call to order the city council transportation energy and utilities
committee at 5:32 and um I would entertain a motion to
amend and then adopt our
what has been discussed is moving items um 4.3
to the top u or right after right after public
I would >> second a second. Uh is there any other
discussion on the uh adoption of the agenda as amended? Seeing none, all
those in favor indicate by saying I I >> I.
» Any opposed? I guess not. That's unanimous. Um and so we have that. Next
is adopting of our minutes from our July 28th meeting. Can be a motion on that. I
would move to adopt the minutes. >> Second.
» Any discussion? See none. All in favor adoption of his
minutes by saying I >> I
» I >> I
» and that's also unanimous. Um noting that council for the public council
Bergman is not with us tonight. So it's just a
um and then um next thing would be a public forum. Um and I don't anybody has
We do have two signed up. Is there anybody else here that wants to hasn't
signed up that wants to sign up for a public forum?
Okay. Um is and if anybody online once we handle the in-person uh uh forum
participants will move to online and you if you want to participate indicate by
using the raise hand function on Zoom. >> So the first uh person is uh is it
Caris? Caris. Okay. And Simone. Okay. Simone the first.
So, thanks everybody for having here. My name is Cara Simone. I live at 29
Chitten Drive. And I want to begin by thanking DPW for the work that has gone
into um the memo we provided um as part of the meeting agenda. I think that the
phased approach represents progress and I was encouraged to see Chitman Drive
included in phase one. Um I also appreciate the recognition that
Leverland historical research needs to be part of this process and that the
existing city services will continue while the review is underway. I do
continue however to have some questions about the proposed timeline and about
how much investigation needs to occur before the council begins making policy
decisions. I think it's important to remember how we got here. Residents did
not come to the city asking for our streets to be accepted so that they
could immediately be reconstructed or upgraded to current standards. The issue
arose because residents of streets that the city has maintained for decades were
told that the city might discontinue services such as snow plowing because
those uh streets were considered unaccepted or private.
The current memo provides an important clarification. The acceptance itself
would not require immediate reconstruction, which is great. Future
improvements could be evaluated and prioritized through the city's normal
capital planning process. That distinction matters because it raises
the question of how much engineering analysis and cost estimation is actually
necessary before council can establish a policy for these streets. I certainly
understand the need for appropriate technical review. The city needs to
understand what infrastructure it would be assuming and different streets may
ultimately require different decisions. I also understand the need for legal and
historical research. But for Chin Drive for example, the ownership history is
not entirely mysterious. Road was associated with deforest realies the
original developer uh which is now defunct. There is no homeowners
association or other functioning private entity maintaining the road. Meanwhile,
the city has plowed and maintained Chip and Drive for decades, issued curb cut
permits associated with properties on the street and otherwise treated it as a
public roadway in a number of ways. So, it seems to me that one of the threshold
questions should be relatively straightforward.
Is there actually a private owner or successor today who asserts legally
enforcable ownership interest in the road and is prepared to assume
responsibility for it? I would say that it's highly unlikely somebody's going to
come forward say I want to own a street. There's no home ownership of like me
saying I want to have my own private fire department. It's just not something
people necessarily want to take up. Um I recognize that answering that question
uh may lead may uh require land records and legal research, but I would
encourage the city to determine the most efficient and proportionate way to
resolve it. If notice to potential owners or successors is appropriate, for
example, could that be done before substantial resources are committed to
more extensive engineering investigations? That um brings me to the
larger policy issue. Um I appreciate DPW's technical role,
but ultimately the question of how Burlington should treat streets with
unresolved ownership, longstanding municipal, and decades of public use is
a policy question for city council. This memo indicates that because of
funding and staffing constraints, much of phase one work may not be completed
until fiscal year 28 with recommendations coming after that uh
work is completed. I understand that DPW cannot undertake unlimited work without
resources. What I'm less certain about is why the council's policy decision uh
discussion needs to follow that same timeline. I don't think council needs to
decide tonight every phase one street should be accepted and I'm not
suggesting that technical information is irrelevant. I'm asking whether council
can begin establishing the principles that will guide these decisions while
DPW conducts the necessary technical and legal work. That policy guidance
guidance could also help determine what technical work is actually necessary.
The city's policy is that streets with no functioning private owner, decades of
municipal maintenance, and long-standing public use should generally be
considered for acceptance unless significant legal or infrastructure
problems are identified. That would provide DPW with a framework for its
analysis. Other circumstances might appropriately lead to a different
outcome. I also think that when the city
evaluates the financial implications of acceptance, it should look at the
complete picture. not simply the future expenses the city might assume. Um for
example, I would be interested to know whether acceptance could affect
eligibility for state or federal transportation infrastructure funding
and if so potential how might potential outside funding be part of the financial
analysis as well. So I support the phased approach and I appreciate the
progress reflected in this memo. Uh my request is that we not allow the
technical process to substitute for or unnecessarily postpone the policy
discussion. DPW can continue determining the condition of these streets and
clarify their legal status. At the same time, the council can begin deciding
what Burlington's policy should be once these facts are known.
» Um I notic you were reading from something. If you want to provide those
writing, you can mail them to what's the address again.
If that's that works for you and then be happy to get the numbers.
» Okay. The address just for people watching,
» of course. Yes. Um, you can send it to rgu
i n burlington bt.gov. >> Thank you.
» And then then we'll have those back. Thank you.
» Thank you. Next we have Michael. >> Hi. Thank you Michael. I also have
thanks for the opportunity to talk and thank you from DPW for the work they've
done on this and the new uh alley the plan to accept streets.
It's helpful. I just have a few brief comments as you know as I was looking
through the cost estimates. It just it would be nice if uh there could be a
public accounting of where the estimates come from. You know what what goes into
them. that uh our street there was 800,000 for
water sewer and there was prior to that
there's a brief explanation of things that might affect it but it would be
nice to have the line I what the costs are in those estimates
and uh the other thing I was thinking would be helpful is an accounting uh or
an offset. If the cities were to the streets were
to become accepted and then eligible for the next the town highway grant program,
what money would be coming into the city uh related to accept those streets
through that program? Not much is that?
it'd be nice to to just have an accounting that
and then the other comment I had uh was with respect to concern if it still
exists that some people may claim ownership for uh portion of the
street or all the street. Is there a way to accomplish that through public notice
with an intent to city intents to accept these streets and assume ownership and
you have I don't know what the legal uh banker you have x amount of time to
reply to this public notice um or you know
you know that's not but it may be a less expensive option
than doing the d research search and I think the goal is to save money. We
should say investigate allies.
» Thank you. Yes. >> Um is there anyone on the island who
wants to participate in public forum indicate by uh indicating their interest
by using the race function of sort
seem I guess we'll go ahead then and we close public forum
um and we had moved item
4.3
deliberative agenda which is the uh adoption of the updated 1.6 not coming a
pretty stand
us. >> Yeah. Uh so this is a pretty standard
uh item. This came through in 2019. It came through I believe 2011 before that.
Every now and again standards get updated. What this is particular for
this year was more or less just one item updated in culvert sizes um increasing
the minimum size and the city's obligation to update that um or accept
that in our uh future rehabilitation projects and making sure that things
moving forward meeting standard. Um the compliance with standards is uh one of
the requirements for some funding sources with the state and so uh we
again shared this with other departments, water resources primarily
um to ensure that they were supportive of this um and we are now moving forward
just to formalize the acceptance of this for your current
recommendation. recommendation to council sorry yes motion reads
» I have no internet I just I just got I just got my husband
um so um questions from committee but um yeah so you you talked about the
the letter that was the the major update And in the last paragraph, it says that
municipalities are encouraged to consider adopting additional optional
standards. Uh what are those optional standards and are are we adopt those as
well? >> Uh
I apologize.
