[0:00] call to order the city council
transportation energy and utilities
[0:04] committee at 5:32
and um I would entertain a motion to
[0:14] amend and then adopt our
[0:19] what has been discussed is moving items
um 4.3
[0:24] to the top u or right after right after
public
[0:29] I would
>> second a second. Uh is there any other
[0:35] discussion on the uh adoption of the
agenda as amended? Seeing none, all
[0:41] those in favor indicate by saying I I
>> I.
[0:45] » Any opposed? I guess not. That's
unanimous. Um and so we have that. Next
[0:51] is adopting of our minutes from our July
28th meeting. Can be a motion on that. I
[0:58] would move to adopt the minutes.
>> Second.
[1:03] » Any discussion?
See none. All in favor adoption of his
[1:07] minutes by saying I
>> I
[1:09] » I
>> I
[1:11] » and that's also unanimous. Um noting
that council for the public council
[1:16] Bergman is not with us tonight. So it's
just a
[1:21] um and then um next thing would be a
public forum. Um and I don't anybody has
[1:28] We do have two signed up. Is there
anybody else here that wants to hasn't
[1:32] signed up that wants to sign up for a
public forum?
[1:36] Okay. Um is and if anybody online once
we handle the in-person uh uh forum
[1:43] participants will move to online and you
if you want to participate indicate by
[1:48] using the raise hand function on Zoom.
>> So the first uh person is uh is it
[1:55] Caris? Caris. Okay. And Simone. Okay.
Simone the first.
[2:11] So, thanks everybody for having here. My
name is Cara Simone. I live at 29
[2:16] Chitten Drive. And I want to begin by
thanking DPW for the work that has gone
[2:20] into um the memo we provided um as part
of the meeting agenda. I think that the
[2:26] phased approach represents progress and
I was encouraged to see Chitman Drive
[2:30] included in phase one. Um I also
appreciate the recognition that
[2:34] Leverland historical research needs to
be part of this process and that the
[2:37] existing city services will continue
while the review is underway. I do
[2:42] continue however to have some questions
about the proposed timeline and about
[2:46] how much investigation needs to occur
before the council begins making policy
[2:50] decisions. I think it's important to
remember how we got here. Residents did
[2:56] not come to the city asking for our
streets to be accepted so that they
[2:59] could immediately be reconstructed or
upgraded to current standards. The issue
[3:03] arose because residents of streets that
the city has maintained for decades were
[3:07] told that the city might discontinue
services such as snow plowing because
[3:12] those uh streets were considered
unaccepted or private.
[3:16] The current memo provides an important
clarification. The acceptance itself
[3:20] would not require immediate
reconstruction, which is great. Future
[3:24] improvements could be evaluated and
prioritized through the city's normal
[3:28] capital planning process. That
distinction matters because it raises
[3:31] the question of how much engineering
analysis and cost estimation is actually
[3:36] necessary before council can establish a
policy for these streets. I certainly
[3:41] understand the need for appropriate
technical review. The city needs to
[3:46] understand what infrastructure it would
be assuming and different streets may
[3:49] ultimately require different decisions.
I also understand the need for legal and
[3:53] historical research. But for Chin Drive
for example, the ownership history is
[3:58] not entirely mysterious. Road was
associated with deforest realies the
[4:03] original developer uh which is now
defunct. There is no homeowners
[4:07] association or other functioning private
entity maintaining the road. Meanwhile,
[4:11] the city has plowed and maintained Chip
and Drive for decades, issued curb cut
[4:16] permits associated with properties on
the street and otherwise treated it as a
[4:19] public roadway in a number of ways. So,
it seems to me that one of the threshold
[4:24] questions should be relatively
straightforward.
[4:27] Is there actually a private owner or
successor today who asserts legally
[4:31] enforcable ownership interest in the
road and is prepared to assume
[4:36] responsibility for it? I would say that
it's highly unlikely somebody's going to
[4:41] come forward say I want to own a street.
There's no home ownership of like me
[4:45] saying I want to have my own private
fire department. It's just not something
[4:49] people necessarily want to take up. Um I
recognize that answering that question
[4:57] uh may lead may uh require land records
and legal research, but I would
[5:01] encourage the city to determine the most
efficient and proportionate way to
[5:05] resolve it. If notice to potential
owners or successors is appropriate, for
[5:10] example, could that be done before
substantial resources are committed to
[5:14] more extensive engineering
investigations? That um brings me to the
[5:19] larger policy issue.
Um I appreciate DPW's technical role,
[5:25] but ultimately the question of how
Burlington should treat streets with
[5:28] unresolved ownership, longstanding
municipal, and decades of public use is
[5:34] a policy question for city council.
This memo indicates that because of
[5:39] funding and staffing constraints, much
of phase one work may not be completed
[5:43] until fiscal year 28 with
recommendations coming after that uh
[5:49] work is completed. I understand that DPW
cannot undertake unlimited work without
[5:54] resources. What I'm less certain about
is why the council's policy decision uh
[5:59] discussion needs to follow that same
timeline. I don't think council needs to
[6:04] decide tonight every phase one street
should be accepted and I'm not
[6:08] suggesting that technical information is
irrelevant. I'm asking whether council
[6:13] can begin establishing the principles
that will guide these decisions while
[6:16] DPW conducts the necessary technical and
legal work. That policy guidance
[6:23] guidance could also help determine what
technical work is actually necessary.
[6:27] The city's policy is that streets with
no functioning private owner, decades of
[6:32] municipal maintenance, and long-standing
public use should generally be
[6:36] considered for acceptance unless
significant legal or infrastructure
[6:39] problems are identified. That would
provide DPW with a framework for its
[6:43] analysis. Other circumstances might
appropriately lead to a different
[6:48] outcome.
I also think that when the city
[6:51] evaluates the financial implications of
acceptance, it should look at the
[6:55] complete picture. not simply the future
expenses the city might assume. Um for
[7:01] example, I would be interested to know
whether acceptance could affect
[7:04] eligibility for state or federal
transportation infrastructure funding
[7:08] and if so potential how might potential
outside funding be part of the financial
[7:13] analysis as well. So I support the
phased approach and I appreciate the
[7:18] progress reflected in this memo. Uh my
request is that we not allow the
[7:23] technical process to substitute for or
unnecessarily postpone the policy
[7:27] discussion. DPW can continue determining
the condition of these streets and
[7:32] clarify their legal status. At the same
time, the council can begin deciding
[7:37] what Burlington's policy should be once
these facts are known.
[7:42] » Um I notic you were reading from
something. If you want to provide those
[7:45] writing, you can mail them to
what's the address again.
[7:52] If that's that works for you and then be
happy to get the numbers.
[7:56] » Okay. The address just for people
watching,
[7:59] » of course. Yes. Um, you can send it to
rgu
[8:03] i n burlington bt.gov.
>> Thank you.
[8:10] » And then then we'll have those back.
Thank you.
[8:14] » Thank you. Next we have Michael.
>> Hi. Thank you Michael. I also have
[8:23] thanks for the opportunity to talk and
thank you from DPW for the work they've
[8:29] done on this and the
new uh alley the plan to accept streets.
[8:37] It's helpful. I just have a few brief
comments as you know as I was looking
[8:42] through the cost estimates. It just it
would be nice if uh there could be a
[8:49] public accounting of where the estimates
come from. You know what what goes into
[8:54] them.
that uh our street there was 800,000 for
[9:01] water
sewer and there was prior to that
[9:08] there's a brief explanation of things
that might affect it but it would be
[9:12] nice to have the line I what the costs
are in those estimates
[9:19] and uh the other thing I was thinking
would be helpful is an accounting uh or
[9:27] an offset.
If the cities were to the streets were
[9:32] to become accepted and then eligible for
the next the town highway grant program,
[9:39] what money would be coming into the city
uh related to accept those streets
[9:44] through that program?
Not much is that?
[9:48] it'd be nice to to just have an
accounting that
[9:53] and then the other comment I had uh was
with respect to concern if it still
[10:00] exists that some people may
claim ownership for uh portion of the
[10:08] street or all the street. Is there a way
to accomplish that through public notice
[10:16] with an intent to city intents to accept
these streets and assume ownership and
[10:21] you have I don't know what the legal
uh banker you have x amount of time to
[10:28] reply to this public notice um or you
know
[10:34] you know that's not
but it may be a less expensive option
[10:38] than doing the d research search and
I think the goal is to save money. We
[10:44] should say investigate allies.
[10:50] » Thank you. Yes.
>> Um is there anyone on the island who
[10:57] wants to participate in public forum
indicate by uh indicating their interest
[11:04] by using the race function of sort
[11:09] seem I guess we'll go ahead then and we
close public forum
[11:15] um and we had moved item
[11:21] 4.3
[11:25] deliberative agenda which is the uh
adoption of the updated 1.6 not coming a
[11:30] pretty stand
[11:34] us.
>> Yeah. Uh so this is a pretty standard
[11:39] uh item. This came through in 2019. It
came through I believe 2011 before that.
[11:45] Every now and again standards get
updated. What this is particular for
[11:48] this year was more or less just one item
updated in culvert sizes um increasing
[11:54] the minimum size and the city's
obligation to update that um or accept
[11:59] that in our uh future rehabilitation
projects and making sure that things
[12:04] moving forward meeting standard. Um the
compliance with standards is uh one of
[12:10] the requirements for some funding
sources with the state and so uh we
[12:15] again shared this with other
departments, water resources primarily
[12:18] um to ensure that they were supportive
of this um and we are now moving forward
[12:24] just to formalize the acceptance of this
for your current
[12:31] recommendation. recommendation to
council sorry yes motion reads
[12:37] » I have no internet
I just I just got I just got my husband
[12:44] um so um questions from committee
but um yeah so you you talked about the
[12:56] the letter that was the the major update
And in the last paragraph, it says that
[13:03] municipalities are encouraged to
consider adopting additional optional
[13:06] standards. Uh what are those optional
standards and are are we adopt those as
[13:12] well?
>> Uh
[13:17] I apologize.
[13:22] Which portion are you?
