Public Works Commission — Burlington, VT
Date: 2026-01-21
Time: 18:30

Public Works Commission

 Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main
 Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM

6:30 pm, Main Conference Room, 645 Pine St OR Remotely via ZOOM:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83495330508
Or Telephone: Dial US: 301-715-8592 Webinar ID: 834 9533 0508
Channel 17 also often livestreams this on their YouTube channel and airs it over the air at a later date.
Note that comments on YouTube are not monitored.
1. Call to Order

2. Agenda - 5 Minutes

3. Public Forum - 3 Minutes per Person Time Limit - 10 Minutes

4. Consent Agenda
 4.1. Approval of Draft Minutes 11-19-25
 4.2. Barrett St On-Street Parking Removal GMT
 4.3. North Champlain St Parking Changes
 4.4. North Champlain Vehicle Loading Zone

5. Queen City Park Road Bridge - 15 Minutes
 Subject 5.1. Communication, C. Manna
 Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 5. Queen City Park Road Bridge - 15 Minutes

 Department Public Works Department


 Type Action


 Recommended Action Motion to Approve

6. Complete Streets - CY26 Paving - 10 Minutes
 Subject 6.1. Communication , C. Manna
  Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 6. Complete Streets - CY26 Paving - 10 Minutes

  Department Public Works Department


  Type Action


  Recommended Action Motion To Approve

7. DPW Public Engagement Plan Update - 40 Minutes
  Subject 7.1. Information, R. Goulding
  Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 7. DPW Public Engagement Plan Update - 40 Minutes

  Department Public Works Department


  Type Information


  Recommended Action None

8. Commission Rep for planBTV:2050 - 5 Minutes
  Subject 8.1. Communication, P. Peterson & Chair Damiani
  Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 8. Commission Rep for planBTV:2050 - 5 Minutes

  Department Public Works Department


  Type Action


  Recommended Action Motion to Approve

9. Director's Report: Unaccepted Streets Briefing - 5 Minutes
  Subject 9.1. Communication, C. Spencer
  Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 9. Director's Report: Unaccepted Streets Briefing - 5 Minutes
  Department Public Works Department


  Type Communication



10. Commissioner Items

11. Adjournment & Next Meeting Date -February 18, 2026
Subject 11.1. Motion to adjourn
Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


Category 11. Adjournment & Next Meeting Date -February 18, 2026

Department Council and Board


Type Action


Recommended Action Motion to Adjourn

Public Works Commission

 Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main
 Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM

6:30 pm, Main Conference Room, 645 Pine St OR Remotely via ZOOM:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83495330508
Or Telephone: Dial US: 301-715-8592 Webinar ID: 834 9533 0508
Channel 17 also often livestreams this on their YouTube channel and airs it over the air at a later date.
Note that comments on YouTube are not monitored.
1. Call to Order

2. Agenda - 5 Minutes

3. Public Forum - 3 Minutes per Person Time Limit - 10 Minutes

4. Consent Agenda
 4.1. Approval of Draft Minutes 11-19-25
 4.2. Barrett St On-Street Parking Removal GMT
 4.3. North Champlain St Parking Changes
 4.4. North Champlain Vehicle Loading Zone

5. Queen City Park Road Bridge - 15 Minutes
 Subject 5.1. Communication, C. Manna
 Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


 Category 5. Queen City Park Road Bridge - 15 Minutes

 Department Public Works Department


 Type Action


 Recommended Action Motion to Approve

6. Complete Streets - CY26 Paving - 10 Minutes
 Subject 6.1. Communication , C. Manna




 Page 1 of 37
  Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 6. Complete Streets - CY26 Paving - 10 Minutes

  Department Public Works Department


  Type Action


  Recommended Action Motion To Approve

7. DPW Public Engagement Plan Update - 40 Minutes
  Subject 7.1. Information, R. Goulding
  Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 7. DPW Public Engagement Plan Update - 40 Minutes

  Department Public Works Department


  Type Information


  Recommended Action None

8. Commission Rep for planBTV:2050 - 5 Minutes
  Subject 8.1. Communication, P. Peterson & Chair Damiani
  Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


  Category 8. Commission Rep for planBTV:2050 - 5 Minutes

  Department Public Works Department


  Type Action


  Recommended Action Motion to Approve

9. Director's Report: Unaccepted Streets Briefing - 5 Minutes
  Subject 9.1. Communication, C. Spencer
  Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM
  Category 9. Director's Report: Unaccepted Streets Briefing - 5 Minutes
  Department Public Works Department