Which portion are you? >> Um so on 2026 Town Road and bridge
standards cover letter. Oh, the cover letter in the third paragraph it said
colleagues are encouraged to consider adopting with additional optional
standards. Um I will apologize I don't have that. That's the state standard
letter everybody. Um and so these are the ones that are required for
compliance to that.
» Yep. So uh Laura Will city engineer I was involved in kind of various
different iterations of previous standards that we've adopted. The state
statute standards are very broad and very minimal to apply to the all the
communities in Vermont. So they speak to sometimes wire highways ditching other
standards um many of which that actually just don't.
So the other standards that we're still talking about are like our engineering
design standards which the council adopted back in 2024 or the great
streets design standards which even enhance the downtown. So they're talking
about ones that are specific to your community which we do already have in
place. Um and nothing in those two documents goes against what the state
has done to update some of their water management.
So basically the optional ones either don't apply or our standards already
matches exceeded. >> Yeah. The other standards are our own
our city of standards. >> Great. Thank you.
» Becca, do you have any questions? >> Nope. Nothing for me. Thank you. Sounds
good. Um and so in the memo
from staff there is a recommended motion for the two
willing to make that. Um, I would move to recommend to the city council the
adoption of sections 1 through eight of the 2026 Vermont Agency of
Transportation Town, Road and Bridge Standards and authorized Chapen Spencer,
director of public works to execute the certificate on behalf of the city
council. Is there a second?
» Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any other
discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion by saying I >> I
» I
next we're going to GMT funding initiative update.
Is that I believe
We had
um so we had asked um Marty Jas I think was his last name to
come and present but we have um wait
director Yeah, Mark, I'm sorry. I had some
problem with the audio and I don't I didn't hear what you said.
» No, I I said we weren't I I I'm happy to see you as always at our meeting, but um
are you here to present on um the initiative that's ongoing to
» No, I just I knew that this was going to be a topic and I wanted to be available
in case you >> No, I appreciate that. Um
I um I have not heard yet from Marty after he confirmed
there's a delay. >> So what we might do is um uh move
forward in the agenda to um unaccepted streets and when Marty shows up um then
we can um slot this in after that. How does that sound everybody? Yeah. Good.
Well, thank you for disappearing. Um, so we'll move on to unaccepted streets
and I'm not sure who's >> start
this one. >> Yes, panelist.
» All right. Well, thank you uh to the toque for uh
inviting staff back and I want to thank the council and members of the public
for uh continued work with us on this decades long issue to resolve the issue
of unclear ownership of these private and unaccepted streets. And we're
returning tonight to get your feedback. No formal action is needed. We're
seeking feedback on the phasing that we have proposed on reviewing the streets
in question. Uh the proposed technical and legal research that we are proposing
uh to do next really are the responsible steps for determining staff's
recommendation or uh the city council on the
disposition of these streets. um as you're seeing in the charts and I made
sure to attach at least a summary of one of our charts with a lot of numbers and
spread the cells on it really to demonstrate that that's just the tip of
the iceberg of the work that staff has done to understand the very uh detailed
needs and specifications and existing conditions
and levels of risk of these various streets. Um the future maintenance and
capital costs of these streets are significant. We already struggle to
maintain our existing street network. So any decision by the council to accept
streets in our belief needs to be done with the technical detail that we want
to collect for you so that you understand the full financial burden
that the city is accepting. You'll see that the schedule tonight is
uh longer than I would like. Uh but the reality is we want to promise you a t
well we want to offer you a timeline that we think is uh more practical given
the financial constraints we have to do the work. So you'll see in the memo
chart laying out showing that it would take us through uh much of FY28 to bring
back a recommendation to council on the phase one streets. Uh senior engineer
and planner Philip Peterson's going to go more into the detail here. Happy to
answer questions. We have city engineer Laura Wheelock and also division
director Megan Moyer here uh to answer questions for the respective divisions.
» Awesome. Thanks Jen. Uh thanks everyone uh for letting me be here. Philip
Peterson, senior transportation junior planner with the city of Bronson. I
think it's super important to acknowledge that you know what I
represent right now is periscope on the engineering submarine. There are a lot
of folks on our team that have done a tremendous amount of work. Um I would be
super remiss if I don't mention specifically uh Calvin Bri who's a
social engineer who's really kind of an engine that's led a lot of our work um
both from a technical aspect and a legal aspect as well. Um and he's learned a
lot. We've learned a lot. Um, so I'm I'm going to walk uh the committee through
um kind of what our assessment work has been, why the phasing looks the way it
does and what the technical review actually involves and um but I'm going
to try not to talk too much about water resources. We obviously have director
here to get into that. So what we've done is we've completed a desktop
analysis of all unaccepted and private streets and we've done a surface
inspection of all unaccepted and some limited private streets. Uh that work
gives us a baseline understanding of pavement condition, geometry,
does the street have sidewalks, does it have curb? Um and general street
character. Is it designed to some kind of street standard um that we would uh
approve? Um what it can't tell us is the condition of the subsurface and buried
utilities which is where water resources lives where their work is underground.
Um and this is the core reason the project requires kind of a multi-year
phase approach. Um if you look at the cost breakdown between
um public works technical services, what we do on service in comparison to the
underground utility work, water resources
uh work is exponentially more expensive. Um and that that is a big driver. So um
phase one in general includes streets that generally resemble an accepted
street in design and construction. Some phase one streets even have city signs
on them already. Um, and these are kind of the lowest risk candidates for deeper
investigation. Um, that we feel like um, we have worked closely with water
resources on developing that list of phase one streets. Um, when we think
about phase two and phase three, those include streets with higher uncertainty.
Don't get me wrong, just go back to phase one streets real quick. that there
are things about phase one streets that we're not sure about either. And as we
do this deeper investigation, we may find that a phase one street is not as
easy as we thought it would be to accept from a variety of standpoints. We're
hearing from residents that want us to accept these streets. We haven't heard
from residents that do not want their streets accepted. And those people, they
may exist as we go through our investigation and we do more public
engagement. The fact of the matter is is that, you know, one of the questions
that I anticipate that the tube will ask is why can't we just accept these
streets wholesale? We can't because it's a two-step process. It's land that needs
to be accepted, but it also has to be dedicated, right? Or it has to be taken.
and we don't really have the legal framework to just condemn the property
and move forward which is also why we need legal help. That's why we need to
seek lawyers. Um a major driver with this work is coordination with water
resources. Um accepting water, wastewater, storm water infrastructure
has come some like I'd said some long-term financial obligations. Um, so
kind of the next step is this in-depth assessment. What we can do before FY28
is dedicate tech services and water resources staff
times toward that legal look, that historical look. Do have documents that
we can look at and get documentation on up to public engagement. Um, we have
received some documentation as it discusses in the memo. Uh, Deorest is
the street where we received some supplemental documentation from
residents and went, "Okay, this is a section of street that we had not
thought was accepted and it is and it's part of the city public rightway." That
was helpful, but there may be other documentations out there that residents
have locked away in their own personal files that we don't have access to, and
those things will come out the further we get along. Once we get to FY28,
that's when the more indepth subsurface evaluation, drainage
performance, utility inspections such as CCTV that water resources needs to do
for sewer and storm water and potholeing for water, but also B tech services. We
would need to do potholeing to see what do we have for a street. What does the
subgrade look like? Are we building these streets on clay? Are we building
these streets that have just an inch and a half of asphalt, which is not thick
enough for a city street? For a city street, we want it to be at least three
inches thick for a low volume residential street. Thicker if we're
talking about high volume streets. So, um, we will be requesting funding. We
did try to get a budget put together for FY27
given funding constraints. That's was challenging this year, but we will seek
funding and I can see Ashley Parker um with the Department of Finance and
Accounting here, which is great. Uh to develop that FY28 budget to support
consultant services for the subservice investigation,
surveying, we'll need a land surveyor. Um we don't have a land surveyor on
staff and the legal work. Without that support, we cannot provide council with
the information you need to make informed decisions that you do need to
make. And that's the structure of the work. Um, if we're missing anything,
Megan, >> explain her investigation.