>> Um so on 2026 Town Road and bridge
[13:28] standards cover letter. Oh, the cover
letter in the third paragraph it said
[13:32] colleagues are encouraged to consider
adopting with additional optional
[13:35] standards. Um I will apologize I don't
have that. That's the state standard
[13:40] letter everybody. Um and so these are
the ones that are required for
[13:46] compliance
to that.
[13:49] » Yep. So uh Laura Will city engineer
I was involved in kind of various
[13:55] different iterations of previous
standards that we've adopted. The state
[13:58] statute standards are very broad and
very minimal to apply to the all the
[14:03] communities in Vermont. So they speak to
sometimes wire highways ditching other
[14:08] standards um many of which that actually
just don't.
[14:13] So the other standards that we're still
talking about are like our engineering
[14:16] design standards which the council
adopted back in 2024 or the great
[14:20] streets design standards which even
enhance the downtown. So they're talking
[14:24] about ones that are specific to your
community which we do already have in
[14:28] place. Um and nothing in those two
documents goes against what the state
[14:33] has done to update some of their water
management.
[14:39] So basically the optional ones either
don't apply or our standards already
[14:44] matches exceeded.
>> Yeah. The other standards are our own
[14:47] our city of standards.
>> Great. Thank you.
[14:52] » Becca, do you have any questions?
>> Nope. Nothing for me. Thank you. Sounds
[14:57] good.
Um and so in the memo
[15:02] from staff there is a recommended motion
for the two
[15:10] willing to make that. Um, I would move
to recommend to the city council the
[15:16] adoption of sections 1 through eight of
the 2026 Vermont Agency of
[15:20] Transportation Town, Road and Bridge
Standards and authorized Chapen Spencer,
[15:24] director of public works to execute the
certificate on behalf of the city
[15:28] council.
Is there a second?
[15:31] » Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. Any other
[15:34] discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor of the
[15:38] motion by saying I
>> I
[15:40] » I
[15:50] next we're going to GMT funding
initiative update.
[16:02] Is that
I believe
[16:10] We had
[16:19] um so we had asked um
Marty Jas I think was his last name to
[16:25] come and present but we have um
wait
[16:33] director
Yeah, Mark, I'm sorry. I had some
[16:38] problem with the audio and I don't I
didn't hear what you said.
[16:41] » No, I I said we weren't I I I'm happy to
see you as always at our meeting, but um
[16:46] are you here to present on um the
initiative that's ongoing to
[16:51] » No, I just I knew that this was going to
be a topic and I wanted to be available
[16:55] in case you
>> No, I appreciate that. Um
[17:00] I um I have not heard yet from Marty
after he confirmed
[17:06] there's a delay.
>> So what we might do is um uh move
[17:11] forward in the agenda to um unaccepted
streets and when Marty shows up um then
[17:18] we can um slot this in after that. How
does that sound everybody? Yeah. Good.
[17:25] Well, thank you for disappearing. Um,
so we'll move on to unaccepted streets
[17:32] and I'm not sure who's
>> start
[17:36] this one.
>> Yes, panelist.
[17:44] » All right.
Well, thank you uh to the toque for uh
[17:50] inviting staff back and I want to thank
the council and members of the public
[17:55] for uh continued work with us on this
decades long issue to resolve the issue
[18:02] of unclear ownership of these private
and unaccepted streets. And we're
[18:06] returning tonight to get your feedback.
No formal action is needed. We're
[18:10] seeking feedback on the phasing that we
have proposed on reviewing the streets
[18:17] in question. Uh the proposed technical
and legal research that we are proposing
[18:23] uh to do next really are the responsible
steps for determining staff's
[18:28] recommendation
or uh the city council on the
[18:32] disposition of these streets. um as
you're seeing in the charts and I made
[18:38] sure to attach at least a summary of one
of our charts with a lot of numbers and
[18:44] spread the cells on it really to
demonstrate that that's just the tip of
[18:48] the iceberg of the work that staff has
done to understand the very uh detailed
[18:55] needs and specifications and existing
conditions
[18:59] and levels of risk of these various
streets. Um the future maintenance and
[19:06] capital costs of these streets are
significant. We already struggle to
[19:12] maintain our existing street network. So
any decision by the council to accept
[19:17] streets in our belief needs to be done
with the technical detail that we want
[19:24] to collect for you so that you
understand the full financial burden
[19:29] that the city is accepting.
You'll see that the schedule tonight is
[19:35] uh longer than I would like. Uh but the
reality is we want to promise you a t
[19:41] well we want to offer you a timeline
that we think is uh more practical given
[19:47] the financial constraints we have to do
the work. So you'll see in the memo
[19:52] chart laying out showing that it would
take us through uh much of FY28 to bring
[19:58] back a recommendation to council on the
phase one streets. Uh senior engineer
[20:05] and planner Philip Peterson's going to
go more into the detail here. Happy to
[20:10] answer questions. We have city engineer
Laura Wheelock and also division
[20:15] director Megan Moyer here uh to answer
questions for the respective divisions.
[20:21] » Awesome. Thanks Jen. Uh thanks everyone
uh for letting me be here. Philip
[20:25] Peterson, senior transportation junior
planner with the city of Bronson. I
[20:28] think it's super important to
acknowledge that you know what I
[20:31] represent right now is periscope on the
engineering submarine. There are a lot
[20:35] of folks on our team that have done a
tremendous amount of work. Um I would be
[20:41] super remiss if I don't mention
specifically uh Calvin Bri who's a
[20:46] social engineer who's really kind of an
engine that's led a lot of our work um
[20:51] both from a technical aspect and a legal
aspect as well. Um and he's learned a
[20:57] lot. We've learned a lot. Um, so I'm I'm
going to walk uh the committee through
[21:04] um kind of what our assessment work has
been, why the phasing looks the way it
[21:09] does and what the technical review
actually involves and um but I'm going
[21:15] to try not to talk too much about water
resources. We obviously have director
[21:21] here to get into that. So what we've
done is we've completed a desktop
[21:25] analysis of all unaccepted and private
streets and we've done a surface
[21:31] inspection of all unaccepted and some
limited private streets. Uh that work
[21:37] gives us a baseline understanding of
pavement condition, geometry,
[21:44] does the street have sidewalks, does it
have curb? Um and general street
[21:48] character. Is it designed to some kind
of street standard um that we would uh
[21:55] approve? Um what it can't tell us is the
condition of the subsurface and buried
[22:01] utilities which is where water resources
lives where their work is underground.
[22:07] Um and this is the core reason the
project requires kind of a multi-year
[22:10] phase approach. Um if you look at the
cost breakdown between
[22:15] um public works technical services, what
we do on service in comparison to the
[22:21] underground utility work, water
resources
[22:25] uh work is exponentially more expensive.
Um and that that is a big driver. So um
[22:32] phase one in general includes streets
that generally resemble an accepted
[22:38] street in design and construction. Some
phase one streets even have city signs
[22:44] on them already. Um, and these are kind
of the lowest risk candidates for deeper
[22:49] investigation. Um, that we feel like um,
we have worked closely with water
[22:54] resources on developing that list of
phase one streets. Um, when we think
[22:59] about phase two and phase three, those
include streets with higher uncertainty.
[23:05] Don't get me wrong, just go back to
phase one streets real quick. that there
[23:10] are things about phase one streets that
we're not sure about either. And as we
[23:15] do this deeper investigation, we may
find that a phase one street is not as
[23:19] easy as we thought it would be to accept
from a variety of standpoints. We're
[23:24] hearing from residents that want us to
accept these streets. We haven't heard
[23:28] from residents that do not want their
streets accepted. And those people, they
[23:33] may exist as we go through our
investigation and we do more public
[23:37] engagement. The fact of the matter is is
that, you know, one of the questions
[23:41] that I anticipate that the tube will ask
is why can't we just accept these
[23:45] streets wholesale? We can't because it's
a two-step process. It's land that needs
[23:52] to be accepted, but it also has to be
dedicated, right? Or it has to be taken.
[23:58] and we don't really have the legal
framework to just condemn the property
[24:05] and move forward which is also why we
need legal help. That's why we need to
[24:09] seek lawyers. Um a major driver with
this work is coordination with water
[24:13] resources. Um accepting water,
wastewater, storm water infrastructure
[24:18] has come some like I'd said some
long-term financial obligations. Um, so
[24:24] kind of the next step is this in-depth
assessment. What we can do before FY28
[24:31] is dedicate
tech services and water resources staff
[24:35] times toward that legal look, that
historical look. Do have documents that
[24:41] we can look at and get documentation on
up to public engagement. Um, we have
[24:46] received some documentation as it
discusses in the memo. Uh, Deorest is
[24:51] the street where we received some
supplemental documentation from
[24:55] residents and went, "Okay, this is a
section of street that we had not
[24:59] thought was accepted and it is and it's
part of the city public rightway." That
[25:04] was helpful, but there may be other
documentations out there that residents
[25:09] have locked away in their own personal
files that we don't have access to, and
[25:14] those things will come out the further
we get along. Once we get to FY28,
[25:20] that's when the more indepth
subsurface evaluation, drainage
[25:26] performance, utility inspections such as
CCTV that water resources needs to do
[25:31] for sewer and storm water and potholeing
for water, but also B tech services. We
[25:37] would need to do potholeing to see what
do we have for a street. What does the
[25:41] subgrade look like? Are we building
these streets on clay? Are we building
[25:46] these streets that have just an inch and
a half of asphalt, which is not thick
[25:51] enough for a city street? For a city
street, we want it to be at least three
[25:56] inches thick for a low volume
residential street. Thicker if we're
[26:01] talking about high volume streets. So,
um, we will be requesting funding. We
[26:08] did try to get a budget put together for
FY27
[26:12] given funding constraints. That's was
challenging this year, but we will seek
[26:17] funding and I can see Ashley Parker um
with the Department of Finance and
[26:21] Accounting here, which is great. Uh to
develop that FY28 budget to support
[26:26] consultant services for the subservice
investigation,
[26:30] surveying, we'll need a land surveyor.
