well- planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. 9.02 Comprehensive Plan These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, and any adopted amendments to such plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. In the event of a conflict between the Southeast Quadrant chapter and other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Southeast Quadrant chapter shall control. 9.03 Uses In the SEQ District, principal permitted uses and conditional uses shall be those shown in Table C-1, Table of Uses. 9.04 Designation of SEQ Sub-Districts and SEQ Zoning Map A.The SEQ District is divided into six sub-districts: (1)SEQ-NRP SEQ – Natural Resource Protection 15 (2)SEQ-NRT SEQ – Neighborhood Residential Transition (3)SEQ-NR SEQ – Neighborhood Residential (4)SEQ-NRN SEQ – Neighborhood Residential North (5)SEQ-VR SEQ – Village Residential (6)SEQ-VC SEQ – Village Commercial B.These sub-districts are shown on the map entitled Southeast Quadrant Zoning Map, incorporated into this bylaw. C.Interpretation of Sub-District Boundaries. In any location where uncertainty exists regarding the exact boundaries of a sub-district as shown on the Southeast Quadrant Zoning Map, the affected property owner may submit a written request that the Planning Commission define the location of the boundary with respect to the subject property. The Planning Commission shall consider such request at a meeting of the Planning Commission held within 60 days of receipt of the written request. At the meeting, the Planning Commission shall provide an opportunity for persons, including municipal staff, officials, and consultants, to present information relevant to the determination of the boundary location. The Planning Commission has the authority to invoke technical review of any such submittals or to gain additional information. Within 30 days following such meeting, or any continuation thereof, the Planning Commission shall determine the boundary location, giving consideration to the original intent or purpose in designating such sub-district, as expressed in the Southeast Quadrant chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 9.05 Transfer of Development Rights & Residential Density Pursuant to 24 VSA 4423, the Transfer of Development Rights is hereby authorized within the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District and a program for the Transfer of Development Rights is hereby enacted. A.Sending and receiving areas (i)Lands within the SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-VR, and SEQ-VC sub-districts are designated as receiving areas. (ii) Lands within the SEQ-NRP sub-district are designated as sending areas. (iii) Lands within the SEQ-NRT sub-district are designated both as sending areas and receiving areas. B.Assigned Density For the purposes of the Transfer of Development Rights program, all land in the SEQ District is provided an Assigned Density: (1)The Assigned Density within the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN and SEQ-VR sub-districts is 1.2 dwelling units per acre (2)The Assigned Density within the SEQ-VC sub-district is 4 dwelling units per acre. C. Allowable Density of Development without a Transfer of Development Rights (Base Density) Without the use of Development Rights, the number of dwelling units that may be located on, or the number of single family house lots that may be created within, a contiguous development parcel subject to a single PUD or Master Plan approval shall not exceed an average density and a maximum number of units per structure as follows: 16 (1) In the SEQ-NRP sub-district, the provisions of Section 9.12 shall apply. (2) SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NRN and SEQ-VR sub-districts: 1.2 dwelling units to the acre and four (4) units per structure. (3) SEQ-VC sub-district: Four (4) dwelling units to the acre. D. Allowable Density Increase with a Transfer of Development Rights With the use of development rights, the number of dwelling units that may be located on, or the number of single family house lots that may be created within, a contiguous development parcel subject to a single PUD or Master Plan approval shall be increased to a maximum average density as follows: (1) SEQ-NRT sub-district: Four (4) dwelling units to the acre (2) SEQ-NR sub-district: Four (4) dwelling units to the acre (3) SEQ-NRN sub-district: Four and two-thirds (4.67) dwelling units to the acre (4) SEQ-VR sub-district: Eight (8) dwelling units to the acre (5) SEQ-VC sub-district: Eight (8) dwelling units to the acre Such average densities may be achieved only through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application and compliance with all required elements of this Section. Where a structure has been approved as part of a Master Plan prior to January 9, 2012 with a greater number of dwelling units than those permitted in these Regulations, such approved number of units in a structure shall remain in effect. E. Development Rights Necessary to obtain increase: To obtain the density increase allowable in a receiving area, development rights must be acquired from 0.83 acres of land in a sending area for each additional dwelling unit approved beyond the Base Density of the parcel subject to a single PUD or Master Plan approval. F. Affordable Housing Density Increase. (1) Affordable housing bonuses pursuant to Section 18.02 are allowed in the SEQ-NR, SEQ-NRN, SEQ-NRT, SEQ-VR, and SEQ-VC sub-districts. If affordable housing, as defined in Article 2 and regulated in Article 18 of these Regulations, is proposed as part of an application for development, the Development Review Board may grant a density increase in any of the eligible SEQ sub-districts according to the requirements of Section 18.02. (2) Calculation of the allowed density increase (i.e. 25% or 50% per Section 18.02) shall be based on the maximum allowable overall density of the project as a whole, including non- contiguous sending parcels where applicable. If a development plan is approved by the Development Review Board, the applicable average density may be increased on the development parcel sufficient to accommodate the affordable housing units. (3) In the SEQ-VR and SEQ-VC sub-districts, the Development Review Board may allow residential structures containing one or more affordable dwelling units to have two additional dwelling units, up to a maximum of eight (8) dwelling units per structure. This provision shall 17 not be interpreted to allow an increase in the total allowable number of units for the project as a whole. (4)When an affordable housing density increase is granted in accordance with this Section and Section 18.02, the designated affordable dwelling units shall not constitute units for the purposes of calculation of Transferable Development Rights. 