  Type Communication



10. Commissioner Items

11. Adjournment & Next Meeting Date -February 18, 2026


 Page 2 of 37
Subject 11.1. Motion to adjourn
Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30
 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM


Category 11. Adjournment & Next Meeting Date -February 18, 2026

Department Council and Board


Type Action


Recommended Action Motion to Adjourn




 Page 3 of 37
 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
 645 PINE STREET
 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
 COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2025
 DRAFT MINUTES

 See video for full meeting – link below
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHlK4da-zRo

Commissioners Present: Commissioner Barr, Chair Damiani, Vice Chair Fox, Commissioner
Davis, Commissioner Hays, Commissioner Munteanu (Via zoon), Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco
(via zoom)
Commissioner Absent: Commissioner Munteanu
ITEM 1 – CALL TO ORDER
 Chair Damiani called the meeting to order at p.m.
ITEM 2 – AGENDA
 Commissioner Damiani is asking for a motion to approve the agenda with an
 amendment to pull the Queen City Bridge item from the agenda and have it as a
 separate agenda item at Agenda Item 4.1.
 Commissioner Barr so moved
 Commissioner Hays seconded
 Unanimous approval

ITEM 3 – PUBLIC FORUM

 David Wilber – Queen City Park Bridge
 Ann Vivian – Loading Zone – Buell Street
 Tom Piper – Queen City Park Bridge
 Peter Geiring – Queen City Park Bridge
 Jack Tiano – Recycling and Paving
 Linda Looney – Pedestrian scoping report bike lane along road
 Lucy - Queen City Park Bridge
 Blaine Martine – Green Acres drive pedestrian pilot project
 Ben Traverse – Queen City Park Road
 Jeanette Bacevius – Queen City Park Bridge


ITEM 4 – CONSENT AGENDA

 4.1 – Approval of Draft Minutes 10-15-25
 4.2 – Bank St loading zone
 4.3 – Queen City Bridge stop signs
 4.4 - Buell Street 30 Minute Metered Parking
 4.5 - 129-135 North Ave Parking Removal for Emergency Access

 Motion to approve consent agenda with Removal of Item 4.3


 Page 4 of 37
 Commissioner Barr motioned for approval
 Commissioner Fox seconded
 Commissioner Damiani forwarded an e mail from City Councilor Litwin who spoke in
 support of Item 4.5.

 Unanimous approval

ITEM 4.3 – QUEEN CITY BRIDGE STOOP SIGNS

 Philip Peterson Senior Transportation Planner

 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco makes a motion to approve staff’s language on this with
 the addition that staff will collect data on the stop signs and traffic volumes once the
 parkway opens within five to six months of it opening and traffic patterns.
 City Engineer Laura Wheelock stated she did feel that five to six months is a reasonable
 timeframe.
 Commissioner Fox seconds motion
 Commissioner Hays Nay
 Commissioner Munteanu Nay
 Commissioner Barr Aye
 Commissioner Fox Aye
 Commissioner Damiani Aye
 Commissioner Davis Aye
 Ayes have it 5 to 2.

ITEM 5 – RECYCLING NEXT STEPS

 Director Spencer
 Commissioner Barr makes a motion to go with staff’s recommendation
 Staff doesn’t have a recommendation.
 Commissioner Barr if they were to consider this
 Commissioner Damiani the proposal to contract out to Casella?
 Commissioner Barr yes
 Commissioner Davis seconds
 Commissioner Munteanu asks if Commission is accepting this communication
 Commissioner Damiani no the motion is to make a preference for the contracted out
 service proposal that the staff outlined
 Commissioner Munteanu the Public Works Commission.
 Commissioner Damiani that the Public Works Commission recommends moving forward
 with the contracted services option that staff has laid out.
 Commissioner Munteanu – Nay
 All other Commissioners approve
 Final Vote Ayes 1 nay

ITEM 6 – CY 26 PAVING PROGRAM UPDATE

 Engineer Jack Keller overview of program



 Page 5 of 37
ITEM 7 – SIDEWALK PROGRAM OVERVIEW & FUTURE PLANNING

 Senior Transportation Planner Philip Peterson – Christina Cangiolosi Associate Engineer

