Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee

City Council - Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee Tuesday, November 25, 2025, 4:00 PM, Join in Person: Front Conference Room, 645 Pine St. Burlington, VT 05401 Join via Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/84603122855 To call into the meeting, including to speak during public comment: Phone: 312-626-6799, Webinar ID: 846 0312 2855 [IGNORE_INDENT] 1. Agenda 1.1. Motion to adopt/amend 2. Adopt Minutes 2.1. Minutes of 9/30/25 & 10/29/25 3. Public Forum 3.1. Public Comment - 30 min 4. Deliberative Agenda 4.1. Velerity Report - 40 min 4.2. Great Streets Bank & Cherry Update - 15 min 4.3. Unaccepted Streets - 30 min - Action 4.4. Recycling Next Steps - 45 min - Action 5. Director's Report 6. Councilor Items 7. Next Meeting 7.1. Tentative - 12/23/25, time TBD Page 1 of 23  CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY & UTILITIES COMMITTEE c/o Department of Public Works 802.863.9094 VOX 645 Pine Street, Suite A 802.863.0466 FAX Post Office Box 849 802.863.0450 TTY Burlington, VT 05402-0849 www.burlingtonvt.gov Councilor Mark Barlow, Chair, North District Inquiries: Councilor Gene Bergman, Ward 2 Rob Goulding Councilor Becca McKnight, Ward 6 802.881-2278 Councilor Marek Broderick, Ward 8 rgoulding@burlingtonvt.gov Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee of the City Council Tuesday, September 30, 2025 – 5:00PM --Revised DRAFT MINUTES— See video for full meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJSNk7D4Yck Councilors absent: None Councilors Present: Chair Barlow, Councilor Broderick via zoom, Councilor Bergman & Councilor McKnight Chair Barlow calls meeting to order at 5:11 PM 1. Agenda Councilor Bergman moves to approve the agenda as posted. Councilor Broderick seconds. All in favor, Unanimous approval 2. Minutes of 8/19/25 Councilor Bergman moves to adopt the minutes as presented notating that AI has a few errors. Councilor Broderick seconds. All in favor, Unanimous approval 3. Public Forum Sharon Bushor – Concerns regarding communication from Public Utility Board & BED. Compliment to PlanBTV about efforts to gather public input on the plan. 4. Deliberative Agenda 4.1 PlanBTV 2050 Mobility (Transportation Plan) Phillip Peterson, Senior Transportation Planner, & Parsa Pezeshknejad, Transportation Planner presented information. Councilor Bergman emphasized the importance of including various stakeholder groups in the planning process, such as neighborhood associations, businesses, and educational institutions like UVM and GMT, to address specific transportation issues like parking and traffic flow. Page 2 of 23 Councilor Broderick discussed the comprehensive plan, emphasizing the need to include student voices from UVM and Champlain College, and addressed the importance of long-term public transit planning. Chair Barlow discussed the integration of open space plans and the need for scenario planning around transportation systems Zoom AI Summary with slight staff revisions: BTV2050 Transportation Plan Updates The meeting focused on updates and planning for Plan BTV2050, a comprehensive city plan encompassing transportation, housing, economic development, and parks. The transportation component, led by DPW, aims to update the existing plan from 2011, considering significant changes and future developments. Key goals include integrating transportation with land use and housing, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and preparing for uncertainty through scenario-based planning. Public engagement is a priority, with visioning workshops planned before and after consultant selection, and the team is actively seeking consultants through a request for qualifications process with proposals due October 8th. The group discussed the need to separate transportation planning discussions for different areas of Burlington, particularly between the South End and Hill sections, due to distinct transportation challenges and residential concerns. The team also highlighted the need to make the RFQ and planning documents easily accessible to the public and discussed how community input would help shape transportation goals, with a focus on balancing space allocation for different modes of transportation. The visioning workshops were outlined, including plans for surveys and open- ended questions to gather community input. Information only 4.2 Emissions Reduction / Energy Efficiency Review Darren Springer, General Manager of BED, Brad Williams Senior Operations Engineer of BED presented information. Councilor Bergman inquired about the inclusion of an implementation schedule and the role of battery storage and solar expansion in the report, to which Brad confirmed these topics were part of the ongoing assessment. Zoom AI Summary with slight staff revisions: McNeil Plant Carbon Reduction Assessment Brad presented an update on evaluating opportunities to reduce emissions at the McNeil plant, highlighting the progress made in characterizing the plant and identifying potential initiatives for emission