Um we don't have a land surveyor on
[26:35] staff and the legal work. Without that
support, we cannot provide council with
[26:39] the information you need to make
informed decisions that you do need to
[26:43] make. And that's the structure of the
work. Um, if we're missing anything,
[26:49] Megan,
>> explain her investigation.
[26:51] » Yeah, I think this would probably be an
appropriate time. Um, Megan, if you'd
[26:55] like to talk about what your team, your
excellent team has done.
[27:00] » Certainly. Um, yeah. I know it's been a
uh you know an initial desktop analysis
[27:08] of the infrastructure that exists on
these various streets. A lot of what we
[27:13] looked at and where we are interested in
this project and maybe less hesitant as
[27:19] we are with some of the potential
recommendations is where there's a
[27:25] street where it would be beneficial to
the larger system um to take over the
[27:30] infrastructure there. for instance,
water pipes where uh they're providing
[27:34] what we call looping benefits. It's
actually connecting a section of public
[27:38] pipe to another section of public pipe,
but we don't currently have um complete
[27:42] oversight over the pipe that may be on a
private street. Um but as as Philip
[27:49] said, a lot of what's challenging is not
knowing the full condition of any of
[27:53] these pipes. And so we've tried to put
together some rough numbers of what
[27:57] potential short-term costs would be if
if say we took over all of the streets
[28:03] um or accepted all the streets that are
in phase one. We are looking at some
[28:07] pretty substantial uh capital
investments, capital investments that
[28:10] are not currently in our capital plan
and that we don't currently have
[28:14] borrowing authority for. And so the
question will become with the council,
[28:18] you know, are we going to push off other
potentially vi uh important projects in
[28:23] order to then invest in these new
streets? Um, you know, how are we going
[28:27] to handle that as a community because it
is going to increase everybody's rates
[28:32] uh to be able to take on these things.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it.
[28:35] I understand that the people on these
streets, they do pay the same rates as
[28:39] others. Um, but it is going to layer an
additional amount of work on what
[28:47] already seems like an impossible amount
of work. Um, and so we're just trying to
[28:52] proceed cautiously. Um, I don't know if
anybody has any specific specific
[28:56] questions, but uh, our team has been
very involved. We appreciated the
[29:00] collaboration with uh the tech technical
services and uh yeah, we look forward to
[29:07] hearing what the council's feedback is
on here on these streets and whether or
[29:13] not I guess the intention really is to
take over every single last street or if
[29:19] the council does believe that there's
certain streets that sort of fit more of
[29:23] the
city street test than others because I
[29:28] certainly can see some that don't make
as much sense as as other streets.
[29:37] » Megan,
>> um I I think it's important to also note
[29:42] that the cost projections outline both
immediate what it would cost to upgrade
[29:49] and also the 20-year total cost of
ownership because once we do take on
[29:54] ownership with these streets, they're
ours and they're our responsibility.
[29:58] um it's not one and done. You fix it and
then
[30:03] ideally was the last one because it
again I'm happy to walk through some
[30:09] examples of some phase one streets and
what thinking was also happy to turn it
[30:14] over to take questions. I think Phil the
only thing I would have you add a little
[30:20] bit more because I think it's important
is how the private streets play into the
[30:24] phasing because some of that work may
get done in the short term.
[30:28] » Yeah, happy to do that. Um we have a
really good associate engineer uh
[30:33] Christina Kangallocei who is stepping
into the unaccepted streets project
[30:37] specifically because she's very good at
organizing things and the private
[30:41] streets are streets that require a lot
of legal organization. We have
[30:46] documentation few of these streets. Uh
little legal bay has a covenant that
[30:52] clearly states we're a private street.
We do our own stuff. Leave us alone.
[30:58] We've had communications with them and
documentation that makes it clear we're
[31:02] a private street. Uh there are others
where we have some documentation, but
[31:06] there are a lot of private streets. UVM
has several private streets that we
[31:11] don't necessarily have that
documentation on. And what we don't want
[31:15] to do at the end of this project is
leave loose ends for the next generation
[31:20] of folks coming to work for public works
going why didn't they finish this
[31:23] project get all the documentation need
on these private streets so we can
[31:29] button it up and those are not our
responsibility for sure. So that's what
[31:34] I have to say about private streets.
Thanks.
[31:36] » Um just to clarify point that there is a
separate chart for probably the least
[31:43] clear subset of streets that we have.
These are ones where entities have
[31:48] claimed them but they haven't provided
his documentation.
[31:52] They put up signs. stands court has
assigned marked to private but there's
[31:56] no documentation for or it's one like um
[32:03] » Northgate where it's very clearly owned
by
[32:08] » by uh an organization who is currently
taking
[32:12] » care of it and has never expressed to
the city in the past they would like us
[32:16] to accept that from them. Um, but there
is a different portion of one of the
[32:20] streets they own and maintain right now
than they would like to accept. So, this
[32:24] one's just a little bit squishier. We
think it falls in the documentation
[32:27] point until it doesn't and it will
either move down into the totally
[32:31] private chart or it may move up into
needing to be a phase three street.
[32:36] Um, I would like to answer
during public comment.
[32:40] » Just to be clear on what you just said
about the private streets, there's two
[32:43] groupings here. One is actually
>> so we have the phase one, two and three
[32:48] » right unaccepted declared private or
proposed private private student
[32:53] documentation.
>> That is all currently under
[32:56] documentation review which is shown in
the chart table. uh the ones that are
[33:01] kind of listed at the top of that list
are the ones that have the least amount
[33:05] of certainty that I think we will find
what we need
[33:10] in uh in kind of an easy like
company or HOA
[33:16] » and do you send you wanted to address
comments?
[33:19] » I can when you're ready. Yes,
>> if you like if you're if you're done
[33:23] with the presentation you like to do
that before we open it up.
[33:26] Um so quickly some very astute residents
did note that VR does pay the city an
[33:31] annual mileage rate for any accepted
south highway. Um some of these streets
[33:37] may fall under class two and for example
the sherb trans pays about $5,000 a mile
[33:43] to the city for maintenance on class two
streets and for class three streets
[33:47] which is what chip and drive would be
classified as is $1,800 of a mile. Um,
[33:54] so Chipman Drive specifically, it's
about a thousand fees. It's dollars a
[33:59] year. So there is some money that VR
does pay us. It's definitely not enough
[34:03] to maintain a paved street. Um, but we
do receive some funding. And anything
[34:09] that becomes a class two or one street
does become eligible for a town highway
[34:14] grant, which is a maintenance grant. we
uh are pretty successful using
[34:20] um as it relates to the documentation
that goes into the estimate. These
[34:24] estimates were developed based on our
average cost per linear foot of similar
[34:28] infrastructure.
So the paving estimate is similar to
[34:32] what we are currently paving streets
for. I guess is Megan's estimates are
[34:36] coming from costs of similar size pipes
for replacement of those types of pipes
[34:42] that are in there. I think we added some
inflation factors four or five years as
[34:48] well
[34:52] rough estimates.
>> Yes.
[34:54] » Yep. Um I'm going to open it up to
committee members next. Um so any
[35:02] members questions?
>> Go ahead.
[35:08] » Thank you. Um this is great. Appreciate
all the work. Um, I just had a little
[35:14] bit of a clarifying question. I mean,
well, first of all, I think I should say
[35:17] from my perspective, I do lean towards
um I kind of feel like we've already
[35:24] accepted these streets in in many ways
by doing the work over the years and
[35:29] showing up and um in some cases doing
maintenance. So, uh, to me it it feels
[35:34] like more of a a technicality and a
absorption of of the planning of the of
[35:40] a lot of work that's been going on. Um,
but of course I understand, you know,
[35:46] this the dollars get realer the the
further along we go in the process. So,
[35:51] it's important to to to get that full
accounting and I'm glad you're doing
[35:56] that. Um, so more I I think more
discussion to come on that part, but I
[36:02] did want to Phil, you had you had said
something about Deforest AB that I
[36:06] thought was I I just wanted to clarify
because that particular street caught my
[36:11] eye. Um because the resident that sent
the documentation about accepting it
[36:18] sent some city council meeting minutes
from like the 70s and I happen to notice
[36:22] that the one of the counselors was the
man I bought my house from and so two
[36:28] city councilors have lived in this in
the house where I live which is like a
[36:32] crazy Burlington story and it's great
but anyway uh I just want to make so
[36:37] that you had you had described that and
I might be mixing up the roads so
[36:41] apologies if I am, but you kind of
described that as like a document that
[36:45] surfaced from somebody's basement
and I had thought it was an old city
[36:50] council minutes and so I just want to
make sure that you all have act like it
[36:55] made me realize I don't know do you have
access to city council minutes from the
[36:59] 70s and 80s that you can look through to
try to answer some of these questions
[37:05] because um
it seems that that seems important. So,
[37:10] I just wanted to clarify that
>> we do um and we had staff on Junth um
[37:17] actually go to the clerk treasures
office for an entire day and um we
[37:23] looked through how far did we go back?
>> The city council resolutions, not just
[37:29] the minutes. The resolution started in
about the mid60s and we combed through
[37:34] them until 2014
which is about the time that the become
[37:39] a little bit more accurate. Um and
that's all that they said they're down
[37:43] to their fault.
>> They do have city council resolutions
[37:46] that are older. Um but they are well
they are a lot less organized. Um so
[37:51] we've not delved into that. Uh but we
did come across the actual city council
[37:56] resolution from the meeting minutes
reference that accepted the forest in
[38:01] the lane.
>> Okay, great.
[38:02] » Forest
road through the south side of Chinton.
[38:08] » Okay,
>> cool. I just wanted to clarify that as
[38:11] because if you didn't, I think we would
have to make a real call to the public
[38:14] to like go look in basement and that
would not be a very efficient way of
[38:19] going about this. So, um that's that
that answers my question. Um thank you.
[38:26] » Yeah, which is where we talk about our
staff time. Just the next step is way
[38:30] less organized and it's not going to be
nearly as efficient. Um but the
[38:35] information is possibly there uh to be
found.