9.06-9.11 REMOVED FOR EASE OF READING THIS DRAFT 9.12 SEQ-NRP; Supplemental Regulations A.Any lot that lies entirely within a SEQ-NRP sub-district is subject to the following supplemental regulations: (1)Such lot shall be conveyed to the City of South Burlington as dedicated open space or to a qualified land trust and shall not be developed with a residence, or (2)Such lot may be developed with a residence or residences pursuant to a conservation plan approved by the Development Review Board. See 9.12(B) below. (3)Such lot may be developed with uses other than residences, as listed in Table C-1, subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan that balances development or land utilization and conservation. Such lot may also include the following additional development/activities: (a)Driveways, roads, underground utility services, or other appurtenant improvements to serve approved development or uses. Utility service components, such as transformers and amplifiers, may be installed at ground level where such accords with standard industry practices. (b)Landscaping, regrading, or other similar activities necessary to the creation of a buildable lot. B.A lot that was in existence on or before June 22, 1992 and which lies substantially or entirely within a SEQ-NRP sub-district may be improved with one or more single family detached dwelling units, subject to conditional use review and the following supplemental standards: (1)Where the lot is less than fifteen (15) acres in size, the Development Review Board may permit no more than one (1) single family dwelling unit only if: (a)The portion of the lot in any other (non-NRP) SEQ sub-district is insufficient to accommodate the construction and use of a single family dwelling unit in compliance with these Regulations, and; (b)The location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a designated primary natural community or its related buffer. (2)Where the lot is fifteen (15) acres or more in contiguous area, the Development Review Board may allow a subdivision of no more than three (3) lots and construction of one (1) single family dwelling unit on each of these lots only if: 18 (a)The DRB shall determine whether the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3) single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations. (i)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of at least three (3) single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations, no subdivisions of land or construction of new dwelling units shall be permitted in the NRP subdistrict; (ii)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of two (2) single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to one (1) new dwelling unit in the NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these Regulations; (iii)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is sufficient to accommodate the construction and use of one (1) single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to two (2) new dwelling unit in the NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these Regulations; (iv)Where the DRB finds that the portion of the lot in any non-NRP SEQ sub-district is insufficient to accommodate the construction and use of any single family dwelling units on lots approvable in compliance with these Regulations, the subdivision of land and construction of up to three (3) new dwelling unit in the NRP subdistrict may be permitted by the DRB in compliance with these Regulations; and, (b)such lots shall have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet per dwelling unit, and, (c)the location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a designated primary natural community or its related buffer, and, (d)The location of structures and access drives are clustered such that no dwelling unit is located more than one hundred (100) feet from any other structure, and, (e)The dwelling units shall be detached single family dwellings, and, (f)Such subdivision plan shall be subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney that permanently encumbers the land against further land subdivision and development. C.A single tax parcel existing as of the effective date of these regulations which exceeds one hundred (100) acres and is located entirely within the NRP sub-district, as shown on the South Burlington Tax Maps last revised 6/05 (June 2005), whether such lands are contiguous or not, may be subdivided at an average overall density for the entire tax parcel of one (1) single-family dwelling per ten (10) acres. Any new lots so created shall have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Such lots shall be clustered in a manner that maximizes the resource values of the property and shall have no portion within a designated primary natural community or its related buffer. All dwelling units shall be detached single family houses. Such subdivision plan shall be subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney that permanently encumbers the land against further land subdivision and development. 19 9.13 SEQ Review and Approval Process A. Single family residences and two-family residences on a single existing lot are specifically excluded from the review provisions of Section 9.13 of this article. All other development is subject to the provisions presented below. B. For all development other than that listed above in 9.13(A), the Development Review Board shall use the Planned Unit Development (PUD) review and approval process presented in Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review. 20 Attachment C 21 22 23 Attachment D Our community values a balance among our natural, open spaces and our developed, residential and commercial, spaces so that the flora and fauna coexist alongside human dwellings, schools, industries and services. All of these spaces will sustain our economic viability going forward. Together these spaces provide, for the benefit of our residents and visitors, clean, fresh air to breathe, clean water to drink and swim in, recreational opportunities, homes, jobs, and valuable industries and services. As more homes are built in South Burlington, we must examine carefully the intensity and nature of development and its potential impacts on the balance that we seek to maintain. Based on previous studies, the City needs to review developable lands outside of the Transit Overlay District and certain business park areas, including undeveloped open spaces, forest blocks and working landscapes such as the City’s remaining large farms and parcels in the Institutional & Agricultural District. City staff regularly considers the infrastructure and staffing needs, short and long term, of the community. For the past three years, some City department heads have raised concerns about an ongoing strain on City resources. In the face of ongoing development, South Burlington must continue to safeguard against the possibilities that the costs of emergency services and construction and maintenance of sewers and roads will outstrip City revenues such that City residents and business will face the prospect of an acute increase in their tax burden. For all these reasons, the City Council has adopted a smart growth strategy in its policy initiatives, including the preservation of open spaces, forest blocks and working landscapes, and amended the Land Development Regulations to encourage dense development in our urban core, which includes City Center and the Shelburne Road