reduction. The meeting focused on the assessment of potential initiatives to reduce carbon emissions at the McNeil plant by 25% and 50%. Brad explained the baseline emissions level was established as the average of the past five years, and various solutions, including RNG blending, ammonia blending, and carbon capture, were evaluated for their technical applicability, efficiency, and economic implications. The team modeled most initiatives and expected to complete the project in about a month, providing a detailed report on feasible options, including cost and reduction levels. Information only Page 3 of 23  4.3 Forestry Third Party Review John Bryant of K2QC Consulting presented information. Councilor Bergman wanted confirmation that 17.5% are chips 54.6 are round wood fuel wood. Do you have a sense of the percentage that would be old trees, that are low value roundwood damaged or diseased trees? Chair Barlow asked if it were for McNeil, what would happen on these various stands? Zoom AI Summary with slight staff revisions: Burlington Electric's Wood Residue Management John Bryant of K2QC Consulting presented a forestry report on Burlington Electric's wood residue management system, highlighting the efficient operations at the Swanton Yard and the collaborative relationship between loggers and BED foresters. He noted that BED foresters primarily work in a compliance role rather than procurement, and praised the system's attention to environmental concerns like bat habitats. The report addressed the RFP requirements and documented the diverse approaches of logging contractors in Vermont's challenging terrain. BED presented a comprehensive report on Vermont's forest management practices, highlighting areas of compliance and offering recommendations for improvement. Key recommendations included supporting professional logger training through the Northeast, encouraging annual workshops on AMPs (Best Management Practices), updating education materials on rare species protection, and developing alternative bioproducts facilities. The report also suggested reviewing Vermont's Act 250 and considering a chain of custody process for wood residues. Betsy, the Chief Forester, confirmed that 72% of Vermont's wood production is burned for firewood, correcting an earlier misunderstanding. The discussion touched on the challenges of tracking wood markets and the impact of McNeil's operations on wood residue management. Information only 5. Director’s Report Chapin Spencer, DPW Director stated the department plans to present a report on the city's recycling program in October, with a recommendation to continue municipal recycling services. Director Spencer addressed concerns about the new bike lanes on Main Street, explaining the design and addressing safety concerns. 6. Councilor Items None 7. Next Meeting October 29, 2025 at 645 Pine St at 5:30 pm 8. Adjournment Chair Barlow adjourns meeting at 7:09 pm. Page 4 of 23  CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY & UTILITIES COMMITTEE c/o Department of Public Works 802.863.9094 VOX 645 Pine Street, Suite A 802.863.0466 FAX Post Office Box 849 802.863.0450 TTY Burlington, VT 05402-0849 www.burlingtonvt.gov Councilor Mark Barlow, Chair, North District Inquiries: Councilor Gene Bergman, Ward 2 Rob Goulding Councilor Becca McKnight, Ward 6 802.881-2278 Councilor Marek Broderick, Ward 8 rgoulding@burlingtonvt.gov Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee of the City Council Wednesday, October 29, 2025 – 5:30PM --DRAFT MINUTES— See video for full meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwLRdCEsdJQ Councilors absent: None Councilors Present: Chair Barlow, Councilor Broderick, Councilor Bergman & Councilor McKnight via zoom Chair Barlow calls meeting to order at 5:32PM 1. Agenda Councilor Bergman moves to approve the agenda as posted. Councilor Broderick seconds. All in favor, Unanimous approval 2. Minutes of 9/30/25 Councilor Bergman stated there are errors and wants minutes fixed notating that AI has a few errors. Councilor Broderick seconds. All in favor, Unanimous approval 3. Public Forum Kelton Bogesky of Casella spoke about their recycling process. Jeff Comstock – wants to introduce the new Plattsburg Ave Neighborhood Traffic Safety Work Group and share meeting notes. Jason Van Driesche – Clarification about Pearl St paving issues & bike lanes. Jack Evans – Thank DPW & Volunteers for the North Avenue Protected Bike Lane Project. Supports complete streets updates. Jack Tiano - feels recycling initial cost savings not it would be as big as thought. Doesn’t feel we are giving DPW the chance to succeed. Sharon Bushor (via zoom)– spoke about concerns about 150’ Setback of Parking & Recycling 7-year proposal. Councilor Evan Litwin (via zoom) – Thanks and Echos Sharon Bushor for her comments about 150’ setbacks & Recycling. Plattsburg Avenue Traffic Safety & frustration around Page 5 of 23 speeding. Consider flower pots to reclaim the road & Sunset Drive Light change to red as cars approach. Pike Porter (via zoom) - Spoke about bike lanes, paperwork that was not attached to agenda, Recycling – why can’t who ever use the current infrastructure. Jason Stuffle – Plattsburg Ave get rid of slip lane & Pearl Street parking removal – people change their habits. 