Municipal Infrastructure Commission

1/9/2020 - Minutes I. Call to Order II. Public Comment Members Present: Jason Williams, Timur Tsutsuk, Corey Mack, Laura Dlugolecki, Chris Page City Staff Present: Jonathan Rauscher Guests Present: Amy Lafayette, City Council Call to Order by: Laura Dlugolecki, 18:35 Minutes Recorded by: Chris Page III. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Decision: Approved Motion by: Jason W. Second: Chris P. IV. Update on Caring for Canopy Grant Canopy Grant l Small Grants, $1K-$5K, for tree-related work. l Laura has looked into applying and put together a grant application for full $5000 amount: l Four new street trees (>2” caliper, $5-600 trees) Salt tolerance, pollution tolerance, drought tolerance options. l Funding to hire arborist for tree maintenance (several trees need pruning). l 10 ash trees on Cascade Way; replace 2 of them as work for Emerald Ash Borer preparedness. l Grant is due on 1/17; Council must approve City’s ability to apply; this will go to Council on Monday 1/13. l Match: comes from city’s providing of staff time, mulch, labor, tree advisory committee (pruning), planning Arbor Day celebration. Match hours likely exceeded 50% match requirement. l Flexible with proposed tree planting sites/locations. Not too late to change l St. Peter Street (basically no street trees); lack of green belt makes feasibility dificult. l Weaver Street; few trees, wide green belt. l Hickock; identified as priority, but under construction so perhaps not wisest. Presentation of map of Weaver Street and Cascade Way: l Do we have approval from property owners? No; not necessary, but would be nice and could be a way to get volunteer assistance i.e. keeping water bags full, etc. l Gas line? Yes, running down green belt, but OK with VT Gas. l Weaver Street definitely lacking street trees. l Species Selection: Northern Red Oak (fruitless); Red Maple; Red Hackberry; Native species for benefits to birds; l Cascade Way: White Oak, Serviceberry; ultimately, could depend on Spring availability, several species could fit parameters. l Seems like we have a good chance for grant to be awarded. Previous grant applications have been approved for full $5000. l Confirmation that they are OK with in-kind donation of labor hours and equipment use and match. l Annual grant, for last 5 years. l Urban and Community Forestry Program has repeatedly identified us as a priority, so that helps our risk. l Overall, appears to be a very strong application by Laura. Tree City USA Application: l Due in a couple weeks, but very easy and simple application. l We have a Tree Committee, but they have not been meeting as much; never formalize. l Jon indicates that he is experienced in this; budgeted and in-kind match; making sure we have enough match budgeted. Need $14K,  l Urban and Community Forestry Program has repeatedly identified us as a priority, so that helps our risk. l Overall, appears to be a very strong application by Laura. Tree City USA Application: l Due in a couple weeks, but very easy and simple application. l We have a Tree Committee, but they have not been meeting as much; never formalize. l Jon indicates that he is experienced in this; budgeted and in-kind match; making sure we have enough match budgeted. Need $14K, have $10K budgeted, so need to make up with in-kind volunteer time, etc. l With designation, opens up eligibility to apply for numerous grants; even $22K grants for low- and moderate-income communities. l Street Trees with an eye towards stormwater; l Main Street: Gravel wetland where soccer pitch is to clear stormwater/wetland permit, not have to do anything further down corridor. l Could use grant money to look at other stormwater opportunities further down corridor (using trees). l Would be great to get some additional treatment downhill (since gravel wetland would be at top of Main Street, uphill of much of development). Department Updates: l Main Street: March for end of development phase, final design phase to begin after March l Jon: Summer work is generally wrapped up, sewer project (cured-in-place lining), working with DEC/SRF for funding, get into streetscape work on Hickock l Plan is to be bidding in March for sewer and street reconstruction on Hickock, finalizing that project. l Pool: continues to be on schedule; review of recent photos. l Weather pending, and hoping, another 20-foot section to pour; pool contractor back next week to get up rest of panel system before shutdown, closing out for this winter. Will wrap up in Spring, end of May/June 1st to get that work done. l Foundation for slide = huge. Everybody