corridor. We also have sought to encourage commercial development and construction of affordable housing. However, the pace of residential development has outstripped the planning tools and processes intended to ensure sustainability and encourage affordability. With the delicate ecosystems and preparedness of both our natural and constructed infrastructure in mind, the City needs to determine what locations, types, and densities of development are most desirable in order to maintain the balance between natural and developed spaces and sustainability and to avoid a fiscal crisis -- not when it is upon us, but before we reach that point. For all these reasons, the City Council considers it necessary to preserve temporarily the land development that currently exists outside of the Transit Overlay District and certain business parks in order to accomplish the following tasks: - Undertake an analysis of undeveloped open spaces, forest blocks and working landscapes and update the prioritization of these lands for conservation, permanent open space, and/or recreation. - Give the Planning Commission time to complete its extensive study or analysis of Planned Unit Developments and Master Plans, which necessarily includes the study of density of development and open space. - Undertake an analysis of the program for the Transfer of Development Rights established in and by the Land Development Regulations and recommend options for its implementation. 24 -Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of hypothetical development, including density and type, on existing developable open spaces, forest blocks, and working landscapes. Once the City has determined which parcels in South Burlington are most critical to our environmental and economic goals, the City can assess whether, and possibly how, the current Land Development Regulations or tools, regulatory or nonregulatory, require amendment and act accordingly. 25 Attachment E Below is a summary of the science and other relevant information that supports preservation of open space in South Burlington. 1.Insect and animal species around the world are in sharp decline. Human sprawl is top of the list for these declines.3 2.Preservation of open space is a key component of the State’s Climate Action Report issued in July of 2018 (the “Vermont Climate Action Commission Executive Order No. 12-17 Report to the Governor July 31, 2018”, hereinafter, the “Climate Report”). As relevant the report provides: “We must strengthen compact development patterns, known as ‘smart growth,’ to enable efficient use of transportation and building energy while fostering strong and thriving communities… Achieving Smart Growth Smart growth represents an approach to land use that incorporates vital and compact city, town, and village centers surrounded by working farms, forests, and open space… Smart growth is energy efficient because it creates more housing choices close to jobs, stores, services, and schools, which encourages more walking and biking and makes public transit work better... That reduces greenhouse gas emissions, creates cleaner water and air, saves energy and money, and helps us meet the efficiency goals in the state’s Comprehensive Energy Plan and Regional Energy Plans… Our scenic and working lands also provide critical environmental functions and provide economic vitality.” And, with respect to carbon sequestration: “Sequestering Carbon on Vermont’s Farms and in Its Forests, Vermont’s working lands can be managed to “reverse” greenhouse gas emissions, and it’s already occurring in places… [R]educing soil disturbance keeps existing soil carbon in the soil. Second, while we have lost much of our agricultural soil carbon through 100 years of tilling, that loss can be reversed by adopting a reasonable set of conservation practices.” South Burlington has itself committed to addressing the climate change threat. In 2017 the City committed to adhere to the goals of US under the Paris Climate Accord which mandates reductions in the City’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels. 3 A February study in the journal of Biological Conservation shows 41 percent of insect species have seen steep declines in the past decade. The report concludes that North American butterflies have declined by 53 percent, grasshoppers and crickets by 50 percent and bee species by 40 percent of bee species. "Only decisive action can avert a catastrophic collapse of nature's ecosystems," the authors cautioned. https://phys.org/news/2019-02-world-catastrophic-collapse-insects.html#jCp Human sprawl is top of the list for these declines. Mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians are also in a massive decline. The 2018 Living Planet Report by the World Wildlife Fund concludes that between 1970 and 2014 the planet has lost nearly 60% decline of its mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians, almost all of it due to human activity. The rate at which Earth is losing its biodiversity is comparable only to the mass extinctions. South Burlington is home to a wide range of wildlife, from insects and worms, to larger mammals like beaver, fox, coyotes, bobcats, deer, and occasionally moose and bear. Many bird species are also present, including some ground nesting species whose populations have declined in Vermont in recent years due to changing agricultural practices. (Comprehensive Plan, 2-103). 26 3. Preservation of open space are key action items in the 2014 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Climate Action Guide (the “CCRPC Guide”). The CCRPC Guide recommends the following actions: o Action 2: Preserve open space and agricultural land. Preservation of agricultural lands can mitigate GHG emissions through the storage of carbon below ground in soils and in above ground vegetation. Additionally, maintaining land in agriculture prevents development on these lands that could otherwise be developed and become a source of a significant amount of carbon emissions from transportation and building energy use. Agricultural lands can also provide area to grow crops for biofuels. Municipal land use plans, policies, and zoning regulations are the tools that a town can use to preserve agricultural lands. (page E-13) o Action 3: Maintain or restore habitat connectivity. Climate change will affect location suitability for natural communities. Habitat connectivity will allow animal and plant species to migrate to more suitable locations (e.g., upslope, higher latitudes). Protecting critical habitat locations and wildlife linkages from development is vital for wildlife species that could be endangered by a changing climate. Reducing development pressures within the rural landscapes of Chittenden County can be accomplished through allowing higher density in villages and growth centers and adopting conservation districts in areas that are primarily forested or open... Reducing development pressures within the rural landscapes of Chittenden County can be accomplished through allowing higher density in villages and growth centers and adopting conservation districts in areas that are primarily forested or open. (page