» Yeah, I think this would probably be an appropriate time. Um, Megan, if you'd
like to talk about what your team, your excellent team has done.
» Certainly. Um, yeah. I know it's been a uh you know an initial desktop analysis
of the infrastructure that exists on these various streets. A lot of what we
looked at and where we are interested in this project and maybe less hesitant as
we are with some of the potential recommendations is where there's a
street where it would be beneficial to the larger system um to take over the
infrastructure there. for instance, water pipes where uh they're providing
what we call looping benefits. It's actually connecting a section of public
pipe to another section of public pipe, but we don't currently have um complete
oversight over the pipe that may be on a private street. Um but as as Philip
said, a lot of what's challenging is not knowing the full condition of any of
these pipes. And so we've tried to put together some rough numbers of what
potential short-term costs would be if if say we took over all of the streets
um or accepted all the streets that are in phase one. We are looking at some
pretty substantial uh capital investments, capital investments that
are not currently in our capital plan and that we don't currently have
borrowing authority for. And so the question will become with the council,
you know, are we going to push off other potentially vi uh important projects in
order to then invest in these new streets? Um, you know, how are we going
to handle that as a community because it is going to increase everybody's rates
uh to be able to take on these things. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it.
I understand that the people on these streets, they do pay the same rates as
others. Um, but it is going to layer an additional amount of work on what
already seems like an impossible amount of work. Um, and so we're just trying to
proceed cautiously. Um, I don't know if anybody has any specific specific
questions, but uh, our team has been very involved. We appreciated the
collaboration with uh the tech technical services and uh yeah, we look forward to
hearing what the council's feedback is on here on these streets and whether or
not I guess the intention really is to take over every single last street or if
the council does believe that there's certain streets that sort of fit more of
the city street test than others because I
certainly can see some that don't make as much sense as as other streets.
» Megan, >> um I I think it's important to also note
that the cost projections outline both immediate what it would cost to upgrade
and also the 20-year total cost of ownership because once we do take on
ownership with these streets, they're ours and they're our responsibility.
um it's not one and done. You fix it and then
ideally was the last one because it again I'm happy to walk through some
examples of some phase one streets and what thinking was also happy to turn it
over to take questions. I think Phil the only thing I would have you add a little
bit more because I think it's important is how the private streets play into the
phasing because some of that work may get done in the short term.
» Yeah, happy to do that. Um we have a really good associate engineer uh
Christina Kangallocei who is stepping into the unaccepted streets project
specifically because she's very good at organizing things and the private
streets are streets that require a lot of legal organization. We have
documentation few of these streets. Uh little legal bay has a covenant that
clearly states we're a private street. We do our own stuff. Leave us alone.
We've had communications with them and documentation that makes it clear we're
a private street. Uh there are others where we have some documentation, but
there are a lot of private streets. UVM has several private streets that we
don't necessarily have that documentation on. And what we don't want
to do at the end of this project is leave loose ends for the next generation
of folks coming to work for public works going why didn't they finish this
project get all the documentation need on these private streets so we can
button it up and those are not our responsibility for sure. So that's what
I have to say about private streets. Thanks.
» Um just to clarify point that there is a separate chart for probably the least
clear subset of streets that we have. These are ones where entities have
claimed them but they haven't provided his documentation.
They put up signs. stands court has assigned marked to private but there's
no documentation for or it's one like um
» Northgate where it's very clearly owned by
» by uh an organization who is currently taking
» care of it and has never expressed to the city in the past they would like us
to accept that from them. Um, but there is a different portion of one of the
streets they own and maintain right now than they would like to accept. So, this
one's just a little bit squishier. We think it falls in the documentation
point until it doesn't and it will either move down into the totally
private chart or it may move up into needing to be a phase three street.
Um, I would like to answer during public comment.
» Just to be clear on what you just said about the private streets, there's two
groupings here. One is actually >> so we have the phase one, two and three
» right unaccepted declared private or proposed private private student
documentation. >> That is all currently under
documentation review which is shown in the chart table. uh the ones that are
kind of listed at the top of that list are the ones that have the least amount
of certainty that I think we will find what we need
in uh in kind of an easy like company or HOA
» and do you send you wanted to address comments?
» I can when you're ready. Yes, >> if you like if you're if you're done
with the presentation you like to do that before we open it up.
Um so quickly some very astute residents did note that VR does pay the city an
annual mileage rate for any accepted south highway. Um some of these streets
may fall under class two and for example the sherb trans pays about $5,000 a mile
to the city for maintenance on class two streets and for class three streets
which is what chip and drive would be classified as is $1,800 of a mile. Um,
so Chipman Drive specifically, it's about a thousand fees. It's dollars a
year. So there is some money that VR does pay us. It's definitely not enough
to maintain a paved street. Um, but we do receive some funding. And anything
that becomes a class two or one street does become eligible for a town highway
grant, which is a maintenance grant. we uh are pretty successful using
um as it relates to the documentation that goes into the estimate. These
estimates were developed based on our average cost per linear foot of similar
infrastructure. So the paving estimate is similar to
what we are currently paving streets for. I guess is Megan's estimates are
coming from costs of similar size pipes for replacement of those types of pipes
that are in there. I think we added some inflation factors four or five years as
well
rough estimates. >> Yes.
» Yep. Um I'm going to open it up to committee members next. Um so any
members questions? >> Go ahead.
» Thank you. Um this is great. Appreciate all the work. Um, I just had a little
bit of a clarifying question. I mean, well, first of all, I think I should say
from my perspective, I do lean towards um I kind of feel like we've already
accepted these streets in in many ways by doing the work over the years and
showing up and um in some cases doing maintenance. So, uh, to me it it feels
like more of a a technicality and a absorption of of the planning of the of
a lot of work that's been going on. Um, but of course I understand, you know,
this the dollars get realer the the further along we go in the process. So,
it's important to to to get that full accounting and I'm glad you're doing
that. Um, so more I I think more discussion to come on that part, but I
did want to Phil, you had you had said something about Deforest AB that I
thought was I I just wanted to clarify because that particular street caught my
eye. Um because the resident that sent the documentation about accepting it
sent some city council meeting minutes from like the 70s and I happen to notice
that the one of the counselors was the man I bought my house from and so two
city councilors have lived in this in the house where I live which is like a
crazy Burlington story and it's great but anyway uh I just want to make so
that you had you had described that and I might be mixing up the roads so
apologies if I am, but you kind of described that as like a document that
surfaced from somebody's basement and I had thought it was an old city
council minutes and so I just want to make sure that you all have act like it
made me realize I don't know do you have access to city council minutes from the
70s and 80s that you can look through to try to answer some of these questions
because um it seems that that seems important. So,
I just wanted to clarify that >> we do um and we had staff on Junth um
actually go to the clerk treasures office for an entire day and um we
looked through how far did we go back? >> The city council resolutions, not just
the minutes. The resolution started in about the mid60s and we combed through
them until 2014 which is about the time that the become
a little bit more accurate. Um and that's all that they said they're down
to their fault. >> They do have city council resolutions
that are older. Um but they are well they are a lot less organized. Um so
we've not delved into that. Uh but we did come across the actual city council
resolution from the meeting minutes reference that accepted the forest in
the lane. >> Okay, great.
» Forest road through the south side of Chinton.