[38:40] » And could I could I just respond to one
one thing that uh counselor said? I
[38:45] think
>> Go ahead. there has has been potentially
[38:48] a history and I can't say that we've
been perfect in water resources but I
[38:52] think the tendency to you know plow a
street or do other things may be
[38:56] different from the level of involvement
we've had with the subsurface utilities
[39:00] um I think where it has gotten fuzzy
sometimes is the drinking water system
[39:05] because it is still our system and we do
still have sort of right of refusal we
[39:10] are involved when um there is a water
main break we may actually respond to a
[39:14] water main break on a private street and
repair it. But per our ordinance, we're
[39:18] able to charge the full cost of that
repair to um to the private homeowners.
[39:25] Um yes. Is it complicated if you have
multiple homes on a street?
[39:31] Absolutely. And that's where I can see
some benefit of just going ahead and
[39:35] taking things over. But I just wanted to
be clear that I don't know that that's
[39:39] happening with the subsurface utilities.
And because those costs are so much
[39:42] greater, it's just something to keep in
mind. Um, on the sewer lateral piece, I
[39:47] do feel like we have been much more
clear over history with when a pipe is a
[39:54] piece of private infrastructure and that
they've had to call in other folks in
[39:58] order to uh rotorooer or you know clean
pipes like that. So, I don't know if
[40:03] that's that's helpful, but
>> yeah, thank you.
[40:05] » That's part of the history. Yep.
[40:13] » Yeah. Thank you for um all the work that
has come into this this document. I this
[40:21] approach makes s sense to me even as as
someone who is also um currently in the
[40:28] camp of we should um in I think in most
of these cases we should be accepting
[40:34] these streets. Um, but I think but I
agree that the this due diligence is
[40:39] necessary both for what we're trying to
do now and also in the future. So
[40:44] there's no complaint for me and I I
completely support the funding and
[40:50] potentially staffing necessary to get
the work done uh now and in the future.
[40:55] Uh
my question is um well
[41:02] yeah this was kind of spo spoken about
in public forum. Um it's about
[41:08] um the policy side of this. Uh
I I understand that when the for example
[41:16] when the phase one streets are done
you're going to come back to us with
[41:19] recommendations and then we're going to
to move from there. But between now and
[41:24] then, um what do you all see as
um what policy should the toque the full
[41:33] council maybe the toque and ordinance
combined? What should what policy should
[41:39] we have ready? Um because as you brought
up, there's um there's certain um
[41:49] challenges here with potentially um
trying to accept streets that have no
[41:54] owners um like the whole like dedication
process and stuff. So what what do you
[42:00] see as um the policy goals from the
council um before we even get the
[42:07] recommendations? Is there work to be
done? I think it's a couple of things.
[42:12] First of all, I I just want to point out
that the work that we have to do is not
[42:16] the technicality. I can appreciate the
thought process behind that.
[42:21] Because these a lot of these streets
they look and function like a public
[42:26] street and so but we have to understand
we do know yet whether all owners are
[42:33] dedicated and we don't have
it doesn't like resident parking where
[42:40] 51% residents on a street all say we
want resident parking 49% we don't want
[42:44] it
the 51% wins out one resident on that
[42:51] says no, we can't proceed because we
cannot go through eminent domain. In
[42:56] order to go through eminent domain has
to be based on an actual project, a
[43:02] street project. So if and that's work
that we have to do. So that that's that
[43:08] I think what the city council do is help
us with developing.
[43:14] » So wait, let's not let's not move past
your policy and your evidence do because
[43:18] it does speak to the legal question. The
advice the recommendation of the
[43:21] guidance we've received from the city
council is either we find the person who
[43:24] owns it and assign it over to us or
every property street agrees that city
[43:30] the owners of the right way and
dedicates it and the city council
[43:33] accepts it. Condomination by state
statute requires that there be an
[43:38] accepted plan by the municipality that
has been publicly vetted towards a
[43:44] highway project that needs that land.
And that's hard on the streets that we
[43:50] have because we don't have an accepted
public plan which maybe speaks to the
[43:55] policy end of this that as we work with
the city attorney's office if we find
[43:59] that is 98% of the property owners are
ready to sign and there's just
[44:05] an example one person who lives in
France who's just not going to do that
[44:08] for us um
>> which happened
[44:11] » despite how agreeable they may be
>> uh that that stops our process so that
[44:17] might be the area where your policy or
approach needs to start to be developed
[44:22] to complete this entire project.
>> And this is where we need consultants.
[44:26] There may be some whisbang lawyer way of
going about it, but some title search
[44:33] lawyer would know that as civil
engineers, we don't.
[44:40] » So, you're going to go through budget.
>> Yeah. And I think the other thing we'll
[44:42] do with he is how are we going to
develop budget to to pay for to pay for
[44:50] not just the consultant work but also
the long-term budget leads because as we
[44:55] add more mileage you know payments is
something we talk about a lot. These are
[45:00] streets that are going to come under
that banner of needing to be maintained
[45:04] or just rebuild.
[45:10] Um
[45:15] um well I guess that thank you um that's
helpful. I and I I appreciate I I don't
[45:21] view that as a technicality. I think
this work is very necessary. Um it's
[45:26] tough.
Um,
[45:32] yeah. I guess I guess I I guess I I
would personally want to to learn more
[45:36] and maybe I I would need to reach out to
the city attorneys about this about what
[45:41] um about what we could possibly do. I'm
I'm interested to see if this is a um if
[45:49] like if we have the ability to
to to alter these um these standards for
[45:58] like for dedication for condemnation for
eminent domain even if it's through the
[46:03] charter process and if it's through the
charter process and that's something
[46:06] that we need to get ahead of that would
be something we need to work on now to
[46:10] to get to to to have everything lined up
by 2028. So if that's if the city
[46:16] attorney comes back and recommends that
we need to go through the charter
[46:19] process that that'd be something that I
want to hear hear back from the law. So
[46:24] yeah, I'm interested in staying in touch
about that.
[46:27] » Yep. Um, I might recommend that one of
our future updates because we're going
[46:32] to be doing a lot of
work, but maybe we'll have a substantial
[46:36] amount to bring back as an update, but
maybe find the right time to bring back
[46:40] um either someone from the city
attorney's office or whoever they choose
[46:43] as an outside council secret.
>> Great.
[46:50] » Yeah, I'm good.
>> I had um a few different questions.
[46:54] » Um,
>> first I'll give a comment. Uh Sharon
[46:57] Busher um wasn't able to make or she a
long voicemail. Uh basically the gist of
[47:05] her voicemail which you can treat as a
public comment is that um given the type
[47:12] financial uh circumstances the city's in
right now that maybe um we might want to
[47:18] push all this work out um till after I
think she specifically talked about um
[47:25] some of the water bonding started to
work its way way through. Um so there's
[47:30] additional costs taxpayers
uh they would be incurring those um in
[47:36] the next three or four budget years. And
some part of her rationale which I don't
[47:42] necessarily disagree with is this isn't
a problem that just happened. This is a
[47:46] problem that's sort of out there for
decades. Um and so what would would
[47:51] three or four more years make a
difference? Now I I'm not saying that we
[47:56] should postpone it. I'm just offering
those because Sharon wasn't here to
[48:01] speak at public forum and she had made
the effort to give those comments. Um I
[48:05] do uh have a couple questions around
some of the things that were said. One
[48:10] was around the review of city council
minutes. It's more of just curiosity.
[48:15] Are these things digitized at this point
or are you got is the research project
[48:20] actually going through paper?
>> It's a paper effort. We brought in
[48:25] several city staff. This is why we ask
staff who were already choosing to work
[48:28] on the holiday um to do this one task
because it was very invasive in our
[48:33] treasurer's office and doing that on a
regular day would have been hard with so
[48:36] many staff.
>> Um there is also a book of meeting
[48:39] minutes which the attorney's office
recommended that we take a look at but
[48:42] that was too cumbersome to include the
other research we did that day. Um but
[48:47] that is another place where they noted
that street acceptances could be noted
[48:51] and maybe the resolution would never be
found. I think there was an effort when
[48:55] I first got on the council to I think
councelor high tower even maybe
[48:59] experimented it and it was about trying
to appropriate money some of the co
[49:05] monies even to digitize
>> the land records are digitized
[49:09] » it's just land
>> um which is amazing to have the
[49:12] resolutions
if you want to talk about policies this
[49:16] is not related to this one although
probably would have helped um the
[49:20] resolutions are a mess and there is
definitely some inefficiencies in the
[49:23] treasures the attorney's office um where
people will literally look through the
[49:26] same boxes we just looked through but
they're looking for different things.
[49:29] » Right. Okay. Well, that sounded a matter
but thank you for clarifying that. Um my
[49:34] next question was about private streets
going forward. I understand we have to
[49:38] untangle this right now.
>> But it's like how do we keep ourselves
[49:42] from having to untangle future private
streets? Is there policy now around like
[49:46] if someone's building condo development
or something that is there policy and
[49:51] procedure in place that they have to
adhere to in order to get sign up
[49:55] » remain private? Yes. Um additionally we
have talked internally we will replace
[50:00] every street sign with the word PBT on
it for streets that we find that are
[50:04] declared private. So there's a lot more
clarity,
[50:07] » right?
>> Um
[50:08] » we already have one that we're working
on with fire department right now. It's
[50:12] right off Broadway. It's gone through a
couple of name changes. I think it's now
[50:17] broad jump.
>> I think so.
[50:21] » Let us make this.