4. Deliberative Agenda 4.1 Plattsburg Ave & RT 127 Traffic Safety Phillip Peterson, Senior Transportation Planner & Laura Wheelock, City Engineer & Division Director of Technical Services presented information. Councilors asked if data collection was in one direction or both? Governor has offered resources from VT State Police – Are the Councilors open to make formal request to Chief Burke? How long would it take to get a CCRPC study? Interchange at North End at Plattsburg Ave part of accident cluster? Compare DPW & Neighbors ideas? Other steps that can be taken? How extreme is that speed? Public Comments – Jeff Comstock asked that we take a look at their meeting notes. Dave Hartnett appreciates data but there is a reality that there is a problem at Plattsburg Ave and the beltline. Nolan Ward 3 resident stated a no cost project to eliminate the slip lane. AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions:The committee discussed traffic safety concerns on Plattsburgh Avenue and the Beltline, with Councilor McKnight inquiring about speed data collection methods and Philip explaining that data was collected in both directions using federal highway equipment and speed feedback signs. The group explored potential solutions, including requesting temporary traffic enforcement support from the Vermont State Police, and discussed a planned CCRPC safety study for the Beltline expected to begin in June 2027. The committee agreed to have staff review neighborhood suggestions for short- term traffic improvements and report back at the next meeting, while also considering immediate actions like requesting a memo from Chief Burke regarding enforcement support. Information only 4.2 150’ No Parking Setback on Streets Without Sidewalks Phillip Peterson, Senior Transportation Planner presented information. Councilors asked if there was a list of streets right now? How many car parking spots is 150 feet? Do we have setbacks for commercial driveways? AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: Regarding parking setbacks, Phillip presented a proposal for up to 150-foot no-parking zones on streets without sidewalks, which would provide better stopping distance for drivers at 25 mph. The committee agreed to front- load public engagement efforts before implementation, with a tentative list of streets to be shared after further planning. Information only Page 6 of 23  4.3 Rick Sharp Presentation Rick Sharp presented information about E - bikes. Councilors asked where the rack is on Church St? What have communications been like with CATMA? Community input? CATMA relationship? AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: Rick presented an update on the city's e- bike rental program, highlighting its success and plans for expansion in 2025. He emphasized the program's utilitarian use for transportation and its cost-effectiveness compared to other modes of transport. Rick also expressed concerns about potential competition from out-of- state companies and requested support for an exclusive bike share agreement with the city. The committee discussed the program's current operations, including geofenced racks and battery management, and considered Rick's request for support against potential competitors. Information only 4.4 Recycling Next Steps Chapin Spencer, Director of DPW & Lee Perry, Division Director of Maintenance presented information. Councilors asked for info related to specifics around financial improvements and reduction of injuries. What are the capital needs of the City’s recycling program? If we went to a private hauler, would we have to replace the toters? AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: The council discussed the future of Burlington's recycling and solid waste collection system, with Councilor Broderick expressing opposition to privatization for 7 years and advocating for a fully consolidated municipal collection system. The council agreed to give more time for long-term planning while considering the current financial constraints and operational challenges. They also discussed the need to address immediate issues with the recycling program, including staffing shortages and equipment maintenance. Information only 5. Director’s Report Chapin Spencer, DPW Director presented information regarding the first ever fall clean sweep. AI generated minutes w/ slight staff revisions: They discussed the fall clean sweep program, which aims to reduce phosphorus in Lake Champlain by cleaning public right-of-ways and reminding residents not to rake leaves into the street. Councilor McKnight encouraged residents to leave leaves in their yards as a natural fertilizer and for pollinators. The group agreed to use Front Porch Forum announcements and other media to communicate the program details to the public. Page 7 of 23  6. Councilor Items Councilor Bergman – What are we going to be doing with the Colchester Ave & North Ave bike lane issues and if there can be engagement with the people who raised the issues? 