E-14) 4. Shifting development away from open space is consistent with specific recommendations to the City Council made by the “Vermont Smart Growth Initiative” (signed on behalf of the Vermont Natural Resources Foundation and the Conservation Law Foundation) in a March 2, 2005 letter. The letter provided comments on the changes proposed to the LDRs: “While the proposal does a good job of targeting development into growth areas, these areas should be compact and should not be scattered within the SEQ… The growth areas should be more concentrated in the northern part of the SEQ where most of the development already exists… Providing for more compact growth in a smaller area of the SEQ would also provide efficiencies and reduced costs for road, sewer and other City infrastructure… The proposal fails to recognize the SEQ’s important rural and agricultural resources and features. The agricultural value of the land in the SEQ should be protected… Overall the proposal should strive to encourage and maintain agricultural uses in a variety of forms in the SEQ as this provides important diversity and supports the City’s efforts to develop a more compact town center and local growth areas.” These comments are similar to earlier comments provided to the Planning Commission on April 17, 2002 by the Conservation Law Foundation: “To maintain the rural, agricultural and natural features of the SEQ, the overall densities in the area should be low. The Town Zoning and Subdivision regulations should focus on 27 an overall low density for the area instead of managing growth by setting standards for lot size. A significant portion of this area, where agricultural uses are present and can continue, should maintain a density of 25 acres per unit. To allow large tracts of land to remain in agriculture with this density, small lots sizes should be allowed, provided the overall density for a particular area is maintained. With this model, a 100-acre parcel at a density of 25 acres per unit could have 4 units. With a maximum lot size of 1/3 acre, less than 2 acres would be used for development while 98 would be available for agricultural uses. Smaller lots sizes would also allow compact neighborhoods to be established in areas where services are available while still protecting the rural features of the SEQ.” 5.In South Burlington residents consider preservation of open space one of their very highest priorities. See Exhibits A through E (with respect to the 2011 Community Survey Report). These conclusions are consistent with the election day poll in 2012 where voters ranked preserving open space as the second most important issue (behind completing the city center project) to the vitality and quality of life in South Burlington. Residents were also polled in connection with the 2018 midterm elections. Preservation of open space was not one of the options provided to voters in the 2018 poll to rank as an “important issue” so these results cannot be directly compared with current attitudes. However, in the 2018 poll, more residents thought that the city was making only fair or poor progress on conservation of open space than in 2016 (45% to 40%) and only 7% of residents thought that progress on conservation of open space was excellent. Fully 80% of residents were willing to pay an extra $100 of property tax to permanently preserve more open space. This is the highest polling for this question over the past four decades (see Exhibit G).4 4 The poll also asked voters that were familiar with the SEQ: “Over the past decades, the SEQ has seen a number of new residential neighborhoods built, but the City has also set aside many areas that will never be built on. Overall, do you like the looks of the way this area is evolving or do you not like it?” with 62% of respondents saying “I like it”. It would have been helpful to directly ask voters whether they favor more residential development in the SEQ as “liking the looks” of the SEQ does not clearly indicate the views of voters toward open space. 28 Exhibit A - South Burlington 2011 Community Survey Report Preservation of Open Space and Natural Resources was the second most important issue to the residents polled. 29 Exhibit B - South Burlington 2011 Community Survey Report For the SEQ, the vast majority of residents responded that current zoning regulations allow too much housing. 30 Exhibit C - South Burlington 2011 Community Survey Report Less than thirty percent of residents responded that future residential development in South Burlington should be in the SEQ. 31 Exhibit D - South Burlington 2011 Community Survey Report Over 70% of residents responded that TDR use in the SEQ should be limited. 32 Exhibit E 33 Attachment F – TDR Overlay District Map Recommended Zoning with TDR Overlay R2 —> R7 = 1. PURPLE R4 —> R7 = 7, ORANGE R4 —> “Transition Zone” = A, B 12 & 13 LIGHT BLUE (when R7/C1) (LIGHT GREEN when R7 only) (YELLOW When INSIDE Neighborhood Like Shelburne RD “secondary”) R7/C1 —> R12/C1 = 6 DARK RED R7/C2 —> R12/C2 = 3. LIGHT PINK IA —> R7 = 14a. DARK GREEN outline Unassigned But Opportunity = 2, 5, 9, 14, 16, RED OUTLINE Plann Comm considering changes. Include TDRs? (Paul’s Pink Map) 17 BRIGHT PINK https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=981146b29160450aa194e05f3104d33b&extent=- 73.2422,44.4126,-73.0416,44.4834 34 Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 846-4106 www.sbvt.gov Planning Commission Q&A on TDR Committee Report of 7-30-2019 General •Outline TDR bank structure •Outline TDR registry structure – TBA. Will be designed and administered by City staff Residential TDRs •South Burlington TDR Program Evaluation – We already know most of what is and is not working. It is in TDR Committee report o What is working and why? o What isn’t working and why? •Benchmarking o Identify cities that have a successful TDR program We have identified a few examples below o What are the traits/characteristics/mechanisms of a successful program? o What traits/characteristics/mechanisms would work in South Burlington? •Evaluate timing of purchase of TDRs o Purchase for initial units to be built vs. Purchase after base density units have been built out Commercial District TDRs •Benchmarking o What cities are doing this? Warwick Township PA Seattle WA Hadley MA Calvert County MA o Are they successful? Yes o Why are they successful? o What are the characteristics? o Are there unintended consequences? •South Burlington o Which characteristics would work for South Burlington? o Where could this be applied? See developer comments Future Items to Evaluate/Investigate – None identified •Regional TDR Program 2 Regional TDR Program – Not our charge. Can and should be looked into by SB in future •Benchmarking o Are there similar sized regions that are doing this? o Has the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) looked into this? o If yes, what were their findings? King County WA has an interlocal agreement with Seattle 3 City of Seattle and King County WA Overview In 2013, King County and the City of Seattle entered into an interlocal agreement for the implementation of a regional program to transfer development