gets excited. l Headworks project at WWTP to support 1otreatment. Scheduled to be done February 6th. l Overall: under budget on pool, budgets looking great. l One item discussed at bid approval meeting was timber-frame shade structure, as an add-on for the bid. Foundation/Slab put in, re- evaluation if there is money in budget to include; there is currently potential to put that in project, offer to council. l Shade structure is set up to be there eventually, as foundation/etc. has been set. Does not necessarily need to be built right away; fundraising committee may be able to raise funds to build later, separately from current construction work. l Opening day celebration. Councilor Myers will be the first one in. V. Transportation Impact Fee Report Transportation Impact Fee and Draft Sewer Ordinance will be presented to council in upcoming meetings. Background: l Pursued thru RP grant program; City plays 20%, CCRPC pays 80%. Working with Johnathan Slason, PE at RSD. l Allows Winooski to levy a fee for capital improvement projects that would increase/improve capacity affected by a given development. l State statute allows for a good amount of flexibility, specific to Winooski, given that Winooski is very much built-out. Broad summary: l 1) What capital projects do we have coming forward where there is a component of capacity increase? l 2) what is cost of capacity increase? l 3) what is Winooski’s growth pattern from now until 2040? l 4) These calculate out to a “price per trip” that gets requested from developer as projects come in l Take your growth over years, incorporate pass-thru trips, get total PM Peak Hour trips. Capital projects that see increased capacity: Main Street, East Allen signalization, etc.; l Next steps: Build essentially a calculator that translates square feet of development to an impact fee. l We won’t do it for Senior Housing or Residential; exemptions. No need for an additional fee that prohibits low income housing from coming in. l Residential l Discount for certain kind of businesses, perhaps? Discounts for daycares, non-profit work; tons of flexibility for exemptions. l A tool to select for specific businesses/industries/developments? l Also, a statewide impact fee; State sets a fee, and subtract out municipal fees. So Winooski not having an impact fee doesn’t mean that State won’t charge same amount. l To that end, it seems very much like leaving money on the table that the State will take for their purposes; doesn’t really increase costs to developer overall. So impact fees will exist either way. l Adding in sidewalks, etc., also counts as a capital project to put money towards. l Exit 16; proximity of fees; Winooski is so dense, however, that *any* new development would have to pay something. l State statute = Act 145 (2016?); fee money said that unencumbered money must be utilized within 6 years of fee levied; but State law says 16 years? l Money can also be used for design for projects not-yet-built. l Next step: is this going to impede development? Act 145 is pretty new, so likely paying state already, but it depends. l Act 145 is triggered whenever Act 250 is triggered. l What would trigger Impact Fees in the City? l Need an ordinance in place;. l Giving deductions for development that we *want* to see (i.e. low-income, senior housing). l Traffic mgmt tool: using Peak PM usage, so if a developer can reduce peak PM usage with TDMs there could be some benefit to overall traffic. l Is Peak PM best way to go? Vs. Peak AM traffic? l Want to be comparable with surrounding communities; don’t want to be the highest. l Communities that levy impact fees: Burl, SB, Williston, Essex (village or town) l Exemptions or reductions in impact fees for designated downtown areas (act 145?). That’s State fees, however; may vary from municipality to municipality. Present to Council: l February: will likely present overview to council so that they can understand. l For MIC Feb meeting, we may likely look at ordinance. l Ordinance will not include rates, etc.; just will allow the City to levy the fees, and generic enough to include fees beyond traffic (say, Park impact fees, etc.)  overall traffic. l Is Peak PM best way to go? Vs. Peak AM traffic? l Want to be comparable with surrounding communities; don’t want to be the highest. l Communities that levy impact fees: Burl, SB, Williston, Essex (village or town) l Exemptions or reductions in impact fees for designated downtown areas (act 145?). That’s State fees, however; may vary from municipality to municipality. Present to Council: l February: will likely present overview to council