» Okay, >> cool. I just wanted to clarify that as
because if you didn't, I think we would have to make a real call to the public
to like go look in basement and that would not be a very efficient way of
going about this. So, um that's that that answers my question. Um thank you.
» Yeah, which is where we talk about our staff time. Just the next step is way
less organized and it's not going to be nearly as efficient. Um but the
information is possibly there uh to be found.
» And could I could I just respond to one one thing that uh counselor said? I
think >> Go ahead. there has has been potentially
a history and I can't say that we've been perfect in water resources but I
think the tendency to you know plow a street or do other things may be
different from the level of involvement we've had with the subsurface utilities
um I think where it has gotten fuzzy sometimes is the drinking water system
because it is still our system and we do still have sort of right of refusal we
are involved when um there is a water main break we may actually respond to a
water main break on a private street and repair it. But per our ordinance, we're
able to charge the full cost of that repair to um to the private homeowners.
Um yes. Is it complicated if you have multiple homes on a street?
Absolutely. And that's where I can see some benefit of just going ahead and
taking things over. But I just wanted to be clear that I don't know that that's
happening with the subsurface utilities. And because those costs are so much
greater, it's just something to keep in mind. Um, on the sewer lateral piece, I
do feel like we have been much more clear over history with when a pipe is a
piece of private infrastructure and that they've had to call in other folks in
order to uh rotorooer or you know clean pipes like that. So, I don't know if
that's that's helpful, but >> yeah, thank you.
» That's part of the history. Yep.
» Yeah. Thank you for um all the work that has come into this this document. I this
approach makes s sense to me even as as someone who is also um currently in the
camp of we should um in I think in most of these cases we should be accepting
these streets. Um, but I think but I agree that the this due diligence is
necessary both for what we're trying to do now and also in the future. So
there's no complaint for me and I I completely support the funding and
potentially staffing necessary to get the work done uh now and in the future.
Uh my question is um well
yeah this was kind of spo spoken about in public forum. Um it's about
um the policy side of this. Uh I I understand that when the for example
when the phase one streets are done you're going to come back to us with
recommendations and then we're going to to move from there. But between now and
then, um what do you all see as um what policy should the toque the full
council maybe the toque and ordinance combined? What should what policy should
we have ready? Um because as you brought up, there's um there's certain um
challenges here with potentially um trying to accept streets that have no
owners um like the whole like dedication process and stuff. So what what do you
see as um the policy goals from the council um before we even get the
recommendations? Is there work to be done? I think it's a couple of things.
First of all, I I just want to point out that the work that we have to do is not
the technicality. I can appreciate the thought process behind that.
Because these a lot of these streets they look and function like a public
street and so but we have to understand we do know yet whether all owners are
dedicated and we don't have it doesn't like resident parking where
51% residents on a street all say we want resident parking 49% we don't want
it the 51% wins out one resident on that
says no, we can't proceed because we cannot go through eminent domain. In
order to go through eminent domain has to be based on an actual project, a
street project. So if and that's work that we have to do. So that that's that
I think what the city council do is help us with developing.
» So wait, let's not let's not move past your policy and your evidence do because
it does speak to the legal question. The advice the recommendation of the
guidance we've received from the city council is either we find the person who
owns it and assign it over to us or every property street agrees that city
the owners of the right way and dedicates it and the city council
accepts it. Condomination by state statute requires that there be an
accepted plan by the municipality that has been publicly vetted towards a
highway project that needs that land. And that's hard on the streets that we
have because we don't have an accepted public plan which maybe speaks to the
policy end of this that as we work with the city attorney's office if we find
that is 98% of the property owners are ready to sign and there's just
an example one person who lives in France who's just not going to do that
for us um >> which happened
» despite how agreeable they may be >> uh that that stops our process so that
might be the area where your policy or approach needs to start to be developed
to complete this entire project. >> And this is where we need consultants.
There may be some whisbang lawyer way of going about it, but some title search
lawyer would know that as civil engineers, we don't.
» So, you're going to go through budget. >> Yeah. And I think the other thing we'll
do with he is how are we going to develop budget to to pay for to pay for
not just the consultant work but also the long-term budget leads because as we
add more mileage you know payments is something we talk about a lot. These are
streets that are going to come under that banner of needing to be maintained
or just rebuild.
Um
um well I guess that thank you um that's helpful. I and I I appreciate I I don't
view that as a technicality. I think this work is very necessary. Um it's
tough. Um,
yeah. I guess I guess I I guess I I would personally want to to learn more
and maybe I I would need to reach out to the city attorneys about this about what
um about what we could possibly do. I'm I'm interested to see if this is a um if
like if we have the ability to to to alter these um these standards for
like for dedication for condemnation for eminent domain even if it's through the
charter process and if it's through the charter process and that's something
that we need to get ahead of that would be something we need to work on now to
to get to to to have everything lined up by 2028. So if that's if the city
attorney comes back and recommends that we need to go through the charter
process that that'd be something that I want to hear hear back from the law. So
yeah, I'm interested in staying in touch about that.
» Yep. Um, I might recommend that one of our future updates because we're going
to be doing a lot of work, but maybe we'll have a substantial
amount to bring back as an update, but maybe find the right time to bring back
um either someone from the city attorney's office or whoever they choose
as an outside council secret. >> Great.
» Yeah, I'm good. >> I had um a few different questions.
» Um, >> first I'll give a comment. Uh Sharon
Busher um wasn't able to make or she a long voicemail. Uh basically the gist of
her voicemail which you can treat as a public comment is that um given the type
financial uh circumstances the city's in right now that maybe um we might want to
push all this work out um till after I think she specifically talked about um
some of the water bonding started to work its way way through. Um so there's
additional costs taxpayers uh they would be incurring those um in
the next three or four budget years. And some part of her rationale which I don't
necessarily disagree with is this isn't a problem that just happened. This is a
problem that's sort of out there for decades. Um and so what would would
three or four more years make a difference? Now I I'm not saying that we
should postpone it. I'm just offering those because Sharon wasn't here to
speak at public forum and she had made the effort to give those comments. Um I
do uh have a couple questions around some of the things that were said. One
was around the review of city council minutes. It's more of just curiosity.
Are these things digitized at this point or are you got is the research project
actually going through paper? >> It's a paper effort. We brought in
several city staff. This is why we ask staff who were already choosing to work
on the holiday um to do this one task because it was very invasive in our
treasurer's office and doing that on a regular day would have been hard with so
many staff. >> Um there is also a book of meeting
minutes which the attorney's office recommended that we take a look at but
that was too cumbersome to include the other research we did that day. Um but
that is another place where they noted that street acceptances could be noted
and maybe the resolution would never be found. I think there was an effort when
I first got on the council to I think councelor high tower even maybe
experimented it and it was about trying to appropriate money some of the co
monies even to digitize >> the land records are digitized
» it's just land >> um which is amazing to have the
resolutions if you want to talk about policies this
is not related to this one although probably would have helped um the
resolutions are a mess and there is definitely some inefficiencies in the
treasures the attorney's office um where people will literally look through the
same boxes we just looked through but they're looking for different things.
» Right. Okay. Well, that sounded a matter but thank you for clarifying that. Um my
next question was about private streets going forward. I understand we have to
untangle this right now. >> But it's like how do we keep ourselves
from having to untangle future private streets? Is there policy now around like
if someone's building condo development or something that is there policy and
procedure in place that they have to adhere to in order to get sign up
» remain private? Yes. Um additionally we have talked internally we will replace
every street sign with the word PBT on it for streets that we find that are
declared private. So there's a lot more clarity,
» right? >> Um
» we already have one that we're working on with fire department right now. It's
right off Broadway. It's gone through a couple of name changes. I think it's now
broad jump. >> I think so.