rights from King County farm and forest land to the South Lake Union, Denny Triangle, and Commercial Core in the City of Seattle. While establishing a marketplace for TDR credits, this agreement will protect and maintain the existing character of rural, farm, and forest lands, in turn directing growth into the region’s largest designated urban center. Regional TDR credits can be used to increase development capacity in these specific areas of the City of Seattle. Using Rural TDR Credits in Seattle The City of Seattle has approved the use of TDRs in the South Lake Union, Denny Triangle, and Commercial Core areas, as shown in the map. TDRs must originate from agricultural, forest, and rural zoned sending sites, including sending sites that are part of King County’s TDR Bank. The City of Seattle allows development projects within specified receiving areas to increase residential and non-residential square footage beyond the base zoning. For example, TDR credits may be used to increase commercial capacity and residential density as identified below. Additional floor area or height or density above base with TDR Residential +40% Commercial +25% I spoke to Michael Murphy, Interim Deputy Division Director, King County Water and Land Resources Division. His advice was “keep it simple so that you don’t need a calculator to work out how many TDRs are needed for a project”. He also noted that TDR ratios should be “tweaked” to direct TDRs to where you want dense development or less dense development (e.g. one TDR gets you 2 units in a district where you want more density but only one unit in a district where you want less density) 4 Recent market activity in Seattle is shown below. Regional TDR Transactions Inside Seattle This is a subset of the "Rural TDR Transactions" shown on the Sales Data page. Transaction Date # TDRs sold/bought Price per TDR Credit Type Use of TDR 7/15/2016 7 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial 6/21/2016 14 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial 6/7/2016 6 $24,640 Agricultural (2) commercial 6/7/2016 4 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial 4/5/2016 4 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial 3/31/2016 5 $24,846 Agricultural (2) residential 3/31/2016 75 $22,725 Forest (2) residential 12/8/2015 66 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial 12/8/2015 1 $24,640 Agricultural (2) commercial 7/24/2015 22 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial 7/17/2015 4 $24,640 Agricultural (2) commercial 7/17/2015 6 $22,660 Forest (2) commercial 7/17/2015 3 $24,640 Agricultural (2) commercial 4/1/2015 19 $24,640 Agricultural (2) commercial 10/17/2014* 14 $15,680 Agricultural (2) commercial 10/17/2014* 8 $15,680 Agricultural commercial 12/13/2014* 27 $14,420 Forest (2) commercial 5 Warwick Township, Lancaster County PA Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program Under Warwick Township’s Zoning Ordinance, the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program assigns every farm within the Agricultural zone (sending area) one transferable development right for each two gross acres of farmland. TDRs are purchased from farmers who wish to preserve their farmland. The purchase price is based on the fair market value of the farmland at the time the TDRs are sold. Since 1991, the TDR program has been successful in preserving twenty-six farms comprised of more than 1,500 acres of farmland. TDRs are sold for the purpose of increasing lot coverage in the Campus Industrial zone (receiving area). In order to ensure sound land use practices, the maximum lot coverage within the Campus Industrial zone is 10%; however, for each transferable development right acquired, an additional 4,000 square feet of lot coverage is permitted, up to a maximum of 70% coverage. The Township also partners with developers to review and determine the number of TDRs needed for a specific project within the Campus Industrial Zone. The number of TDRs needed is based on the size of the project, and the size of the tract where the project would be located. This partnership has been successful in selling 446 TDRs since 2001, redirecting more than $750,000.00 to farmland preservation. The TDR program has been an effective planning tool in preserving prime agricultural areas, while directing growth in a responsible and efficient manner. The Township partners with the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board and/or Lancaster Farmland Trust to preserve farmland. The funds generated by the sale of TDRs are specifically used to preserve additional farmland within Warwick Township. Additional facts regarding farmland preservation in Warwick Township: •2,990.91 acres have been preserved. •1,547.036 acres have been preserved through the TDR Program. •Warwick Township has purchased 636 TDRs and has sold 304 TDRs. •A total of 801 TDRs have been purchased and 446 TDRs have been sold through a cooperative program with the Lancaster County Ag. Preserve Board and Farmland Trust. Update September 25, 20019 Daniel Zimmerman, Township Manager. TDR sales are booming. Expects to sell 150 TDRs this year. Have now preserved 32 farms. They are focused on the Campus Industrial Zone. Currently has 3 sites under development in this Zone. TDRs are sold for $3000 and conserves 2 acres. Each TDR is worth 4,000 square feet of additional lot coverage up to a maximum of 70% coverage (base coverage is 10% lot coverage). For example, the Township contributes $50,000 to the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board and/or Lancaster Farmland Trust towards the cost of the land (in this case a 90 acre farm) and gets 45 TDRs which are sold for $135,000 – a profit of $85,000 for Warwick Township. 6 7 Calvert County MD Calvert County created the first land preservation program in Maryland and currently has the most active transferable development rights (TDRs) program in the state. The TDR program allows a landowner to sell the development potential to another party. The sale requires the recording of restrictive covenants in land records permanently subjecting the property to development restrictions in perpetuity. Subject to County regulations, a TDR purchaser can use TDRs to attain higher lot density on another property. The TDR program goal is to deter development of farms and forest lands and to direct development to areas targeted for residential and commercial growth. Transferable Development Right Sales 2016 Qtr. Dates Number of TDRs Sold Avg. cost per TDR Number of FC TDRs Sold Avg. cost per FCTDR 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. 40 $3,200.00 7 $4,750.00 2 Apr. May Jun 0 N/A 2 $4,500.00 3 Jul. Aug. Sept 0 N/A 0 N/A 4 Oct. Nov.Dec 18 $3,000.00 1 $4,500.00 Total 58 $3,100.00 10 $4,583.33 2017 Qtr. Dates Number of TDRs Sold Avg. cost per TDR Number of FC TDRs Sold Avg. cost per FCTDR 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. 