>> Yeah. The planning through the zoning
[50:28] process
these uh issues get worked out. We have
[50:33] engineering standards now that make it
very clear what they need to build it to
[50:36] for us to be willing to accept it. So
really this is a problem of looking
[50:41] backwards not a problem current day
going
[50:44] » but I'm not even talking about accepting
any of these streets in the f new street
[50:48] gets built a new private street gets
built it'll have a different engineering
[50:52] standard than what we would maybe uh
insist upon for our own public streets
[50:58] right
>> and I mean is there some standard by
[51:02] which those streets have to I mean they
some documentation process I guess so
[51:07] that we know and it's clear so that some
future generation as Philip alluded to
[51:13] of DPW employees isn't like wondering
about it and we have that those
[51:18] standards in place now. Yes, the the
form-based codes
[51:23] appendix uh comprehensive development
ordinance references engineering
[51:28] standards that are outlined um by the
city of Burlington either as adopted
[51:32] speaking back to the 2024 standards and
then they also lightly describe what's
[51:36] required so that there's a hint as to
kind of as people are like I don't want
[51:40] to go to this whole other document like
what's needed about
[51:44] » just ownership and all that
>> and also you know how to how to build a
[51:48] driveway. ways it's or a road or that
you know
[51:52] » so that it's also going to just be
durable for the residents that speaks to
[51:55] the timing which um Sharon Busher
mentioned
[51:59] » a lot of these as um we look through
this list especially on the paving side
[52:04] but uh sometimes within the water side
you'll see it's like one of the middle
[52:09] middle columns it talks about
transportation timeline or water
[52:13] resources timeline and you'll either see
a short medium or long term which is our
[52:19] best estimate based on the information
we've gathered
[52:22] about how long before we need to make
the financial investment in the street
[52:25] and there are some of these that are
within the one to fiveyear time frame
[52:28] and so pushing us off five years is
going to make it so that waiting to
[52:32] invest in the street if we accept it
we're dealing
[52:36] um which has to be financially planned
for so
[52:39] » I get it
>> that would be the concern
[52:41] » the other the other piece to what Laura
just said is what's challenging from the
[52:45] subsurface utility perspective is that
even if we have a pipe that's like a
[52:49] medium
term right uh need but if Laura's going
[52:54] to get in there and do her surface work
then it ends up accelerating when we
[52:59] should coordinate and maybe make that
investment. So it's just an additional
[53:03] layer of sort of uh unanticipated
capital expenditures that we're we're
[53:08] trying to juggle.
No, I I appreciate that. And I again, I
[53:13] wasn't advocating. I was relaying a
public comment. Um and but it seemed
[53:18] like a legitimate
>> Yeah. legitimate issue to raise.
[53:23] » Um then the next thing and the last
thing I'll I'll we'll talk about right
[53:27] now is that I I I appreciate all this
work and I think we absolutely have to
[53:32] be doing this. Um
the the thing I wonder about though is
[53:37] like when we and I think we need to know
these these numbers uh that are in the
[53:43] um the Excel sheet here um and and the
expected timelines and whatnot. But the
[53:50] reality is I think for many of these
streets or let's say a significant
[53:55] number of them we're doing this work
already anyways. If there's a break on a
[53:59] water break somewhere we're going to fix
it. Um I don't know that we're charging
[54:04] back residents.
>> We are.
[54:06] » We are. Okay. Well, that's good to know
as well. But but
[54:10] » but if there are, you know, there's some
of these things I know that we're we're
[54:14] fixing in an ongoing way. Um so it's not
like these are all necessarily
[54:22] new costs, but what we're doing is
formalizing
[54:25] the costs that we would incur. So if
we're doing future bonding and capital
[54:29] planning, we know what that is. Um, and
it's not just pothole.
[54:35] » No, I understand.
>> I totally get it. I totally get it. But
[54:38] I'm just I just want to
>> name that we are doing some of this work
[54:43] already and we have been doing it for
decades.
[54:46] » The the life maintenance costs are not
the financial concern. is the
[54:52] substantial reinvestment to bring a
asset back up to beginning of its useful
[54:56] life, which is the cost that staff have
concerns about as we've considered the
[55:00] budget. Um, as we've done capital
forecasting or our capital program
[55:05] director,
those have just never been in it because
[55:09] they've not been part of the city's
asset classes. Uh,
[55:13] » and that is the the costs that we are
the most concerned about. plowing, pott
[55:17] filling, adding a little bit of dirt,
grading, you know, some of the dirt
[55:21] streets is small enough.
>> They're also also accepted streets in
[55:27] our network now that when we go to fix
them, we realize that they're
[55:31] substandard and need a lot more than we
expect. I think Main Street was one of
[55:36] them, right? I mean,
>> Bennington Court Bennington Court. So,
[55:40] so I mean the these these infirmities of
these streets are are are lack of um
[55:47] living up to current standards are
>> they're they're not unique to the
[55:52] unaccepted streets and the private
streets. They're also
[55:56] characteristics of some of our streets
accepted streets. There is a history um
[56:02] back in the middle 70s early 80s that
the um city council and the
[56:07] administration at the time went through
a massive acceptance of anything that
[56:12] looked like a street look like a duck,
walk like a duck. That is literally what
[56:15] they did. They grabbed it, they brought
it in, they accepted it. Uh
[56:21] and there are, for example, Ben Court
had barely an inch of asphalt on it.
[56:27] when we went to repaint it, we build it
up, we found sand underneath, um, which
[56:32] changed the way we had to approach our
this season. So, yes, there's still
[56:35] those surprises that exist out there as,
uh, we find these streets that were
[56:39] developed.
>> So, it is better to go into this with
[56:42] our eyes open and clear, but but I just
want wanted for the record known that
[56:47] this is not unique to this cl these
unaccepted streets that these are these
[56:52] are other problems that we encounter
regularly. discover new
[56:57] » rediscover and new things and surprises
and hopefully with our engineering
[57:00] standards and um and other recent
advancements we'll say that we're less
[57:05] likely to find those things going
forward.
[57:08] » Correct. Um, you know, I I do want to
say, you know, as we consider this, you
[57:13] know, you have a a group of city staff
here who understand the commit the
[57:18] scenario that we're currently in and
needing to solve this problem one way or
[57:22] the other of either accepting or uh
asking residents to become some sort of
[57:27] association with private. If for some
reason, you know, as we're looking at
[57:31] phase one,
a street under phase two, I lane I think
[57:37] is the least likely I lane comes
forward. Every resident on the street
[57:41] says we have we have signed this deed.
We are ready the city to accept this
[57:45] street. We will that's it. We'll move it
forward. We'll tell you that this is
[57:49] what's happening. This is all the
information we have on it. Do you want
[57:53] us to collect more or are you ready to
accept the risk that you know we're
[57:57] using 20% estimates to give you a asset
value of the street?
[58:01] » Have to be a property owner.
>> Yeah. But that's possible if possible if
[58:05] as we share with the public what we're
doing here.
[58:10] North Cove is probably one of the ones
that I suspect may, you know, as a
[58:14] neighborhood come together and just be
like, I'm doing this. We're all doing
[58:18] this. Collecting signatures. We're going
to go forward. extension,
[58:23] » right? Um, okay. And and the other
thing, Becca alluded to it a little bit,
[58:29] but I think as we are doing outreach to
these streets, I think it's probably
[58:34] worthwhile saying go to your basement
and your filing cabinets and give us any
[58:39] documentation you might have that might
be different than what's in some of the
[58:43] city records or might be harder to find
in the city records. That's right.
[58:47] » Of the way way.
We welcome any private information. The
[58:52] more information we have collectively,
the better decisions we and frankly you
[58:56] all as the deciders get to make.
>> We should depend on it. But it's a it's
[59:01] a nice to have if we can get it.
>> Exactly. And Laura segueed to uh two
[59:08] streets that I think is as Merrick you
talked about policy that we will need to
[59:13] get the council to be thinking about are
streets uh such as North Cove Road that
[59:18] don't have some utilities on it and what
your expectation is about whether or not
[59:27] utilities will be built out on those
streets as part of acceptance or not.
[59:33] Currently, North Cove does not have
sewer service and they have private
[59:38] septic. So, that's going to be an
important policy discussion for the
[59:43] council to grapple with. If you have any
additional initial kind of thoughts now,
[59:49] fine. But ultimately, this is going to
be a long-term uh policy decision
[59:55] squarely council
understanding that those roads it's
[59:58] probably not as simple as just running a
new sewer line. We're talking pump
[1:00:02] station and force main which the costs
are much heavier.
[1:00:08] » It's a low point. You got to get it up
the hill.
[1:00:10] » Yeah.
>> So, um what for? So, you don't need
[1:00:14] anything else from two tonight. This is
more of an update. Are you bringing this
[1:00:18] same update to the council at some
point?
[1:00:20] » We have uh not thought about a full
council presentation. We one idea just
[1:00:27] speaking off top of my head is that we
could share with the council in a
[1:00:31] communication what we discussed with the
toque so that there was awareness about
[1:00:36] the phased approach and see if there's
any input from them given that we're
[1:00:41] really limited at least in FY27 to staff
time desktop review initial research
[1:00:48] that that may be sufficient for now.
>> Okay. But you tell me if if the council
[1:00:54] feels otherwise.
>> We might um ask that I think maybe we
[1:00:59] attach this um
this memo and maybe commun well with the
[1:01:04] communication to the council's
>> and then you could speak to it as part
[1:01:09] of your council committee updates.
>> Yeah, you can do that.
[1:01:12] » Okay. Would it be good to know too city
council would like city staff to
[1:01:17] continue public engagement at this
point? Like what you all would envision
[1:01:23] city staff doing for public engagements?
U well certainly street I mean for
[1:01:29] myself and I'll open up to the
committee. Certainly if you've I I don't
[1:01:34] disagree with your phasing. I know that
you have reasons for phasing things this
[1:01:39] way. Um but within the phase one streets
eventually I would think we would need
[1:01:45] to start doing outreach
in some form to all of the residents of
[1:01:51] I don't know what you're whether you're
talking about a meeting like you're
[1:01:54] talking about a mailing or what
>> so that was kind of proposed I wrote the
[1:02:00] section which is why I feel a little
less familiar with it um that basically
[1:02:04] you know we need to work internally on
our own budget um to try to continue to
[1:02:09] build out a 28 and funds to the
investigation. Uh concurrently, it's the
[1:02:14] public engagement at a street level
conversation because all of almost all
[1:02:20] of these streets are very different or
in a different part of town or will have
[1:02:24] different conditions based on their size
and availability. And even as much as
[1:02:27] Chitn and Iran are right next to each
other, the streets themselves are very
[1:02:32] fundamentally different in how they're
built. one may allow on street parking
[1:02:36] and the other one is probably not going
to have enough space to fit it. Um so
[1:02:40] you know very much a neighborhood street
by street level discussion is what we
[1:02:46] envision
>> and we can involve counselors in those
[1:02:49] words as well the MPA
>> I don't know that I want to bring it in
[1:02:55] through the NPA just because that brings
in such a large component of a
[1:03:00] neighborhood and this literally needs to
be an understanding if you become an
[1:03:04] accepted city street you're paying
incumbrance fees if you want to have a
[1:03:07] moving truck on the street you're going
to have to do this. Do you envision
[1:03:11] wanting on street parking? Do you not
want on street parking? You're not going
[1:03:15] to be able to get resident parking if we
put, you know, so it's extremely
[1:03:20] specific to just these property owners.