so that they can understand. l For MIC Feb meeting, we may likely look at ordinance. l Ordinance will not include rates, etc.; just will allow the City to levy the fees, and generic enough to include fees beyond traffic (say, Park impact fees, etc.) l Have to subtract out all non-capacity improvements. l Signals are included (capacity increase), but undergrounding electrical is not (for example). l Not all Traffic Impact Fees are the same; ours is intentionally vague to capture more than just car/vehicle traffic (bike, ped, etc.). VI. Draft Sewer Ordinance Review Rough draft, solid amount of work to go, but intent is to capture/build a better framework for industrial wastewater. Current ordinance only includes 2-3 bullets re: industrial wastewater. Purpose is to beef up ordinance. Generally, there will be a separate rate structure for industrial WW. l Illicit discharge side: significantly increased unlawful discharge, monitoring requirements, grease trap stipulations, enforcement language all updated to be more solid. l Separate rate structure ordinance, so no discussion of rate structure in this ordinance; even there, likely set by council annually. l Comparison to other towns with breweries? Don’t’ want to negatively affect local brewery. Brewery is aware of need for industrial WW permit, which will have stipulations re: l Flow, strength of waste, monitoring req’ts, City access to monitoring point l With lower BOD from pre-treatment, significant changes. l Twincraft also: have not discussed with Twincraft, will likely fall under Industrial Waste permit, but (if pre-treatment is sufficient) may not trigger Industrial Waste levels. l Purpose is primarily to protect plant from industrial slug waste (i.e. massive slugs of high-strength WW), which can trigger failures/releases/fines from VT DEC. l Want to have capacity for any further breweries. l We only anticipate Four Quarters and potentially Twincraft. l Comparison with other towns: emphasis that rate structure should be comparable to surrounding towns. l “billing rates and user fees”; this language will be eliminated (i.e. base load rate); not something we are interested in doing. l Permit use; should make it clear that current residential users do NOT need to go reapply for a permit if it is an existing residence with no changes . l Likely will see a refined draft in February. Next Month’s Meeting: l Likely looking at drafts of next month’s ordinances. l Work Plan Review: Feb/March Timeline: Start looking at developing some prioritization system for sidewalk upgrades. l Start off discussion with a review of most recent sidewalk inventory; GIS map that can be published and sent around prior to next meeting. • Plan is to develop rating criteria for survey. l FY 21: budget item for sidewalks will be discussed by council at an upcoming meeting. l Currently, sidewalk repair is generally through Service Request System; in springtime, review data and staff will try to address spot repairs as time allows. l Additional funding possible for Impact Fee. l Assuming Councilor Myers can make it, we will now be meeting on the 4th Thursday of the month rather than 2nd so that we can make use of large room. l Further work plan questions: In general, we also have Transportation Master Plan, Gateway Utility Ordinance (Jon looked at previously, revisions to have added to it, re: undergrounding utilities in gateways, leverage with utility agencies): Corey (and others) believe that the Public Works staff should have the choice of acquiring outside consultant review/expert review on applications that may be beyond expertise of City personnel. l We will add to work plan/explore further. Draft set of standards specs in place, probably will get to it later this winter; purpose is to give developer a guideline for standard details for developments. l If our schedule gets lax, we can bring more tree work into the commission. Jim to give us update on tree inventory? l Multiple trees cut down in Gilbrook; More marked for cutting. Work is not being done by City… Jon will investigate, but likely Champlain Water District. Replantings required? It appears that mostly or all dead trees have been cut. l Corey: Sidewalk grant that we got a number of years ago… Malletts Bay Avenue for school route at St. Peter; where is that at? Identified 5 crosswalk opportunities, but has been absorbed by Main St project. Improved crosswalk at Malletts Bay Ave not a significant cost item, perhaps easily absorbed. Jon will look into. l Standalone work, so could be done sooner than Main Street. VII. Adjourn Motion by: Chris P Second: Timur Time: 19:54