6 $3,500.00 2 $4,500.00 2 Apr. May Jun 41 $2,750.00 3 $4,333.33 3 Jul. Aug. Sept 88 $2,514.29 2 $4,500.00 4 Oct. Nov.Dec 44 $2,916.67 N/A N/A TOTAL 179 $2,775.00 7 $ 4,400.00 2018 Qtr. Dates Number of TDRs Sold Avg. cost per TDR Number of FC TDRs Sold Avg. cost per FCTDR 1 Jan. Feb. Mar. 4 $3,200.00 0 $0.00 2 Apr. May Jun 48 $2,843.75 0 $0.00 3 Jul. Aug. Sept - - 4 Oct. Nov. Dec. 186.5 $2,900.00 0 $0.00 TOTAL 238.5 $6,043.00 - - FCTDR Forest Conservation Transferable Development Rights 8 9 Town of Hadley MA TDR Program §17.4 Transfer of development rights. Transfer of development rights provides for increased density of commercial or industrial development in the designated Receiving District when suitable open space land in the Farmland Preservation District is permanently preserved from development. The transfer of development rights is accomplished by the execution of an agricultural preservation restriction, and the increased density is permitted by the issuance of a special permit, both as hereinafter provided. The maximum limits on density, lot coverage, and parking reductions permitted to be developed by special permit in the Receiving District shall be determined by reference to the Table of Exchange Standards for Transfer of Development Rights, found below in this section. Table of Exchange Standards for Transfer of Development Right 1 acre of developable farmland in the Sending District equals = 2,000 square feet of additional commercial or industrial floor area plus a reduction in parking of 20 spaces in the Receiving District 1 acre of developable farmland equals = 2 additional bedrooms (See §§ 27.5.3.1 to 27.5.3.3 of the Hadley Zoning Bylaw) Notes 1)The Board may allow an increase in lot coverage from the 30% maximum lot coverage required in Section IV of the Hadley Zoning Bylaw up to a maximum 70% lot coverage. 2) The Planning Board may reduce the parking requirements in § 5.4 of the Zoning Bylaw for off-street parking area which is equal to twice the floor area of any commercial or industrial building to be constructed. The Planning Board may reduce this requirement for off-street parking area to a minimum of 1.5 times the floor area of any commercial or industrial building to be constructed. "Developable farmland" is defined in § 17.2 "Additional commercial or industrial floor area" shall be defined as floor area above that which would normally be permitted under the Hadley Zoning Bylaw. The increased floor area shall be accommodated through either increased lot coverage or reduced parking requirements as noted in the table above. 10 TDR Implementation Examples Case-by-case example Town A has adopted a plan that will allow TDR on a case-by-case basis. 11 Blanket rezone example Town B has adopted a plan that has mapped sending and receiving areas, and wishes to complete a blanket rezone petition to implement the plan. This will make it as easy as possible for willing landowners in sending and receiving areas to participate in the TDR program. 12 TDR Interim Zoning Committee Interviews with Developers I started each interview with a statement that one of the TDR committee's recommendations was to expand the TDR market to areas outside the SEQ. Then asked if they thought that was a viable proposition. I noted their comments more or less verbatim. Developer A 9/3/19 •Can envisage many projects along Shelburne Road that would benefit from TDR density increases. •For example, the new development at corner of Shelburne Road and Fayette Drive, could have a 5th floor if that was possible with TDRs. Would of course depend on compliance with other relevant LDRs. •Definitely thinks there would be a market for TDRs if they could be used in receiving areas in the Transit Overlay District. •Sees a lot of potential when properties come up for redevelopment. Developer B 9/4/19 •Sees opportunities for commercial developments using TDRs. •Thinks there is definitely a market for TDRs outside the SEQ. •There would be residential density and redevelopment opportunities outside the SEQ. •Has used TDRs in projects (about 20 from Auclair Trust). •Will use TDRs in another project now under development (about 26 from the Vermont Land Trust). Developer C 9/9/19 •Developer C has been more involved in commercial developments, less in residential. •Has a residential project under construction at present in Burlington. •Sees possible opportunities for redevelopment using TDRs in South Burlington. •For example, along the North side Williston Road where land use is very inefficient – many single-story commercial establishments. Redevelopment in this area could produce multi-story mixed use buildings fronting on Williston Road and dense residential development behind. •Similar opportunities along the Shelburne Road corridor. 13 Developer D 9/10/19 •Has used TDRs in a small development. •Made similar comments to those of Developer C about redevelopment opportunities along the Williston and Shelburne corridors. •Did not need to acquire TDRs for very large development on Spear Street and finds the current TDR process cumbersome and complex. Difficult to bring TDR owners and buyers together. •Having a TDR bank or registry would be a major improvement. •Commented that having TDR sending and receiving areas in the same zone defeats the purpose of moving density into suitable urban areas and away from rural areas. 14 TDR Interim Zoning Committee Interviews with TDR Owners Owner A 8/23/19 •Acquired 14 acres about 10 years ago. •Subdivided into 3 lots – one 11.5 acres and two from the remaining 2.5 acres. •Retained ownership of the 14 TDRs when the properties were sold. •Sold 3 TDRs (Wildflower Drive?). •Has 11 TDRs now. •Objective is to sell these TDRs for a development which is not built on “open space”. •Would like to see an expanded market outside the SEQ where those objectives could be met. •Needs to use the proceeds to fund college for children. Owner B 9/3/19 •Has about 40 TDRs. •Would like to extinguish the TDRs by creating a conservation easement possibly held by the Vermont Land Trust. •Will not sell TDRs for development on open space. •Would sell for suitable development outside the SEQ. •TDRs could be held in trust for a future owner of the property who might then be able to use them under the conditions specified in the trust. 