» Let us make this. >> Yeah. The planning through the zoning
process these uh issues get worked out. We have
engineering standards now that make it very clear what they need to build it to
for us to be willing to accept it. So really this is a problem of looking
backwards not a problem current day going
» but I'm not even talking about accepting any of these streets in the f new street
gets built a new private street gets built it'll have a different engineering
standard than what we would maybe uh insist upon for our own public streets
right >> and I mean is there some standard by
which those streets have to I mean they some documentation process I guess so
that we know and it's clear so that some future generation as Philip alluded to
of DPW employees isn't like wondering about it and we have that those
standards in place now. Yes, the the form-based codes
appendix uh comprehensive development ordinance references engineering
standards that are outlined um by the city of Burlington either as adopted
speaking back to the 2024 standards and then they also lightly describe what's
required so that there's a hint as to kind of as people are like I don't want
to go to this whole other document like what's needed about
» just ownership and all that >> and also you know how to how to build a
driveway. ways it's or a road or that you know
» so that it's also going to just be durable for the residents that speaks to
the timing which um Sharon Busher mentioned
» a lot of these as um we look through this list especially on the paving side
but uh sometimes within the water side you'll see it's like one of the middle
middle columns it talks about transportation timeline or water
resources timeline and you'll either see a short medium or long term which is our
best estimate based on the information we've gathered
about how long before we need to make the financial investment in the street
and there are some of these that are within the one to fiveyear time frame
and so pushing us off five years is going to make it so that waiting to
invest in the street if we accept it we're dealing
um which has to be financially planned for so
» I get it >> that would be the concern
» the other the other piece to what Laura just said is what's challenging from the
subsurface utility perspective is that even if we have a pipe that's like a
medium term right uh need but if Laura's going
to get in there and do her surface work then it ends up accelerating when we
should coordinate and maybe make that investment. So it's just an additional
layer of sort of uh unanticipated capital expenditures that we're we're
trying to juggle. No, I I appreciate that. And I again, I
wasn't advocating. I was relaying a public comment. Um and but it seemed
like a legitimate >> Yeah. legitimate issue to raise.
» Um then the next thing and the last thing I'll I'll we'll talk about right
now is that I I I appreciate all this work and I think we absolutely have to
be doing this. Um the the thing I wonder about though is
like when we and I think we need to know these these numbers uh that are in the
um the Excel sheet here um and and the expected timelines and whatnot. But the
reality is I think for many of these streets or let's say a significant
number of them we're doing this work already anyways. If there's a break on a
water break somewhere we're going to fix it. Um I don't know that we're charging
back residents. >> We are.
» We are. Okay. Well, that's good to know as well. But but
» but if there are, you know, there's some of these things I know that we're we're
fixing in an ongoing way. Um so it's not like these are all necessarily
new costs, but what we're doing is formalizing
the costs that we would incur. So if we're doing future bonding and capital
planning, we know what that is. Um, and it's not just pothole.
» No, I understand. >> I totally get it. I totally get it. But
I'm just I just want to >> name that we are doing some of this work
already and we have been doing it for decades.
» The the life maintenance costs are not the financial concern. is the
substantial reinvestment to bring a asset back up to beginning of its useful
life, which is the cost that staff have concerns about as we've considered the
budget. Um, as we've done capital forecasting or our capital program
director, those have just never been in it because
they've not been part of the city's asset classes. Uh,
» and that is the the costs that we are the most concerned about. plowing, pott
filling, adding a little bit of dirt, grading, you know, some of the dirt
streets is small enough. >> They're also also accepted streets in
our network now that when we go to fix them, we realize that they're
substandard and need a lot more than we expect. I think Main Street was one of
them, right? I mean, >> Bennington Court Bennington Court. So,
so I mean the these these infirmities of these streets are are are lack of um
living up to current standards are >> they're they're not unique to the
unaccepted streets and the private streets. They're also
characteristics of some of our streets accepted streets. There is a history um
back in the middle 70s early 80s that the um city council and the
administration at the time went through a massive acceptance of anything that
looked like a street look like a duck, walk like a duck. That is literally what
they did. They grabbed it, they brought it in, they accepted it. Uh
and there are, for example, Ben Court had barely an inch of asphalt on it.
when we went to repaint it, we build it up, we found sand underneath, um, which
changed the way we had to approach our this season. So, yes, there's still
those surprises that exist out there as, uh, we find these streets that were
developed. >> So, it is better to go into this with
our eyes open and clear, but but I just want wanted for the record known that
this is not unique to this cl these unaccepted streets that these are these
are other problems that we encounter regularly. discover new
» rediscover and new things and surprises and hopefully with our engineering
standards and um and other recent advancements we'll say that we're less
likely to find those things going forward.
» Correct. Um, you know, I I do want to say, you know, as we consider this, you
know, you have a a group of city staff here who understand the commit the
scenario that we're currently in and needing to solve this problem one way or
the other of either accepting or uh asking residents to become some sort of
association with private. If for some reason, you know, as we're looking at
phase one, a street under phase two, I lane I think
is the least likely I lane comes forward. Every resident on the street
says we have we have signed this deed. We are ready the city to accept this
street. We will that's it. We'll move it forward. We'll tell you that this is
what's happening. This is all the information we have on it. Do you want
us to collect more or are you ready to accept the risk that you know we're
using 20% estimates to give you a asset value of the street?
» Have to be a property owner. >> Yeah. But that's possible if possible if
as we share with the public what we're doing here.
North Cove is probably one of the ones that I suspect may, you know, as a
neighborhood come together and just be like, I'm doing this. We're all doing
this. Collecting signatures. We're going to go forward. extension,
» right? Um, okay. And and the other thing, Becca alluded to it a little bit,
but I think as we are doing outreach to these streets, I think it's probably
worthwhile saying go to your basement and your filing cabinets and give us any
documentation you might have that might be different than what's in some of the
city records or might be harder to find in the city records. That's right.
» Of the way way. We welcome any private information. The
more information we have collectively, the better decisions we and frankly you
all as the deciders get to make. >> We should depend on it. But it's a it's
a nice to have if we can get it. >> Exactly. And Laura segueed to uh two
streets that I think is as Merrick you talked about policy that we will need to
get the council to be thinking about are streets uh such as North Cove Road that
don't have some utilities on it and what your expectation is about whether or not
utilities will be built out on those streets as part of acceptance or not.
Currently, North Cove does not have sewer service and they have private
septic. So, that's going to be an important policy discussion for the
council to grapple with. If you have any additional initial kind of thoughts now,
fine. But ultimately, this is going to be a long-term uh policy decision
squarely council understanding that those roads it's
probably not as simple as just running a new sewer line. We're talking pump
station and force main which the costs are much heavier.
» It's a low point. You got to get it up the hill.
» Yeah. >> So, um what for? So, you don't need
anything else from two tonight. This is more of an update. Are you bringing this
same update to the council at some point?
» We have uh not thought about a full council presentation. We one idea just
speaking off top of my head is that we could share with the council in a
communication what we discussed with the toque so that there was awareness about
the phased approach and see if there's any input from them given that we're
really limited at least in FY27 to staff time desktop review initial research
that that may be sufficient for now. >> Okay. But you tell me if if the council
feels otherwise. >> We might um ask that I think maybe we
attach this um this memo and maybe commun well with the
communication to the council's >> and then you could speak to it as part
of your council committee updates. >> Yeah, you can do that.