>> I I we can do it as a communication
[1:03:26] tool.
>> Okay. Yes.
[1:03:30] » Um we Is there more Beck if you have
more?
[1:03:36] » No, thank you.
>> Okay. Um I I want to move us I know you
[1:03:41] had a question if you can keep it the to
less than a minute we allow.
[1:03:46] » Sure. I just want to say that um I'll
talk about finances and projected
[1:03:51] expenses and whatnot. I think the city
like I pay a lot of taxes for a very
[1:03:56] small house a raised ranch which is
constantly prepare 13,000 a year of
[1:04:01] payment. I get nothing. No Vermont
asset, no telephone, whatever. And I
[1:04:07] have to do this. And I really object to
the flip value where you just say, "Oh
[1:04:12] yes, the comm the homeowners are going
to pay for a water break." It's like
[1:04:15] that's horrible. That would be like my
retirement. And I don't feel like I'm
[1:04:18] part of the community. I've lived in
Burlington since 1986. And when you can
[1:04:22] just dismiss these kinds of things so
out of hand, it doesn't feel great. I
[1:04:27] would say in terms of what this is going
to cost, you know what we're paying now?
[1:04:31] Nothing. And the city, I feel like, is
liable for allowing these streets. My
[1:04:35] street was built 60 years ago. And Tony
Pomelo, when he was alive, would say,
[1:04:38] "We're gonna sell it to the city for a
dollar." They did that all through the
[1:04:42] 70s and 80s. And you know, nobody wanted
to take assume the cost. Well, I'm a
[1:04:46] member of this community. I pay taxes.
And the fact that um this can just you
[1:04:51] could be so flippant like, "Oh, they've
only have they don't have three inches
[1:04:53] of tarmac. We're not gonna, you know,
like I'm going to tell the community
[1:04:57] that it's going to be a exorbitant cost
and everybody's going to get upset." You
[1:05:01] know, it's like I am a member of this
community to dismiss my
[1:05:06] » But thank you. Thank you for asking.
It's kind of outrageous and I think you
[1:05:10] guys are at fault.
>> We appreciate you being here.
[1:05:13] » So many
years that nobody dealt with this and of
[1:05:17] course the streets are in disrepair
because nobody the city didn't want
[1:05:20] Steve Goodkind in 2014 said I don't want
to pay for the streets and they didn't.
[1:05:25] And they got further and further and
worse repair. And it's it's the city's
[1:05:29] fault. It's not my fault.
>> Well, we're we're we're we're working on
[1:05:32] it and we appreciate your input.
>> I'm sorry. I'm so
[1:05:34] » No, no, it's fine. And I'm I'm hoping
>> I just it's just it's just the the the
[1:05:39] attitude. It's just it's it's people's
lives, you know. I know it's a budget. I
[1:05:43] know there's technical stuff and I know
there's legal stuff, but it's people's
[1:05:46] lives.
>> Yeah, it's understandable.
[1:05:50] » I Okay.
>> Um but this this is to be continued. Um
[1:05:55] and I think we're making good progress
on plan. Yeah. And we're gonna discuss
[1:06:01] the policy aspects
of council.
[1:06:05] » Follow up about the estimates or
>> we can talk,
[1:06:11] » but appreciate appreciate those who came
with me. Thank you.
[1:06:15] » Thank you. Um, so we're going to
continue on and now we're going to go
[1:06:20] backwards in our agenda
to our GMT funding initiative and
[1:06:26] clarity.
>> Hi, nice to meet you.
[1:06:30] » Join us at the table.
>> Um, and um, we were talking that um,
[1:06:34] despite best intentions, neither
or Merrick or I or Becca could make it
[1:06:41] to either of the things we've had so
far. were hoping you could do giving
[1:06:45] give us an update on how this initiative
is proceeding and and what you sort of
[1:06:54] um say your name for the record.
>> Sure. Yeah, my name is Marty Gillies.
[1:06:59] » Um apologies for
>> um so this initiative kind of came from
[1:07:05] some local citizen advocates. Uh it's
been sort of taken up by the BNRC or not
[1:07:11] natural resources council. um they
operate the transportation for Vermont's
[1:07:16] team for BT program. So it's uh it's got
its own website but it is part of BNRC
[1:07:21] and the staff people who run it are BNRC
staff um and B T forBT is sort of a
[1:07:27] broad coalition of uh transportation
um minded groups clubs in there 350 per
[1:07:35] month other climate organization AP so
just a kind of a wide consortium of
[1:07:41] folks that are interested in
transportation mostly public transitive
[1:07:44] walk bike groups
um and So they're sort of leading the
[1:07:49] charge here. And so um
we've had two meetings to date. Um and
[1:07:57] the first sort of thing on the the
agenda is the September 22nd press
[1:08:02] conference.
Um
[1:08:05] I believe at the last meeting it was
agreed that that would be at the GMT
[1:08:11] um headquarters, but then there was some
talk maybe we'll have it at the downtown
[1:08:14] training center. Um but that'll be on
September 22nd. Time has not yet been uh
[1:08:19] locked in. Um and I think the point of
press conference is sort of as before
[1:08:27] November elections and as uh legislators
at the state level are sort of ramping
[1:08:32] up for the January start session. um
just trying to communicate to the state
[1:08:37] and to our policy makers at that level
that there's a sort of a large
[1:08:42] demographic group that cares um pretty
deeply and has a great need for transit.
[1:08:49] Um,
I think one of the discussion points has
[1:08:53] been, you know, the urban versus rural
elements. And in this press conference,
[1:08:59] are we going to try to fold in um folks
from central Vermont, Northeast Kingdom,
[1:09:05] southern Vermont, or is this going to be
more of a concerted shifting county push
[1:09:09] to say, hey, like specifically here in
our area that is more urban than most of
[1:09:13] Vermont? This is especially important to
us and you know, kind of get a little
[1:09:16] bit steamrolled or lost sometimes at the
state level. Um so I think the ultimate
[1:09:21] decision over the first two meetings was
uh there is a January press conference
[1:09:26] in Montpillar that maybe it would make
more sense for central Vermont and
[1:09:30] Northeast Kingdom folks to come to and
sort of present that unified front that
[1:09:33] across the state this is a need. Um but
this September press conference I think
[1:09:38] it's going to be more of a Chen County
focus. Uh
[1:09:43] speakers at this time I think we have
Tosh Rener mayor Wooki is planning on
[1:09:47] being there. Um
I believe someone from Essex Junction
[1:09:53] City Council is going to be there. Uh
ARP
[1:09:58] CATMA Champ
looking at maybe grabbing the housing
[1:10:01] person or two um just to sort of you
know find that interconnectedness of
[1:10:08] transit enabling more housing less money
less traffic etc. Um, so that's kind of
[1:10:15] where we're at on that element of the
the thing. And then beyond September
[1:10:21] 22nd, uh, I think that is still a little
bit more in the air, but the idea is
[1:10:27] that transportation for Veranters would
be in their platform and and this group
[1:10:31] would be sort of working to highlight
um, existing
[1:10:36] um,
and ongoing efforts to promote bus
[1:10:40] ridership. I think broadly speaking bit
more of advocacy education campaign
[1:10:45] looking to get choice riders just trying
to spread the word a little bit more
[1:10:49] about whereab routes exist stuff like
that for example GMT just extended the
[1:10:55] number nine route so now it goes to the
Shaw Pchester it's the first time that
[1:11:00] will have transit access to a like a
major grocery store that's kind of a big
[1:11:05] deal and that's no it's not in the news
and that's not something that's super
[1:11:07] well publicized just I'm trying to to do
more to make those little victories and
[1:11:13] make things more public. But I think so
far a lot of the effort has been on the
[1:11:17] set of second press conference and I
think the sort of education advocacy
[1:11:20] campaign comes next. Um the other big I
guess thing worth talking about is that
[1:11:26] there it's not going to be so much a
policy or a legislative campaign. I
[1:11:31] think a lot of folks
um in the T4BT coalition feel that the
[1:11:37] way things are set up right now, there's
not a ton of wiggle room budget wise or
[1:11:42] politically speaking to make big moves
on transit funding this session. Um so I
[1:11:48] think the intention is sort of to get
the ball rolling to sort of prime
[1:11:52] legislators and media and stuff like
that to to cover this in a different way
[1:11:56] or to be more receptive of this issue
moving forward. But I don't think that
[1:11:59] there's any expectation that there's
going to be huge
[1:12:04] changes made this session as result.
>> Okay. Um, I will add, uh, Councelor
[1:12:11] Bergman isn't here this evening, but he
sent me a note prior to the meeting, um,
[1:12:16] suggesting that
we send we, uh, draft a statement um,
[1:12:22] sent to send to the full council in
support of this and also send it to
[1:12:26] legislators and legislative candidates,
the mayor and their administration, ask
[1:12:30] that they join u this effort or support
this effort at a point.
[1:12:36] Um, and so that's also something that we
as a committee could could help
[1:12:42] undertake if there was interest in doing
that. So I'll open it up to uh committee
[1:12:47] members for um comments and discussion.
Um but yeah, sure. Uh thanks for thanks
[1:12:55] for coming. Um
um
[1:13:02] uh you uh for the press first for for
the press conference if you uh want one
[1:13:08] of us for to speak the press conference
have some or maybe someone from the
[1:13:12] mayor's office or something a Burlington
speaker. Uh I think that would be cool.