7. Next Meeting November 25, 2025 at 645 Pine St at 4:00 pm 8. Adjournment Chair Barlow adjourns meeting at 8:25 pm. Page 8 of 23  Kathryn E. Boucher 90 State House Square Hartford, CT 06103-3702 p 860 424 4372 f 860 424 4370 keboucher@pullcom.com www.pullcom.com September 19, 2025 VIA EMAIL DEEP.EnergyBureau@ct.gov Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Bureau of Energy and Technology Policy 10 Franklin Square New Britain, CT 06051 Re: Public Act 25-173 – Section 44 – Eligible Biomass Facility Procurement The City of Burlington Vermont Electric Department (“BED”) respectfully submits the following written comments in response to the September 2, 2025 Notice of Proceeding and Opportunity for Written Comment issued by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP” or the “Department”). BED appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in advance of the Department’s forthcoming Eligible Biomass Facility Procurement. I. Introduction BED co-owns and operates the Joseph C. McNeil Generating Station (“McNeil”) in Burlington, Vermont. In 2009, this New England sustainable biomass facility was certified as a Connecticut Class I renewable energy source under Connecticut law.1 Importantly, the emissions profile required to qualify for Connecticut Class I status, McNeil’s fuel sourcing practices, and the regional contributions of McNeil to New England have not changed since that time. McNeil is a 50-megawatt electric generator that can run on oil, natural gas, or wood fuel. Since 2013 McNeil has exclusively generated energy using wood. When McNeil generates power using wood as fuel, the wood used is sustainably harvested, primarily in Vermont and upstate New York, but at times has come from other sources throughout the Northeast. BED has been approached by Connecticut wood suppliers regarding taking wood supply from tree trimming operations and other Connecticut non-commercial wood sources. McNeil is a dispatchable generator and analysis from 2022 found that natural gas was the marginal fuel on the New England grid 92 to 98 percent of the time when McNeil was running, meaning that if McNeil was offline, fossil fuel would be the replacement fuel.2 McNeil contributes to regional fuel source diversity, particularly during high-cost winter months, benefitting ratepayers at a time when the region has been overly reliant on natural gas and fossil fuels. ISO New England data shows increasing natural gas prices are driving overall wholesale electricity cost increases in the region, with wholesale energy costs in the winter of 2024-2025 up 147 percent compared to the prior winter, “driven by a substantial increase in 1 See Public Utilities Regulatory Authority Docket 08-01-03. 2 See Assessment of lifecycle GHG emissions from Joseph C. McNeil Generation Station, Page 5, available at https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/wp-content/uploads/VEIC-Final-Memo-to-BED-LCA-of-GHG-emissions-4.29.22- .pdf. Page 9 of 23 Page 2 natural gas prices.”3 By generating with wood fuel, McNeil diversifies the region’s energy mix, particularly in the winter, and reduces reliance on natural gas for power generation. Wood fuel can be stored for months on-site or in a satellite wood yard, and this permits McNeil to stockpile inventory before the beginning of the winter season. This stockpile can be replenished with ongoing deliveries during the winter, allowing McNeil to have a high winter capacity factor. For example, during this past winter when costs were high for wholesale electricity, McNeil’s capacity factor was 88 percent in January (availability factor was 100 percent) and 77 percent in February (availability factor was 81 percent), helping to mitigate the regional reliance on natural gas during those important winter months. In 2014, McNeil was ultimately awarded four separate contracts in DEEP’s biomass procurement pursuant to Section 8 of Public Act 13-303.4 BED was selected to negotiate two 5-year contracts (one with each Connecticut electric distribution company) for a portion of McNeil’s output. Green Mountain Power, another co-owner of McNeil, was selected to negotiate two 10-year contracts with the Connecticut electric distribution companies (likewise one with each Connecticut electric distribution company). Those contracts have contributed to McNeil’s continued operations in that timeframe and lower emissions throughout New England. Third-party analysis has indicated McNeil reduces greenhouse gas emissions on a lifecycle basis compared to alternative generation such as natural gas. Analysis from Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (“VEIC”) shows that McNeil reduces lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by 85 percent compared to alternative ISO New England grid supply.5 Analysis from Innovative Natural Resource Solutions (“INRS”) found that the lands from which McNeil sources wood from have increased their forest