» Okay. Would it be good to know too city council would like city staff to
continue public engagement at this point? Like what you all would envision
city staff doing for public engagements? U well certainly street I mean for
myself and I'll open up to the committee. Certainly if you've I I don't
disagree with your phasing. I know that you have reasons for phasing things this
way. Um but within the phase one streets eventually I would think we would need
to start doing outreach in some form to all of the residents of
I don't know what you're whether you're talking about a meeting like you're
talking about a mailing or what >> so that was kind of proposed I wrote the
section which is why I feel a little less familiar with it um that basically
you know we need to work internally on our own budget um to try to continue to
build out a 28 and funds to the investigation. Uh concurrently, it's the
public engagement at a street level conversation because all of almost all
of these streets are very different or in a different part of town or will have
different conditions based on their size and availability. And even as much as
Chitn and Iran are right next to each other, the streets themselves are very
fundamentally different in how they're built. one may allow on street parking
and the other one is probably not going to have enough space to fit it. Um so
you know very much a neighborhood street by street level discussion is what we
envision >> and we can involve counselors in those
words as well the MPA >> I don't know that I want to bring it in
through the NPA just because that brings in such a large component of a
neighborhood and this literally needs to be an understanding if you become an
accepted city street you're paying incumbrance fees if you want to have a
moving truck on the street you're going to have to do this. Do you envision
wanting on street parking? Do you not want on street parking? You're not going
to be able to get resident parking if we put, you know, so it's extremely
specific to just these property owners. >> I I we can do it as a communication
tool. >> Okay. Yes.
» Um we Is there more Beck if you have more?
» No, thank you. >> Okay. Um I I want to move us I know you
had a question if you can keep it the to less than a minute we allow.
» Sure. I just want to say that um I'll talk about finances and projected
expenses and whatnot. I think the city like I pay a lot of taxes for a very
small house a raised ranch which is constantly prepare 13,000 a year of
payment. I get nothing. No Vermont asset, no telephone, whatever. And I
have to do this. And I really object to the flip value where you just say, "Oh
yes, the comm the homeowners are going to pay for a water break." It's like
that's horrible. That would be like my retirement. And I don't feel like I'm
part of the community. I've lived in Burlington since 1986. And when you can
just dismiss these kinds of things so out of hand, it doesn't feel great. I
would say in terms of what this is going to cost, you know what we're paying now?
Nothing. And the city, I feel like, is liable for allowing these streets. My
street was built 60 years ago. And Tony Pomelo, when he was alive, would say,
"We're gonna sell it to the city for a dollar." They did that all through the
70s and 80s. And you know, nobody wanted to take assume the cost. Well, I'm a
member of this community. I pay taxes. And the fact that um this can just you
could be so flippant like, "Oh, they've only have they don't have three inches
of tarmac. We're not gonna, you know, like I'm going to tell the community
that it's going to be a exorbitant cost and everybody's going to get upset." You
know, it's like I am a member of this community to dismiss my
» But thank you. Thank you for asking. It's kind of outrageous and I think you
guys are at fault. >> We appreciate you being here.
» So many years that nobody dealt with this and of
course the streets are in disrepair because nobody the city didn't want
Steve Goodkind in 2014 said I don't want to pay for the streets and they didn't.
And they got further and further and worse repair. And it's it's the city's
fault. It's not my fault. >> Well, we're we're we're we're working on
it and we appreciate your input. >> I'm sorry. I'm so
» No, no, it's fine. And I'm I'm hoping >> I just it's just it's just the the the
attitude. It's just it's it's people's lives, you know. I know it's a budget. I
know there's technical stuff and I know there's legal stuff, but it's people's
lives. >> Yeah, it's understandable.
» I Okay. >> Um but this this is to be continued. Um
and I think we're making good progress on plan. Yeah. And we're gonna discuss
the policy aspects of council.
» Follow up about the estimates or >> we can talk,
» but appreciate appreciate those who came with me. Thank you.
» Thank you. Um, so we're going to continue on and now we're going to go
backwards in our agenda to our GMT funding initiative and
clarity. >> Hi, nice to meet you.
» Join us at the table. >> Um, and um, we were talking that um,
despite best intentions, neither or Merrick or I or Becca could make it
to either of the things we've had so far. were hoping you could do giving
give us an update on how this initiative is proceeding and and what you sort of
um say your name for the record. >> Sure. Yeah, my name is Marty Gillies.
» Um apologies for >> um so this initiative kind of came from
some local citizen advocates. Uh it's been sort of taken up by the BNRC or not
natural resources council. um they operate the transportation for Vermont's
team for BT program. So it's uh it's got its own website but it is part of BNRC
and the staff people who run it are BNRC staff um and B T forBT is sort of a
broad coalition of uh transportation um minded groups clubs in there 350 per
month other climate organization AP so just a kind of a wide consortium of
folks that are interested in transportation mostly public transitive
walk bike groups um and So they're sort of leading the
charge here. And so um we've had two meetings to date. Um and
the first sort of thing on the the agenda is the September 22nd press
conference. Um
I believe at the last meeting it was agreed that that would be at the GMT
um headquarters, but then there was some talk maybe we'll have it at the downtown
training center. Um but that'll be on September 22nd. Time has not yet been uh
locked in. Um and I think the point of press conference is sort of as before
November elections and as uh legislators at the state level are sort of ramping
up for the January start session. um just trying to communicate to the state
and to our policy makers at that level that there's a sort of a large
demographic group that cares um pretty deeply and has a great need for transit.
Um, I think one of the discussion points has
been, you know, the urban versus rural elements. And in this press conference,
are we going to try to fold in um folks from central Vermont, Northeast Kingdom,
southern Vermont, or is this going to be more of a concerted shifting county push
to say, hey, like specifically here in our area that is more urban than most of
Vermont? This is especially important to us and you know, kind of get a little
bit steamrolled or lost sometimes at the state level. Um so I think the ultimate
decision over the first two meetings was uh there is a January press conference
in Montpillar that maybe it would make more sense for central Vermont and
Northeast Kingdom folks to come to and sort of present that unified front that
across the state this is a need. Um but this September press conference I think
it's going to be more of a Chen County focus. Uh
speakers at this time I think we have Tosh Rener mayor Wooki is planning on
being there. Um I believe someone from Essex Junction
City Council is going to be there. Uh ARP
CATMA Champ looking at maybe grabbing the housing
person or two um just to sort of you know find that interconnectedness of
transit enabling more housing less money less traffic etc. Um, so that's kind of
where we're at on that element of the the thing. And then beyond September
22nd, uh, I think that is still a little bit more in the air, but the idea is
that transportation for Veranters would be in their platform and and this group
would be sort of working to highlight um, existing
um, and ongoing efforts to promote bus
ridership. I think broadly speaking bit more of advocacy education campaign
looking to get choice riders just trying to spread the word a little bit more
about whereab routes exist stuff like that for example GMT just extended the
number nine route so now it goes to the Shaw Pchester it's the first time that
will have transit access to a like a major grocery store that's kind of a big
deal and that's no it's not in the news and that's not something that's super
well publicized just I'm trying to to do more to make those little victories and
make things more public. But I think so far a lot of the effort has been on the
set of second press conference and I think the sort of education advocacy
campaign comes next. Um the other big I guess thing worth talking about is that
there it's not going to be so much a policy or a legislative campaign. I
think a lot of folks um in the T4BT coalition feel that the
way things are set up right now, there's not a ton of wiggle room budget wise or
politically speaking to make big moves on transit funding this session. Um so I
think the intention is sort of to get the ball rolling to sort of prime
legislators and media and stuff like that to to cover this in a different way
or to be more receptive of this issue moving forward. But I don't think that
there's any expectation that there's going to be huge
changes made this session as result. >> Okay. Um, I will add, uh, Councelor
Bergman isn't here this evening, but he sent me a note prior to the meeting, um,
suggesting that we send we, uh, draft a statement um,
sent to send to the full council in support of this and also send it to
legislators and legislative candidates, the mayor and their administration, ask
that they join u this effort or support this effort at a point.