[1:13:18] uh if that's a need or want. Um
I guess now now going into what I guess
[1:13:27] what you were talking about um
and Clayton maybe you can um confirm
[1:13:34] this. Um you so you said that um in
going into the next session there aren't
[1:13:40] there doesn't there aren't plans
currently for a I guess like a
[1:13:44] legislative logging campaign around
around the budget specifically. Do you
[1:13:49] think the budget's going to remain
stable for GMT? Because my concern is
[1:13:55] that I maybe maybe there's not um like
you said the wiggle room, the
[1:14:02] consciousness among among the
legislature yet to make a full push for
[1:14:05] increased funding which I think we
desperately need. Um but for for years
[1:14:11] now it's been it's not even been about
increasing funding, it's been about
[1:14:15] holding the line. Do you think that um
would there be worth in having some type
[1:14:21] of effort on even just holding the line
because it seems like it just gets
[1:14:25] chipped away to learn more?
>> No, it definitely does. Um yeah, like I
[1:14:29] said, I'm not a huge Montillar policy
expert or anything like that. Um the
[1:14:34] BNRC folks are are like professional
lobbyists. Um so they're the ones who
[1:14:39] are sort of reading the room.
>> Yeah.
[1:14:41] » Relaying that to me. Um, I think the big
push
[1:14:45] policy wise would be the dedication of a
separate
[1:14:49] dedicated transit funding source. So
there's some some tax or some fee at the
[1:14:54] state level and all that always goes to
transit and there's a pot of money
[1:14:57] specifically reserve for transit and
it's not we're not taking a little bit
[1:15:00] out of the trans general fund that
you're hearing kind of argu about how
[1:15:02] much that is. Um, and my understanding
is that folks feel like it's maybe not
[1:15:10] the right time or not yet the right time
to um go for a full court
[1:15:17] push on our legislators to make that
happen this session. I think the thought
[1:15:21] is that there should be some sort of
priming that hey like this is an issue,
[1:15:25] this is an issue and once folks sort of
accept and our our donkey business says
[1:15:29] that this is an issue then that's the
solution, right? Um
[1:15:33] Paul order to get that immediately done.
I think especially Bill Scott is pretty
[1:15:39] vocal that he wants to know your taxes
fees. Um and this you know if it maybe
[1:15:45] comes out to be a net zero any less of
the this general fund is coming from
[1:15:50] this other pot maybe the total total
amount is the same but it would probably
[1:15:54] end up having a new sort of tax or fee
or or something like that. And so the
[1:16:00] thoughts that the Scott administration
would be pretty opposed and unless
[1:16:04] there's pretty widespread grab support
for something like that. Um they might
[1:16:10] be like sort of dead on arrival.
>> Yeah. Not well I I agree with you about
[1:16:14] that. I think it's a I think that's a
great long-term goal. Uh, and I yeah, I
[1:16:20] would also agree that based off of past
sessions that it's um
[1:16:25] not not great chances, but yeah, just
just flagging that like we've seen just
[1:16:29] year over year, you know, this that the
data is that it's not just been like
[1:16:33] they're leaving it stable, that they're
they're forcing GMT to cut millions of
[1:16:38] dollars. And I um yes, like I I agree
with you about like any sort of
[1:16:44] increasing um and even what you said
about creating a dedicated funding
[1:16:48] source. Uh but if if Phil Scott comes
out and says we're we're going to make
[1:16:52] GMT cut another $3 million
um it's they think there needs to be and
[1:16:59] even just a campaign to hold the line
could also be part of that priming the
[1:17:04] pumps for doing more in the future. And
like I said, um the first two meetings
[1:17:09] of the sort of organizing committee have
been some logistics of the match went
[1:17:13] too. And I think there's there's a lot
of wiggle room for what this campaign
[1:17:16] looks like moving forward. And so I
think um I certainly don't mean to like
[1:17:21] shut like doors
to the table and stuff. There's there's
[1:17:26] ton
[1:17:29] to respond with any insights that you
might have at this early stage about
[1:17:33] future funding. too early or is it too
early? Um,
[1:17:38] » it's not too early because um I have um
so I have some good news and bad news as
[1:17:43] usual. Uh but before I I dive into that,
I I do just want to thank Marty for his
[1:17:48] efforts um uh both with this and his uh
work on our uh ridership um uh
[1:17:55] accessibility council uh that we have.
So thank you very much for uh for
[1:17:59] supporting GMT in such a great way uh
Marty. And so, um, one of the things
[1:18:04] that, uh, uh, Mariki brought up about
funding uncertainty and the last time I
[1:18:10] was there, I talked about, uh, concerns
about the federal funding levels and,
[1:18:14] uh, one of the things that it appears
that next year's federal funding levels
[1:18:19] will be, uh, flat for GMT, so that we
won't have a reduction. So, so that's
[1:18:24] the the good news that um we have to
report. But I I I should say that, you
[1:18:30] know, until a continuing resolution is
fully passed and signed by the
[1:18:33] president, um you know, we don't know
exactly if that funding will be uh level
[1:18:39] as we think it will be. The thing that
I'm more concerned about, and uh this is
[1:18:44] something that Chapen um heard at our
last uh GMT board meeting, is that the
[1:18:49] ridership uh numbers um uh have gone
down more than we anticipated with our
[1:18:55] service reductions from the past year.
Um we are in my opinion dangerously
[1:19:00] close to losing some of our performance
awards. um if we do lose those
[1:19:05] performance awards, that is the first
step in a death spiral. And uh people
[1:19:10] don't like it when I say it, but that's
the reality. And so uh uh so that is
[1:19:15] really the thing that concerns me
because any future cuts we're we're
[1:19:19] already probably have cut to the point
that we're going to lose performance
[1:19:22] awards and any future cuts is means in
my mind that that will be pretty much
[1:19:28] definite.
>> Thank you. Um,
[1:19:33] Becca, did you want to make comments or
ask questions?
[1:19:37] » Uh, no, just thank you for all this
work. It's it's important and um I
[1:19:43] definitely support keeping the funding
and um I hope that we um don't see the
[1:19:51] wrership continue to go down. I think
that that's not great news, Clayton. And
[1:19:56] but I'm I'm glad you're flagging it so
that we have the opportunity to do
[1:20:00] something. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Um, so it seems like there's
[1:20:05] two actions that um, we could take. One
is to send a representative to the press
[1:20:11] conference on the 22nd. Merrick, would
you be willing to be a representative
[1:20:15] since you're inhouse uh, transit expert,
sorry, or GMT expert? Anyways, um, be
[1:20:22] happy to. Um, and so we could do that.
Um, and we could also uh I could work
[1:20:28] with Marty to to draft a um a
communication on behalf of the committee
[1:20:34] that we could maybe circulate to the
council.
[1:20:37] » I think Jean had sort of mentioned that
maybe you've done this in previous
[1:20:41] years.
>> What we've done in in the past is we've
[1:20:43] actually sponsored resolutions probably
on three different occasions that I can
[1:20:48] recall. um and that we would sponsor
resolutions at the council level that
[1:20:54] then go on to um the legislature, you
know, about and usually during the
[1:21:00] legislative session to try to to
advocate for funding and we've done that
[1:21:06] um in the past and I don't know how
effective they've been, but hopefully
[1:21:10] they've been they've been helpful and
Clayton and worked with us on on those
[1:21:15] um as well at times. So um in this in
this particular case you see how you're
[1:21:21] the press conference is really vehicle
ahead of the election cycle and trying
[1:21:26] to get people to commit to them and
whatnot. We could certainly um try to
[1:21:31] help with that with some sort of
statement of support. I I would work
[1:21:35] with you if the committee is good with
me doing so um on that and maybe um we
[1:21:41] could you know not as committee because
we probably won't vote on it tonight but
[1:21:45] as in as we've done in the past as
individual counselors we could sign on
[1:21:50] as two members as individual counselors
if we could have a statement that's
[1:21:54] acceptable to all four of us and we
could bring that to the full to
[1:21:59] constitute obvious sign.
>> Absolutely.
[1:22:03] Yeah, that goes with the sort of the two
items that Gene had certified for me if
[1:22:07] possible action.
>> So I can work with you directly. I think
[1:22:10] I could contact email,
[1:22:15] you know, you'll work with America on
that.
[1:22:22] » Um and and Jim, thank you for your
advocacy because we need that.
[1:22:27] » Yeah, no problem. And thank you for
reflectioning the schedule.
[1:22:31] » No problem.
>> I don't know if Clayton if I kept you
[1:22:34] sitting in Zoom for an hour, but
apologies for that.
[1:22:38] » We kept we kept Clayton entertained with
unaccepted streets.
[1:22:43] » I actually got a lot of work done, so
thanks.
[1:22:46] » Worked out great.
>> Okay. Well, thank you.
[1:22:51] » Yeah. Um, so we'll we'll move to uh
you'll move to Our
[1:22:59] next agenda item which is our last
deliberative item
[1:23:02] » must be me
>> which is the proposed FOY27 fleet
[1:23:06] purchases presentation.
>> Has it been a year already?
[1:23:11] » Almost.
>> Yeah, almost a year.
[1:23:13] » I think it was last August.
>> I believe
[1:23:19] we'll move on to that next.
>> And we have Ashley Parker as well for
[1:23:24] the setting. And unfortunately, fleet
manager Nate G cannot be here tonight
[1:23:28] because he has sort of personal
commitments as
[1:23:34] » we'll be representing the fleet
committee uh which uh the fleet
[1:23:38] committee is here to request the
transportation energy utilities
[1:23:41] committee recommend the board of finance
and city council approve the proposed
[1:23:46] FY27
vehicle purchase replacement
[1:23:50] recommendations and list the vehicle
side optional.
[1:23:54] So as uh for the fleet policy, our fleet
manager Dave Hammond, myself met with
[1:24:00] both uh representatives from both
general fun departments and revenue
[1:24:05] special revenue departments to come up
with a recommended uh list for FY27.
[1:24:12] Out of those meetings, he identified 15
vehicles were total for FY27.