carbon storage by the equivalent of 24.3 million tons of CO2 equivalent between 2007 and 2020.6 Similar to the VEIC analysis, INRS also found that McNeil’s operation avoided over 80,000 tons of CO2 annually from being emitted at alternative generators based on ISO New England grid mix emissions data.7 McNeil’s current forestry contracts prohibit McNeil from accepting wood harvests conducted solely for energy production, and instead require McNeil to accept tops and limbs, diseased or damaged trees, and non-commercial wood left over from commercial harvests. Using this “wastewood” is particularly sustainable and lower in carbon emissions, as “all bioenergy technologies—even biomass electric power compared to natural gas electric—look favorable when biomass ‘wastewood’ is compared to fossil fuel alternatives.”8 3 See ISO New England, Winter 2025 Quarterly Markets Report, Page 9, available at https://www.iso-ne.com/static- assets/documents/100024/2025-winter-quarterly-markets-report.pdf. 4 See Section 8 Final Determination, dated January 31, 2014, available at https://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/DEEPEnergy.nsf/c6c6d525f7cdd1168525797d0047c5bf/9a6d3ba3caa71fac85257c71007778 ca/$FILE/Section%208%20Determination%20Final.pdf. 5 See Assessment of lifecycle GHG emissions from Joseph C. McNeil Generation Station, Page 14, available https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/wp-content/uploads/VEIC-Final-Memo-to-BED-LCA-of-GHG-emissions-4.29.22- .pdf. 6 See INRS analysis at Page 7, available at https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/wp-content/uploads/McNeil-Carbon- 6.2023.pdf. 7 Id. at Page 8. 8 See Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study, Page 110, available at https://www.manomet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Manomet_Biomass_Report_Full_June2010.pdf. 2 Page 10 of 23 Page 3 II. Responses to DEEP Questions BED responds in turn to the Department’s questions below. 1. What documentation should a potential bidder be required to submit to demonstrate they are an “eligible biomass facility”? The relevant statute defines an eligible biomass facility as “a biomass facility that uses sustainable biomass fuel and has an average emission rate of less than or equal to .075 pounds of nitrogen oxides per million BTU of heat input for the previous calendar quarter, or energy derived from a biomass facility with a capacity of less than five hundred kilowatts that began construction before July 1, 2003, and that has entered into one or more existing biomass power purchase agreements.” Thus, eligible facilities must have been previously qualified as Connecticut Class I by PURA or the DPUC at that emissions level. Thus, BED proposes that provision of a prior CT Class I Final Decision from PURA (or the DPUC as applicable), along with a copy of the facility’s most recent quarterly NOx emission certification to PURA should be sufficient to demonstrate emissions eligibility. The separate “existing biomass power purchase agreement” component is addressed below. 2. What documentation should a potential bidder be required to submit to demonstrate they have an “existing biomass power purchase agreement”? The relevant statute defines an existing biomass power purchase agreement as “a power purchase agreement that: (A) (i) Was entered into by a biomass facility that uses sustainable biomass fuel and has an average emission rate of less than or equal to .075 pounds of nitrogen oxides per million BTU of heat input for the previous calendar quarter, or energy derived from a biomass facility with a capacity of less than five hundred kilowatts that began construction before July 1, 2003, with an electric distribution company in the state on or before June 5, 2013, or (ii) was executed in accordance with a solicitation pursuant to section 16a-3f or 16a-3h, as amended by this act; and (B) was in effect as of January 1, 2024. BED proposes that submission of one or more power purchase contract(s) between an eligible biomass facility (established per #1 above) and an CT electric distribution company with an effective term encompassing the statutory date of January 1, 2024 would be sufficient. Alternatively, a copy of the PURA Final Decision approving those contracts and referencing the term would also suffice. 