15 Revise the TDR Program The Interim Zoning TDR Committee recommends the following revisions to the South Burlington TDR program: A.Expand the TDR marketplace to Receiving Areas outside the SEQ: •Establish Receiving Areas in zones outside the SEQ using a TDR Overlay District Map or other mapping tool and/or areas not identified by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee as high priority for conservation. Attachment F provides a draft map for consideration. The map uses TDRs in conjunction with current zoning to increase residential density and, in some cases, business uses not currently permitted. Privately owned lots within specific areas have been flagged as recommended receiving areas. This current draft would add an unknown number of TDRs to the marketplace. •If TDRs are sent beyond the SEQ, they will by nature increase density beyond current zoning and beyond the expectations of affected neighborhoods. B. Create new definitions for the use of a “dwelling unit”: •Amend SB LDRs to establish a maximum square footage per dwelling unit. Owners or developers could build larger units in exchange for the purchase of a requisite number of TDRs. •Amend SB LDRs to allow for an increase in Lot Coverage in exchange for the purchase of a requisite number of TDRs. •In circumstances where a developer requests a waiver from the DRB for additional building density/lot coverage and the DRB is inclined to grant such waiver the developer is required to purchase a requisite number of TDRs in exchange for the waiver. C. Add new Sending Areas: •Designate areas in the SEQ that are presently Receiving Areas as Sending Areas to the extent a parcel is identified by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee as high priority for conservation. •Add new Sending Areas that are outside of the SEQ to the extent a parcel is identified by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee as high priority for conservation. D.Certain Receiving Areas in the SEQ would no longer be designated as such: •Sensitive areas in the SEQ identified by Interim Zoning Open Space Committee that are not “highest priority” could be developed, but not permitted to add units beyond their base density. 16 E.Balance Supply and Demand •There should be an attempt to ensure a balance between capacity for TDR usage and the supply in order to create a fair and well-functioning TDR market. As such, the Committee recommends that some attempt be made to estimate the potential total demand under the revised proposal. If necessary, the City might consider changing the formula of value. This could be done by revising the current TDR formula of 1 TDR per 0.83 acres in each Sending Area to more than 0.83 acres per TDR. F.Retire TDRs •The City could purchase and retire TDRs from select parcels that have the highest conservation value as indicated by the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee. G.Connect Buyers and Sellers •The City should evaluate best practices to connect buyers and sellers of TDRs to create a fair TDR marketplace. 24 V.S.A. § 4423 states that the municipality shall maintain a map of areas from which development rights have been severed - the Sending areas. In addition to the completion and maintenance of a map showing all areas from which development rights have been severed, the committee also recommends that the map also show the Receiving areas to which these development rights have been transferred including TDRs used across and within parcels 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager South Burlington City Council FROM: Paul Conner, AICP, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Status of Interim Zoning Work DATE: December 16, 2019 City Council meeting A.Update and Expansion of Inclusionary Zoning •Status: Planning Commission held public hearing on 12/10, and concurred with proposed amendments from the Affordable Housing Committee following their meetings with residential developers. •Next steps: Commission review updated language based on public hearing, then possibly vote to submit to Council. •Timeline to completion: The Council may receive the draft amendments in December 2019. Council may then warn and hold a public hearing, and adopt the amendments thereafter. B.Planned Unit Development / Subdivision Bylaw •Status: The PUD / Subdivision project has multiple component pieces. These pieces are closely intertwined and have been progressing together. For the different PUD types, for example, must include component features such as applicable building types, open space provisions, and street types (in addition to density). They also rely, fundamentally, on the underlying subdivision standards that apply generally in the City. Those subdivision regulations, in turn, rely closely on clear standards for what areas are to be built upon, and what areas are not to be built upon in terms of natural resources. The Commission has been advancing any piece that is ready and can stand alone as they are available. This included, recently, new River Corridor standards and updated Flood Plain standards, as well as amendments related to site plans that apply regardless of whether the project is a PUD, but importantly address some of the fundamental reasons for why so many single-lot projects have been treated as PUDs in the past. o Natural Resources Standards: As noted above, the City Council has reviewed and approved some of these amendments already. The remainder are nearing completion and are planned to be 2 advanced together, as a unit, in the first quarter of 2020. A review meeting with the Natural Resources Committee is being set up for early January. -River Corridors + Floodplains -- adopted October 2019. -River, stream, and wetland buffer standards – language complete; ready for public hearing -Steep slope standards – direction provided; language 90% complete -Rare, threatened, and endangered species – direction provided, language 90% complete -Forest Blocks & Connections to waterways – Planning Commission working group has developed overall approach; City hired Arrowwood Environmental to perform detailed assessment. Report anticipated January 2020 -Restoration of habitat areas – direction provided; language 75% complete o Subdivision Bylaws – Commission has reviewed first drafts. Includes review process, addressing footprint lots, standards on exclusion of certain natural resources from subdivisions, and standard subdivision layout requirements. Expecting to receive final sections from consultant in December 2019. Commission expected to review and warning public hearing in first quarter of 2020. o Master Plans Standards – Commission has reviewed detailed outline. Complete draft expected from Consultant in December 2020. Commission to review and warn public hearing in first quarter of 2020. o Planned Unit Development Types & Standards – Commission has reviewed detailed outlines for three of four types. Complete Draft of all four types, plus PUD standards, expected from consultant December 2020. Commission to review and warn public hearing in first quarter of 2020. o Applicability of PUD types to underlying zoning – Commission has reviewed drafts. Commission awaiting recommendations from Open Space Interim Zoning Committee to finalize. May be further affected by TDR Report Recommendations. Commission to warn public hearing in first quarter of 2020 (may have further revisions subsequent to TDR discussions). o Open Space Types – Commission has reviewed types and held public hearing. FBC Committee reviewing feedback received. Commission to review proposed applicability by PUD type in January 2020. Commission to determine whether to apply to non-PUD site plans as well. o Street Types – Commission & Bike/Ped Committee reviewed street type standards. Commission to review applicability by PUD type in early 2020. o Building Types -- Commission & Affordable Housing Committee reviewed street type standards. Commission to review applicability by PUD type in early 2020. o Site Plan standard amendments – Principal amendments complete. Final clean-up and applicability of standards to be prepared upon receipt of PUD standards for applicability. 