[1:24:17] 13 of those being general fund vehicles
or equipment that are also in urgent
[1:24:24] need of replacement. Uh the other two
remaining are water resources
[1:24:31] of revenue. Um
available funds for the general fund
[1:24:36] purchases
will be uh funded by the general
[1:24:40] obligation bond series 2025A. There's a
little over a million dollars left in
[1:24:45] there from previous purchases that can
be used. And of those four funds that
[1:24:52] mentions in the vehicle purchase list,
there will be four uh large capital
[1:25:00] vehicles purchased through the GO bond
and then the remainder of the general
[1:25:05] fund vehicle purchased using $750,000
that was allotted by administration.
[1:25:13] uh revenue purchases will be using their
own revenue streams to make those
[1:25:19] purchases.
Total purchase amount is not to exceed
[1:25:23] 1,974,788.
[1:25:27] You can see the list of vehicles to
purchase. We could run through them, but
[1:25:32] they are in the memo. I'm sure
you have a look at those. Um
[1:25:40] and we still have a rather large uh
deferred list of vehicles or like 93
[1:25:45] vehicles which makes up about 30% of the
general fund fleet. So that does not
[1:25:51] include BE vehicles or
uh water resources
[1:25:57] just general fund vehicles with a total
amount a little over 6 and a half
[1:26:01] million. Now not all those deferred
vehicles are in need of replacement.
[1:26:07] Some are assets that are um can be
deferred due to limited use or limited
[1:26:14] wear to them and are not expensive to
maintain. So we have you know there's
[1:26:18] trailers, we have a top cell screen.
We've had for years that would be
[1:26:24] replaced but because of the amount of
use it gets and the amount of
[1:26:27] maintenance that it requires is not on
make to the top of that list.
[1:26:34] the age of our fleet has a lot to do
with the deferred vehicles list and how
[1:26:39] it impacts our fleet maintenance team
and their ability to properly maintain
[1:26:43] the fleet. So, we've been moving from
more of a preventative maintenance
[1:26:47] program to more of a responsive
maintenance program due to the aid of
[1:26:52] the fleet and the amount of repairs that
it needs.
[1:26:56] also the size of the fleet compared to
the size of our fleet technician team
[1:27:02] which we are down a few fleet
technicians right now. So it's making it
[1:27:07] uh as I said more of a responsive
playing catch up. So due to that, we've
[1:27:14] been outsourcing a lot of our larger
repairs
[1:27:18] to local vendors, which has increased
our contractual vehicle repair line,
[1:27:25] which we had to amend in FY26
by about almost $76,000.
[1:27:32] But we do have a new fleet funding
strategy, as I mentioned in the memo,
[1:27:37] antennal service fund, which will
hopefully be implemented in the next
[1:27:40] year too. that allow general fund
departments to set aside money within
[1:27:46] their budget to pay for their individual
departments fleet purchases.
[1:27:51] That's something that we're working on
the administration.
[1:27:58] And then EV purchases this year. We
don't out of those 15 vehicles, a lot of
[1:28:05] them are large
block trucks, tandoms, one a trailer
[1:28:10] that there's not an EV option for. We
did have five uh police cruisers that
[1:28:16] were purchasing that are hybrids. Um, of
the vehicles on the list, when we met
[1:28:23] with Burlington Electric to review
possible EV options,
[1:28:29] the only
option was the walkbehind mower,
[1:28:35] which we dealt with the one parks and
recreation cemetery. We had one on site.
[1:28:41] Their crews took it, mowed all over the
the uh cemeteries. used it out in other
[1:28:48] areas, other parks. Um, it just the way
that mower works and as it states in
[1:28:56] supporting memo that the parks
department,
[1:29:00] it's just not conducive to the lay of
the cemetery,
[1:29:06] especially with a lot of the ledge
slopes that are there.
[1:29:11] Previous years I demoed one myself there
and found it difficult and unsafe on
[1:29:16] those steep slopes because it's not
controlled like a traditional more with
[1:29:21] belt drives.
So we are not pursuing that as an
[1:29:26] electric vehicle where there are no
electric vehicle purchases here just by
[1:29:31] hybrid.
[1:29:36] Um,
Ashley, do you have anything to add?
[1:29:42] » Um, no. I think I just wanted to
highlight again the um general fund. I
[1:29:48] don't want to say earmark, but
contribution that was approved as part
[1:29:51] of the budget this year to support um
the cash purchase of that long list of
[1:29:58] general fund vehicles that Lee was was
mentioning, almost $750,000. and that it
[1:30:03] is part of the attempt to work towards
that internal service fund where we um
[1:30:10] more formally set aside money to make
sure we have money to purchase uh
[1:30:15] vehicles every year. So, I just wanted
to to call that out in addition to the
[1:30:19] bond dollars that um are also supporting
purchases.
[1:30:27] Um, committee members
on the uh the fleet just
[1:30:36] there.
Becca, do you have anything?
[1:30:42] » I don't have anything. This all looks
good to me. Thank you. It's nice to see
[1:30:46] the progress being made on the financing
side certainly too. So, thank you.
[1:30:54] » I guess I had a question. So just to
understand the mo the so parks one of
[1:31:00] the fleet purchases is a is a walkbehind
mower
[1:31:03] » correct
>> and is it for parks?
[1:31:05] » Yes.
>> Okay. So it was a clear about
[1:31:09] » um and so and they demoed one an
electric model that that wasn't suitable
[1:31:15] for what they needed and so that's why
we're not pursuing that. the other
[1:31:20] electric vehicles um the other fleet
purchases aren't eligible for because
[1:31:26] there there aren't electric
>> options for them except for like the
[1:31:31] police cruisers where they're hybrids.
>> Correct.
[1:31:33] » Okay.
[1:31:37] » Um I'm just anticipating
>> Yeah.
[1:31:39] » other questions that may come up like
they have in prior years um as this
[1:31:43] groups beyond the committee and off to
the council.
[1:31:46] » Yeah. And we did discuss with Burlington
Electric about the
[1:31:50] um ship command vehicle because
originally we were going to go with an
[1:31:55] F150 light or something similar to that,
but because of the weight that they
[1:32:02] carry the gear, it exceeded the capacity
of the pickup. So then we looked at
[1:32:08] maybe the the Chevy Silverado, a heavier
duty version, but based on again
[1:32:16] There's a difference between carrying
capacity and towing capacity. And again,
[1:32:20] with the size of the batteries that are
on the vehicle and the additional weight
[1:32:24] that they would add in gear, it exceeded
what they could use it for. So,
[1:32:31] » well, uh, thank you for this. Um, is 15.
I mean, I've seen a few of these come
[1:32:36] through since I've been on the council.
>> Yeah, I mean on this on this on the It's
[1:32:40] even below last year, but I think was
maybe 17.
[1:32:42] » Yeah. So I mean there's been years where
20,
[1:32:46] » right? So it's bad, you know.
>> So I mean it's important not to lose
[1:32:52] sight of the fact that there is that
deferred list that's becoming more some
[1:32:57] of which are becoming more and more
critical.
[1:32:59] » Correct. And and our fleet software has
a scoring system that rates vehicles in
[1:33:04] urgent need. So these 13 that are in the
general fund are urgent need vehicles
[1:33:09] from the department.
Well, thank you for bringing this
[1:33:13] forward. Um, I know that you would like
uh the toque to
[1:33:20] » make a motion on this and take take
action to move it to the full council.
[1:33:24] So, I don't know if one of the committee
members would
[1:33:28] make a motion. There's one in the memo.
Uh
[1:33:33] uh so I would move to approve and
recommend the board of finance and city
[1:33:39] council approve the proposed whites 17
fleet purchasing list as detailed in
[1:33:44] attachment a vehicle replacement list
and authorize the director of the
[1:33:48] department of public works who purchased
the vehicles listed therein for a total
[1:33:52] authorized expenditure in an amount not
to exceed 1,974,788.
[1:34:01] And
I and I would move to approve and
[1:34:05] recommend that the board of finance and
city council authorize the director of
[1:34:08] the department public works or designate
to dispose of the FY27 replaced vehicles
[1:34:15] equipment through any of the following
means as they shall in their responsible
[1:34:19] judgment determined to be in the city's
best interest and to take such further
[1:34:23] actions and execute such further
instruments approved as to form by the
[1:34:29] city the attorney as may be necessary or
convenient to affectuate the
[1:34:33] transactions contemplated hereby auction
the vehicle/equipment through any of the
[1:34:38] various online public auctions by trade
in where vehicle equipment is being
[1:34:42] purchased or if the vehicle is is of no
value to the vendor fleet maintenance
[1:34:47] will have the vehicle equipment hauled
away for scrap at the current market
[1:34:52] price thanks for that very motion is
there a second
[1:34:58] » wow Oh, I'm really glad I didn't
volunteer to read that. Thanks, Eric.
[1:35:02] Second. Yes.
>> Um, any further discussion?
[1:35:07] I see none. All those in favor of the
motion while motion is read by indicate
[1:35:12] by saying I.
>> I.
[1:35:14] » I.
>> Um, so there you have it.
[1:35:17] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[1:35:18] » Thank you.
>> Thank you all.
[1:35:21] » Thank you, Ashley.
[1:35:24] Um and that brings us to the end of our
deliberative agenda. Next we have a
[1:35:30] director's report.
>> Yeah. Given the hour, uh I defer.
[1:35:35] » Yeah. Councelor items. Any councilors
have items to
[1:35:40] for the committee?
You're not seeing any. Um so that moves
[1:35:46] us to our last item which is SK setting.
Our next meeting is currently scheduled
[1:35:51] for the 22nd uh of September at 5:30
p.m. Is that work for everybody still?
[1:35:57] And is this room available?
[1:36:02] » Is everybody okay with that as a meeting
date? Uh assuming the press conference
[1:36:07] is not 5:30.
>> Yeah, they did. It was like 11 or 4.
[1:36:11] » Yeah.
>> And that will work for me. I got it.
[1:36:16] » Um
>> Yep. That works for me.
[1:36:19] » Okay. So, let's let's let's
say we're going to do that and I will
[1:36:25] let team know
and the item is so further business and
[1:36:32] that's the injunction. I'll journ at
7:09.
[1:36:35] Thank you everybody.
>> Thank you. Have a good night.
[1:37:08] Come
[1:37:18] on. Come on.