3. What documentation or other evidence should a potential bidder be required to submit to demonstrate to DEEP the costs to operate such facility and whether the facility supports the state's solid waste management plan for DEEP’s standard of review? DEEP should require potential bidders to certify with the bid provided, the facility is expected to continue to operate for their proposed bid term, if the submitted bid is accepted (even if the bid is below the facility’s variable operating cost). There are a variety of factors beyond variable operating cost that affect an entity’s decision to operate a facility and its energy production in the ISO-NE markets. While other factors such as unit availability could impact production volumes, the primary risk to CT customers would be if a bidder had no intention of offering the unit into the ISO-NE energy markets at a price that will result in its selection for dispatch (i.e., which could be at a price that could be materially above the bid it submits in this RFP). Units that qualify for RECs, including qualifying as a result of an award under this RFP, typically reflect REC values as a 3 Page 11 of 23 Page 4 reduction to the ISO-NE bid that would apply (based on variable costs only for example). Other values streams can serve to additionally reduce a bid price from a pure variable cost basis. DEEP should consider that historically REC qualified biomass has been economical in much of the ISO-NE year, and particularly in the winter, when considering the costs submitted by bidders so as not to overstate the risk to CT customers of lower than offered production. Any inclusion in a bid of a Certification that the facility will not be taken out of service for the term of the bid should also be considered favorably. Regarding whether the facility supports CT’s solid waste management plan, there are many ways that potential bidders – even those located out-of-state – could demonstrate such support. BED therefore recommends that DEEP take an expansive and inclusive view of what this “support” could entail, and proposes that DEEP not require bidders to submit any specific form of documentation or evidence, but rather some form of documentation or evidence, so as to allow potential bidders the greatest flexibility in meeting this requirement. III. Conclusion Finally, like the ongoing Expedited Zero Carbon RFP, BED respectfully requests that the Department hold a Bidder’s Conference and allow an opportunity to submit questions on the draft RFP. BED looks forward to participating in the forthcoming RFP and to working with DEEP to ensure that cost-effective sustainable biomass facilities located in New England that support the state’s solid waste management plan can continue low-carbon operations supporting both Connecticut and the region. Respectfully submitted, Kathryn E. Boucher Counsel to the City of Burlington Vermont Electric Department 4 ACTIVE/76246.2/KEBOUCHER/20598560v3 Page 12 of 23  City of Burlington Department of Public Works Technical Services Engineering Division 645 Pine Street, Suite A Burlington, VT 05402 P 802-863-9094 / F 802-863-0466 / TTY 802-863-0450 www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPW Memo Date: November 25, 2025 To: Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee (TEUC) From: Phillip Peterson, PE, Senior Transportation Engineer & Planner Alice Schwencke, Excavation Inspector CC: Chapin Spencer, Director of Public Works Laura Wheelock, PE, City Engineer/Division Director – Technical Services Subject: Unaccepted/Private Streets in Burlington Overview: This memo serves to inform the TEUC; and by extension, the City Council, about the current status and future service changes related to unaccepted and private streets in Burlington. DPW Staff are seeking a motion from the TEUC to refer this item to City Council for their review. Transitioning Services on Unaccepted and Private Streets: Unaccepted and private streets represent a longstanding operational gray area in Burlington. While these streets are not formally part of the City’s accepted network, DPW has historically provided limited services; such as snow plowing, largely in response to resident expectations and practical considerations. This informal support, however, creates inconsistencies in service delivery and responsibility across the broader street system. As part of a phased transition toward clearer service boundaries, DPW will discontinue these services on unaccepted/private streets after October 1, 2026. This timeline ensures residents have ample opportunity to prepare, explore cost-recovery options, or pursue formal street acceptance through dedication and City Council approval. Water Resources Infrastructure While it has been perhaps less gray in practice as far as providing benefits that are not prescribed, there has also been longstanding and sometimes understandable confusion among property owners around responsibility (both in the initial response and financially) for maintenance and capital improvements related to water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure on these unaccepted and private streets. Although a pipe on a private street may be of a large diameter and serve multiple buildings, unless Page 13 of 23 there is a clear easement in place that assigns responsibilities in a manner different to the BCO Chapters 26 and 31, these are functionally treated as “service line” connections to the public main, and, with the exception of hydrant flushing and inspection and replacement costs for meter inside a building, the costs for all maintenance, repair and replacement for infrastructure outside the street line (boundary of right of way) are 100% the responsibility of the property owner. That said, for the protection of public health, all work on any portion of the potable drinking