Um, and so that's also something that we as a committee could could help
undertake if there was interest in doing that. So I'll open it up to uh committee
members for um comments and discussion. Um but yeah, sure. Uh thanks for thanks
for coming. Um um
uh you uh for the press first for for the press conference if you uh want one
of us for to speak the press conference have some or maybe someone from the
mayor's office or something a Burlington speaker. Uh I think that would be cool.
uh if that's a need or want. Um I guess now now going into what I guess
what you were talking about um and Clayton maybe you can um confirm
this. Um you so you said that um in going into the next session there aren't
there doesn't there aren't plans currently for a I guess like a
legislative logging campaign around around the budget specifically. Do you
think the budget's going to remain stable for GMT? Because my concern is
that I maybe maybe there's not um like you said the wiggle room, the
consciousness among among the legislature yet to make a full push for
increased funding which I think we desperately need. Um but for for years
now it's been it's not even been about increasing funding, it's been about
holding the line. Do you think that um would there be worth in having some type
of effort on even just holding the line because it seems like it just gets
chipped away to learn more? >> No, it definitely does. Um yeah, like I
said, I'm not a huge Montillar policy expert or anything like that. Um the
BNRC folks are are like professional lobbyists. Um so they're the ones who
are sort of reading the room. >> Yeah.
» Relaying that to me. Um, I think the big push
policy wise would be the dedication of a separate
dedicated transit funding source. So there's some some tax or some fee at the
state level and all that always goes to transit and there's a pot of money
specifically reserve for transit and it's not we're not taking a little bit
out of the trans general fund that you're hearing kind of argu about how
much that is. Um, and my understanding is that folks feel like it's maybe not
the right time or not yet the right time to um go for a full court
push on our legislators to make that happen this session. I think the thought
is that there should be some sort of priming that hey like this is an issue,
this is an issue and once folks sort of accept and our our donkey business says
that this is an issue then that's the solution, right? Um
Paul order to get that immediately done. I think especially Bill Scott is pretty
vocal that he wants to know your taxes fees. Um and this you know if it maybe
comes out to be a net zero any less of the this general fund is coming from
this other pot maybe the total total amount is the same but it would probably
end up having a new sort of tax or fee or or something like that. And so the
thoughts that the Scott administration would be pretty opposed and unless
there's pretty widespread grab support for something like that. Um they might
be like sort of dead on arrival. >> Yeah. Not well I I agree with you about
that. I think it's a I think that's a great long-term goal. Uh, and I yeah, I
would also agree that based off of past sessions that it's um
not not great chances, but yeah, just just flagging that like we've seen just
year over year, you know, this that the data is that it's not just been like
they're leaving it stable, that they're they're forcing GMT to cut millions of
dollars. And I um yes, like I I agree with you about like any sort of
increasing um and even what you said about creating a dedicated funding
source. Uh but if if Phil Scott comes out and says we're we're going to make
GMT cut another $3 million um it's they think there needs to be and
even just a campaign to hold the line could also be part of that priming the
pumps for doing more in the future. And like I said, um the first two meetings
of the sort of organizing committee have been some logistics of the match went
too. And I think there's there's a lot of wiggle room for what this campaign
looks like moving forward. And so I think um I certainly don't mean to like
shut like doors to the table and stuff. There's there's
ton
to respond with any insights that you might have at this early stage about
future funding. too early or is it too early? Um,
» it's not too early because um I have um so I have some good news and bad news as
usual. Uh but before I I dive into that, I I do just want to thank Marty for his
efforts um uh both with this and his uh work on our uh ridership um uh
accessibility council uh that we have. So thank you very much for uh for
supporting GMT in such a great way uh Marty. And so, um, one of the things
that, uh, uh, Mariki brought up about funding uncertainty and the last time I
was there, I talked about, uh, concerns about the federal funding levels and,
uh, one of the things that it appears that next year's federal funding levels
will be, uh, flat for GMT, so that we won't have a reduction. So, so that's
the the good news that um we have to report. But I I I should say that, you
know, until a continuing resolution is fully passed and signed by the
president, um you know, we don't know exactly if that funding will be uh level
as we think it will be. The thing that I'm more concerned about, and uh this is
something that Chapen um heard at our last uh GMT board meeting, is that the
ridership uh numbers um uh have gone down more than we anticipated with our
service reductions from the past year. Um we are in my opinion dangerously
close to losing some of our performance awards. um if we do lose those
performance awards, that is the first step in a death spiral. And uh people
don't like it when I say it, but that's the reality. And so uh uh so that is
really the thing that concerns me because any future cuts we're we're
already probably have cut to the point that we're going to lose performance
awards and any future cuts is means in my mind that that will be pretty much
definite. >> Thank you. Um,
Becca, did you want to make comments or ask questions?
» Uh, no, just thank you for all this work. It's it's important and um I
definitely support keeping the funding and um I hope that we um don't see the
wrership continue to go down. I think that that's not great news, Clayton. And
but I'm I'm glad you're flagging it so that we have the opportunity to do
something. Thanks. >> Thank you. Um, so it seems like there's
two actions that um, we could take. One is to send a representative to the press
conference on the 22nd. Merrick, would you be willing to be a representative
since you're inhouse uh, transit expert, sorry, or GMT expert? Anyways, um, be
happy to. Um, and so we could do that. Um, and we could also uh I could work
with Marty to to draft a um a communication on behalf of the committee
that we could maybe circulate to the council.
» I think Jean had sort of mentioned that maybe you've done this in previous
years. >> What we've done in in the past is we've
actually sponsored resolutions probably on three different occasions that I can
recall. um and that we would sponsor resolutions at the council level that
then go on to um the legislature, you know, about and usually during the
legislative session to try to to advocate for funding and we've done that
um in the past and I don't know how effective they've been, but hopefully
they've been they've been helpful and Clayton and worked with us on on those
um as well at times. So um in this in this particular case you see how you're
the press conference is really vehicle ahead of the election cycle and trying
to get people to commit to them and whatnot. We could certainly um try to
help with that with some sort of statement of support. I I would work
with you if the committee is good with me doing so um on that and maybe um we
could you know not as committee because we probably won't vote on it tonight but
as in as we've done in the past as individual counselors we could sign on
as two members as individual counselors if we could have a statement that's
acceptable to all four of us and we could bring that to the full to
constitute obvious sign. >> Absolutely.
Yeah, that goes with the sort of the two items that Gene had certified for me if
possible action. >> So I can work with you directly. I think
I could contact email,
you know, you'll work with America on that.
» Um and and Jim, thank you for your advocacy because we need that.
» Yeah, no problem. And thank you for reflectioning the schedule.
» No problem. >> I don't know if Clayton if I kept you
sitting in Zoom for an hour, but apologies for that.
» We kept we kept Clayton entertained with unaccepted streets.
» I actually got a lot of work done, so thanks.
» Worked out great. >> Okay. Well, thank you.
» Yeah. Um, so we'll we'll move to uh you'll move to Our
next agenda item which is our last deliberative item
» must be me >> which is the proposed FOY27 fleet
purchases presentation. >> Has it been a year already?
» Almost. >> Yeah, almost a year.
» I think it was last August. >> I believe
we'll move on to that next. >> And we have Ashley Parker as well for
the setting. And unfortunately, fleet manager Nate G cannot be here tonight
because he has sort of personal commitments as
» we'll be representing the fleet committee uh which uh the fleet
committee is here to request the transportation energy utilities
committee recommend the board of finance and city council approve the proposed
FY27 vehicle purchase replacement
recommendations and list the vehicle side optional.