3 o Integration with remainder of bylaws – Outline of work complete. Language to be completed following receipt and review of other work listed above. •Next steps: See above. •Timeline to completion: The Commission anticipated holding its public hearings on the above (TDR-tie in excepted) in the first quarter of 2020. C.Transfer of Development Rights Interim Zoning Committee Analysis Report •Status: Committee provided to Planning Commission 8/13. Commission provided initial feedback and recommended additional items to be addressed. Supplemental items presented to Commission 11/12. Commission has submitted letter to Council regarding next steps. •Next steps: Per Council direction; see Commission memo. •Timeline to completion: Committee’s Analysis Report is complete. Next steps TBD per Council direction D.Open Space Interim Zoning Committee Report •Status: Open Space Interim Zoning Committee chair to present findings to the Planning Commission 12/10. Final Report to follow in December 2019 •Next steps: Commission to provide initial feedback; evaluate applicability in PUD/Subdivision work, and share the Report with the City Council for next steps and direction. •Timeline to completion: TBD (fill this out Wednesday). 19 Gregory Drive, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov 1 TO: South Burlington City Council, South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: South Burlington Energy Committee SUBJECT: Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) Interim Zoning Committee Report DATE: November 21, 2019 _____________________________________________________________________________________ The South Burlington Energy Committee (SBEC) has reviewed the report (the “Committee Report”) dated July 30, 2019 prepared by TDR Interim Zoning Committee. The SBEC supports the Committee Report recommendations. The key recommendations in the Committee Report are to: •Expand the TDR marketplace to Receiving Areas outside the SEQ •Add new Sending Areas in the SEQ and outside the SEQ which are identified as high priority for conservation •Re-designate other sensitive Receiving Areas in the SEQ The Committee Report concludes “the current TDR Program is problematic in that the TDR sending areas and TDR receiving areas are all in the SEQ which is where almost all of South Burlington’s remaining open space is located. The consequence of this can be dense development in the same areas where our LDRs and Comprehensive Plan encourage open space preservation, natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation and continued agriculture.” The SBEC observes that the Committee Report is very much aligned with the energy and climate action goals established by the City Council in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and the 2017 Council Resolution on Climate Change. The Committee Report addresses the connection between an effective TDR program and the SBEC efforts to implement the City’s energy and climate action goals. The Committee Report references State and County reports which inform the recommendations of the TDR Committee. In particular, the Committee Report quotes from the State of Vermont Climate Action Report issued in July of 2018 (the “Vermont Climate Action Commission Executive Order No. 12-17 Report to the Governor July 31, 2018): “We must strengthen compact development patterns, known as ‘smart growth,’ to enable efficient use of transportation and building energy while fostering strong and thriving communities… Achieving smart growth represents an approach to land use that incorporates vital and compact city, town, and village centers surrounded by working farms, forests, and open space… Smart growth is energy efficient because it creates more housing choices close to jobs, stores, services, and schools, which encourages more walking and biking and makes public transit work better... That reduces greenhouse gas emissions, creates cleaner water and air, saves energy and money, and helps us meet the efficiency goals in the state’s Comprehensive Energy Plan and Regional Energy Plans… Our scenic and working lands also provide critical environmental functions and provide economic vitality.” 19 Gregory Drive, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov 2 “Sequestering Carbon on Vermont’s Farms and in Its Forests, Vermont’s working lands can be managed to “reverse” greenhouse gas emissions, and it’s already occurring in places… [R]educing soil disturbance keeps existing soil carbon in the soil. Second, while we have lost much of our agricultural soil carbon through 100 years of cropping, that loss can be reversed by adopting a reasonable set of conservation practices.” The Committee Report also quotes from the 2014 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Climate Action Guide: o Action 2: Preserve open space and agricultural land. Preservation of agricultural lands can mitigate GHG emissions through the storage of carbon below ground in soils and in above ground vegetation. Additionally, maintaining land in agriculture prevents development on these lands that could otherwise be developed and become a source of a significant amount of carbon emissions from transportation and building energy use. Agricultural lands can also provide area to grow crops for biofuels. Municipal land use plans, policies, and zoning regulations are the tools that a town can use to preserve agricultural lands. (page E-13) o Action 3: Maintain or restore habitat connectivity. Climate change will affect location suitability for natural communities. Habitat connectivity will allow animal and plant species to migrate to more suitable locations (e.g., upslope, higher latitudes). Protecting critical habitat locations and wildlife linkages from development is vital for wildlife species that could be endangered by a changing climate. Reducing development pressures within the rural landscapes of Chittenden County can be accomplished through allowing higher density in villages and growth centers and adopting conservation districts in areas that are primarily forested or open. (page E-14) The SBEC urges the City Council to recognize these important connections between the City’s TDR program and the City’s energy and climate action goals. We urge that the City Council take steps to implement the important recommendations of the Committee Report. Implementing the recommendations in the Committee Report will allow South Burlington to preserve more of its open space and natural resource areas, while encouraging development in areas that have better access to public transportation, jobs, stores, services and schools. These “smart growth” changes would help South Burlington achieve its goals with respect to species protection, clean air and clean water, while also enabling housing growth to support a growing population. Important as these benefits are, the SBEC supports the recommended changes because they offer a significant contribution to South Burlington’s effort to achieve the climate change goals set forth in its 2017 resolution committing South Burlington to the goals of the US under the Paris Climate Accord and the energy goals set forth in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.