water system up to and including the meter may only be performed by or with the approval of the water resources division. For the portion of the “service line connection” that enters the right of way and connects to the public main, the responsibility framework depends on whether the infrastructure is drinking water or sewer/storm. In the case of drinking water, the financial responsibility for the service line is shared between the City and the property owner 50/50 and work is typically performed by the City or a City hired contractor. In the case of sewer/storm, the pipe all the way up to and including the connection to the main is the sole financial and maintenance responsibility of the property owner; however the City does have oversight on allowing and approving that connection. When and where work has been performed by the water resources division (or by a contractor) on a shared portion of the water system on an unaccepted or private street, there can also exist complexities around how those charges are assigned to the beneficiaries on the street when and where there is not an existing agreement in the land records among those properties. Street Inventory (see Attachment-1)  Burlington currently has 55 unaccepted/private streets, of which 32 are confirmed private.  These streets are not formally part of the City’s accepted street network and have not been dedicated into the public right-of-way. Future Service Options: After October 1, 2026, DPW will no longer provide routine services on unaccepted/private streets. However, these services may be available through cost-recovery arrangements, pending staff capacity and formal agreement. Estimated rates are as follows: Plowing  Truck with operator: $143/hour  Salt: $110/ton While plowing typically takes about 10 minutes per snow event per street, costs will vary depending on street length, configuration, and frequency of service. Salt usage is generally minimal per storm but will be billed at the established rate. Pothole Filling  Truck, trailer, and two laborers: $201/hour  Asphalt: $87/ton  Cold Patch: $135/ton Page 14 of 23 Recycling  Recycling collection on unaccepted and private streets is contingent on the condition and accessibility of the roadway. When these streets are maintained in a reasonable and passable state by residents, DPW can continue curbside pickup at current locations or driveways. However, if a street deteriorates to the point where it poses a risk to City vehicles or staff, recycling pickup will be relocated to the edge of the public right-of-way. This approach ensures the safety of our fleet and personnel while maintaining service where feasible. Formal Street Acceptance: Residents may pursue formal street acceptance, which requires dedication of the street into the public right-of-way and City Council approval. Once accepted, the street is eligible for full City services under standard DPW operations. The City does not recommend accepting streets that fail to meet City standards. Abutting owners may choose from the options below; certain options can lead to formal acceptance while others provide alternative means of obtaining City maintenance.  Owner-funded upgrades for formal acceptance: Residents pay to bring the street up to City standards, dedicate the roadway to the City, and then petition the City for formal acceptance.  Maintenance contract with the City: Residents contract with the City for upkeep while ownership remains private. Street Acceptance Process Property owners seeking to dedicate a roadway to the City must follow a formal acceptance process that ensures infrastructure quality, legal clarity, and interdepartmental coordination. Key requirements include:  The City must confirm that the street is in good condition and meets current standards before acceptance.  A recorded survey map prepared by a licensed surveyor, with all monumentation installed.  Title insurance in favor of the City and legal certification that all permits and infrastructure (roadway, water, storm, sewer) meet approved standards.  Review of final plans by Burlington Electric Department (BED), DPW Technical Services, DPW Water Resources, and the Parks Department to confirm easements and vegetation conditions.  A Warranty Deed with a metes and bounds description referencing the recorded survey.  Submission of detailed record drawings (PDF and AutoCAD) covering all utilities, infrastructure, and vegetation, with engineering and surveyor certification.  Payment of City Engineer and City Attorney fees for review and compliance.  A full conditions assessment of all systems.  DPW and other departments prepare a cover memo of support for City Council consideration. Page 15 of 23 This process ensures that any newly accepted street meets Burlington’s standards and is ready for full integration into the City’s public infrastructure network. Next Steps  Engage with affected residents and neighborhoods  Provide guidance on the street acceptance process  Develop cost-recovery options for affected streets  Coordinate with TEUC and City Council to ensure transparency and alignment This memo is intended to support ongoing dialogue and planning as Burlington moves toward a more consistent and equitable approach to street maintenance. Thank you for taking the time to review this memorandum and for your continued support of Burlington’s street system planning and maintenance efforts. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact the Department of Public Works at (802)863-9094 or dpwplanning@burlingtonvt.gov. Attachments 1. City of Burlington Unaccepted/Private Street Inventory. 2. Examples of private and unaccepted streets. Motion The Transportation, Energy, and Utilities Committee hereby refers the attached memorandum and supporting materials regarding unaccepted and private streets in Burlington to the City Council for their review. This referral is intended to support continued dialogue, inform future policy decisions, and ensure alignment across departments as the Department of Public Works transitions services and engages with affected residents. Page 16 of 23 Attachment-1 STATUS STREET PLOWING PVT AMBROSE PL PVT APPLETREE PT LN PVT AVE A PVT AVE B PVT AVE C PVT AVE C NO PVT AVE C SO PVT BAIRD ST PVT CARRIGAN DR PVT CEDAR LN PVT CENTENNIAL CT PVT CHITTENDEN DR YES PVT CLAIRE POINT RD PVT DEFOREST HEIGHTS PVT DRIFTWOOD LN PVT EASTMAN FARM RD PVT IRA LN PVT IRANISTAN RD (PARTIAL) YES PVT LAKE FOREST DR PVT LAVALLEY LN YES PVT LITTLE EAGLE BAY PVT MCAULEY SQ PVT NORTHSHORE DR PVT RAYMOND PL PVT RIVER VIEW DR PVT ROCK PT PVT S MEADOW DR PVT SUNSET CLIFF YES PVT UNIVERSITY HGTS PVT UNIVERSITY RD YES PVT FAIRHOLT ST PVT STARR FARM BEACH UNAC ALFRED TER YES Page 17 of 23 UNAC BEACHCREST LN UNAC BROWE CT YES UNAC CALARCO CT YES UNAC CAMPUS CT UNAC CHASE LN YES UNAC CLOAREC CT YES UNAC COLCHESTER CT YES UNAC DANS CT UNAC DERWAY DR YES UNAC ELBOW ST YES UNAC LAWSON LN UNAC MARKHAMS LN UNAC MECHANICS LN UNAC NORTH AVE EXT YES UNAC NORTH COVE UNAC REDSTONE TER YES UNAC RUMSEY LN (Thorsen Way) YES UNAC SUNSET COURT YES UNAC TOWER TER UNAC VOLTZ ST YES UNAC WEST RD YES UNAC WOODS ST Page 18 of 23 Attachment-2 Unaccepted and Privately Owned Streets in the City of Burlington. Type 1 – Construction Similar to City Standards. This category could be missing a few elements, or the asset condition is not in good condition. Generally the properties on the street are arranged to allow for a standard city right of way to be formed. Example: Northgate Extension Street Outlined in Red is Unaccepted Street is Paved Sidewalk on one side Street Lighting Curbing Driveway Curb Cuts do not match City Standards Asset Conditions are in fair to poor condition Page 19 of 23 Type 2 – Street is outlined by parcels, but not constructed to City Standard. These are areas where a distinct street is described in the deeds of adjacent parcels as a shared road or right of way for the parcels in the area, but not a public right of way that that was given and accepted by the City. The street/way does not contain several elements required to be a city street. Streets Outlined in Red is Unaccepted Street is unpaved, road width is not adequate Missing Sidewalk Street Lighting is minimal Missing curbing Page 20 of 23 Type 3 – Streets that resemble shared driveways more than a street. These are areas are similar to Type 2 mentioned above but are generally shorter, could have different surfaces, limited lighting, and less formalized use of space. Streets circled in red are examples of unaccepted streets that fit this type of configuration. These are the most variable in arrangement of elements and indication how to navigate to reach properties further from the public right of way. Surface is variable. Parking expectation varies Limited lighting No sidewalk Limited or no curbing Page 21 of 23 Type 4 – Privately Owned Street. These streets are generally connected to the public right of way, and are thought of as a neighborhood street or connection. A few of these streets have legal findings that despite being privately owned where declared a public way through the finding of the court. This finding keeps the street available for any public to use, drive, travel over, but keeps maintenance of the street with the private owner(s). Streets outlined in red are Privately owned. Ownership of private streets are sometimes known entities, and in other occasions they are unaccepted streets where deed research and land record searches have provided verification that a street is has not previously been accepted, and also has supporting documentation to indicate the original developer intended to retain ownership of the street. Street conditions on these streets vary significantly. They can contain several elements that adhere to our engineering standards, but usually not everything. Often curb or sidewalk are missing, and street lighting if present is not up to current code for a City owned street. Condition of the private streets in the City is often in fair to poor condition, and properties served by these private streets struggle with how to make improvements. Page 22 of 23 Second Example of Type 4 Page 23 of 23