So as uh for the fleet policy, our fleet manager Dave Hammond, myself met with
both uh representatives from both general fun departments and revenue
special revenue departments to come up with a recommended uh list for FY27.
Out of those meetings, he identified 15 vehicles were total for FY27.
13 of those being general fund vehicles or equipment that are also in urgent
need of replacement. Uh the other two remaining are water resources
of revenue. Um available funds for the general fund
purchases will be uh funded by the general
obligation bond series 2025A. There's a little over a million dollars left in
there from previous purchases that can be used. And of those four funds that
mentions in the vehicle purchase list, there will be four uh large capital
vehicles purchased through the GO bond and then the remainder of the general
fund vehicle purchased using $750,000 that was allotted by administration.
uh revenue purchases will be using their own revenue streams to make those
purchases. Total purchase amount is not to exceed
1,974,788.
You can see the list of vehicles to purchase. We could run through them, but
they are in the memo. I'm sure you have a look at those. Um
and we still have a rather large uh deferred list of vehicles or like 93
vehicles which makes up about 30% of the general fund fleet. So that does not
include BE vehicles or uh water resources
just general fund vehicles with a total amount a little over 6 and a half
million. Now not all those deferred vehicles are in need of replacement.
Some are assets that are um can be deferred due to limited use or limited
wear to them and are not expensive to maintain. So we have you know there's
trailers, we have a top cell screen. We've had for years that would be
replaced but because of the amount of use it gets and the amount of
maintenance that it requires is not on make to the top of that list.
the age of our fleet has a lot to do with the deferred vehicles list and how
it impacts our fleet maintenance team and their ability to properly maintain
the fleet. So, we've been moving from more of a preventative maintenance
program to more of a responsive maintenance program due to the aid of
the fleet and the amount of repairs that it needs.
also the size of the fleet compared to the size of our fleet technician team
which we are down a few fleet technicians right now. So it's making it
uh as I said more of a responsive playing catch up. So due to that, we've
been outsourcing a lot of our larger repairs
to local vendors, which has increased our contractual vehicle repair line,
which we had to amend in FY26 by about almost $76,000.
But we do have a new fleet funding strategy, as I mentioned in the memo,
antennal service fund, which will hopefully be implemented in the next
year too. that allow general fund departments to set aside money within
their budget to pay for their individual departments fleet purchases.
That's something that we're working on the administration.
And then EV purchases this year. We don't out of those 15 vehicles, a lot of
them are large block trucks, tandoms, one a trailer
that there's not an EV option for. We did have five uh police cruisers that
were purchasing that are hybrids. Um, of the vehicles on the list, when we met
with Burlington Electric to review possible EV options,
the only option was the walkbehind mower,
which we dealt with the one parks and recreation cemetery. We had one on site.
Their crews took it, mowed all over the the uh cemeteries. used it out in other
areas, other parks. Um, it just the way that mower works and as it states in
supporting memo that the parks department,
it's just not conducive to the lay of the cemetery,
especially with a lot of the ledge slopes that are there.
Previous years I demoed one myself there and found it difficult and unsafe on
those steep slopes because it's not controlled like a traditional more with
belt drives. So we are not pursuing that as an
electric vehicle where there are no electric vehicle purchases here just by
hybrid.
Um, Ashley, do you have anything to add?
» Um, no. I think I just wanted to highlight again the um general fund. I
don't want to say earmark, but contribution that was approved as part
of the budget this year to support um the cash purchase of that long list of
general fund vehicles that Lee was was mentioning, almost $750,000. and that it
is part of the attempt to work towards that internal service fund where we um
more formally set aside money to make sure we have money to purchase uh
vehicles every year. So, I just wanted to to call that out in addition to the
bond dollars that um are also supporting purchases.
Um, committee members on the uh the fleet just
there. Becca, do you have anything?
» I don't have anything. This all looks good to me. Thank you. It's nice to see
the progress being made on the financing side certainly too. So, thank you.
» I guess I had a question. So just to understand the mo the so parks one of
the fleet purchases is a is a walkbehind mower
» correct >> and is it for parks?
» Yes. >> Okay. So it was a clear about
» um and so and they demoed one an electric model that that wasn't suitable
for what they needed and so that's why we're not pursuing that. the other
electric vehicles um the other fleet purchases aren't eligible for because
there there aren't electric >> options for them except for like the
police cruisers where they're hybrids. >> Correct.
» Okay.
» Um I'm just anticipating >> Yeah.
» other questions that may come up like they have in prior years um as this
groups beyond the committee and off to the council.
» Yeah. And we did discuss with Burlington Electric about the
um ship command vehicle because originally we were going to go with an
F150 light or something similar to that, but because of the weight that they
carry the gear, it exceeded the capacity of the pickup. So then we looked at
maybe the the Chevy Silverado, a heavier duty version, but based on again
There's a difference between carrying capacity and towing capacity. And again,
with the size of the batteries that are on the vehicle and the additional weight
that they would add in gear, it exceeded what they could use it for. So,
» well, uh, thank you for this. Um, is 15. I mean, I've seen a few of these come
through since I've been on the council. >> Yeah, I mean on this on this on the It's
even below last year, but I think was maybe 17.
» Yeah. So I mean there's been years where 20,
» right? So it's bad, you know. >> So I mean it's important not to lose
sight of the fact that there is that deferred list that's becoming more some
of which are becoming more and more critical.
» Correct. And and our fleet software has a scoring system that rates vehicles in
urgent need. So these 13 that are in the general fund are urgent need vehicles
from the department. Well, thank you for bringing this
forward. Um, I know that you would like uh the toque to
» make a motion on this and take take action to move it to the full council.
So, I don't know if one of the committee members would
make a motion. There's one in the memo. Uh
uh so I would move to approve and recommend the board of finance and city
council approve the proposed whites 17 fleet purchasing list as detailed in
attachment a vehicle replacement list and authorize the director of the
department of public works who purchased the vehicles listed therein for a total
authorized expenditure in an amount not to exceed 1,974,788.
And I and I would move to approve and
recommend that the board of finance and city council authorize the director of
the department public works or designate to dispose of the FY27 replaced vehicles
equipment through any of the following means as they shall in their responsible
judgment determined to be in the city's best interest and to take such further
actions and execute such further instruments approved as to form by the
city the attorney as may be necessary or convenient to affectuate the
transactions contemplated hereby auction the vehicle/equipment through any of the
various online public auctions by trade in where vehicle equipment is being
purchased or if the vehicle is is of no value to the vendor fleet maintenance
will have the vehicle equipment hauled away for scrap at the current market
price thanks for that very motion is there a second
» wow Oh, I'm really glad I didn't volunteer to read that. Thanks, Eric.
Second. Yes. >> Um, any further discussion?
I see none. All those in favor of the motion while motion is read by indicate
by saying I. >> I.
» I. >> Um, so there you have it.
» Thank you. >> Thank you.
» Thank you. >> Thank you all.
» Thank you, Ashley.
Um and that brings us to the end of our deliberative agenda. Next we have a
director's report. >> Yeah. Given the hour, uh I defer.
» Yeah. Councelor items. Any councilors have items to
for the committee? You're not seeing any. Um so that moves
us to our last item which is SK setting. Our next meeting is currently scheduled
for the 22nd uh of September at 5:30 p.m. Is that work for everybody still?
And is this room available?
» Is everybody okay with that as a meeting date? Uh assuming the press conference
is not 5:30. >> Yeah, they did. It was like 11 or 4.
» Yeah. >> And that will work for me. I got it.
» Um >> Yep. That works for me.
» Okay. So, let's let's let's say we're going to do that and I will
let team know and the item is so further business and
that's the injunction. I'll journ at 7:09.
Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. Have a good night.
Come
on. Come on.