ITEM 8 – PARKING PROMOTION UPDATE

 Division Director Jackie Esperti

ITEM 9 – DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 Director Chapin Spencer

ITEM 10 – COMMISSIONER ITEMS

 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco communicate with folks in NNE who came in September
 for traffic calming
 Staffing for winter season
 Crossing guard booklet

ITEM 11 – ADJOURNMENT & NEXT MEETINHG DATE – DECEMBER 17, 2025

 Commissioner Barr made a motion to adjourn
 Commissioner Davis seconded
 Unanimous approval




 Page 6 of 37
 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: January 21st, 2026

To: Public Works Commission

From: Christina Cangiolosi, Associate Public Works Engineer

CC: Phillip Peterson P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer & Planner

Subject: Barrett St On-Street Parking Removal Request (GMT)




Staff recommends the DPW Commission relocate (Attachment-1):

7 No-parking areas.
No person shall park any vehicle at any time in the following locations:

 (1)-(4) As written.
 (5) Reserved. On the north side of Barrett Street, starting at the midblock crosswalk in front
 of 50 Barrett Street and continuing fifty-five (55) feet east.
 (6)-(591) As written.

Purpose & Need:
The Department of Public Works (DPW) received a request from Green Mountain Transit (GMT)
to remove two (2) on-street parking spaces near the corner of Barrett Street and Chase Street.

GMT operates two routes, Neighborhood Special 334 and Neighborhood Special 344, which make
a left hand turn from Chase Street onto Barrett Street. If the two parking spaces in question are
occupied, the bus drivers must reverse in the travel lane in order to make the turn. This leads to
unsafe driving conditions, especially for those on the road making the same movement as the bus
afterwards.




 Page 7 of 37
For visual reference, please see attachment-2, which includes a site map indicating which two (2)
on-street parking spaces we are proposing to remove.

Project Checklist:
 N/A Yes No Reference
 Aligns with MUTCD X Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)
 standards and/or
 established City Policy?
 Aligns with City plans? X
 Followed Public X These Traffic Regulation changes are defined as an
 Engagement Plan? INVOLVE project in the Public Engagement Plan (PEP).



Summary and Conclusion:
Upon completion of DPW Staff’s thorough evaluation, it is recommended that the Commission
approves the removal of two (2) on-street parking spaces to allow for the required space needed
for GMT buses to safely make a left hand turn from Chase Street onto Barrett Street. In addition
to this, removal of two (2) on-street parking spaces will improve the sightlines to the midblock
crosswalk and therefore increase pedestrian safety to those who utilize the midblock crosswalk.
The attached traffic regulation amendment (see attachment-1) outlines the specifics of this
proposal.

Public Engagement:
In preparation for the 01/21/2026 DPW Commission Meeting, DPW Staff distributed flyers to
residents on Barrett Street and Chase Street regarding the proposal to remove two (2) on-street
parking spaces. DPW Staff received no feedback.


Attachments:
 1. Traffic Regulation Amendment
 2. Site Map




 Page 8 of 37
 CITY OF BURLINGTON


In the Year Two Thousand Twenty-Five Sponsor(s): Public Works Commission
 Action: Approval
A Regulation in Relation to Date: 01/21/2026
 Attestation of Adoption:
 Rules and Regulations of the Traffic
 Commission— __________________________________
 Section 7; No-parking areas.
 Phillip Peterson, PE
 Senior Transportation Engineer & Planner, Technical Services
 Published: ________________________
 Effective: _________________________




It is hereby Ordained by the Public Works Commission of the City of Burlington
as follows:
That Appendix C, Rule and Regulations of the Traffic Commission, Section 7 No-parking areas and Section 16 Bus
stops, designated of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Burlington is hereby amended as follows:

Section 7 No-parking areas.
No person shall park any vehicle at any time in the following locations:

 (1)-(4) As written.
 (5) Reserved. On the north side of Barrett Street, starting at the midblock crosswalk in front of 50 Barrett
 Street and continuing fifty-five (55) feet east.
 (6)-(591) As written.

** Material stricken out deleted.
*** Material underlined added.
CC: BCO Appx.C, Sec 7
01/21/26




 Page 9 of 37
Site Map (Attachment-2):




 Page 10 of 37
 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: January 21, 2026
To: Public Works Commission
From: Caleb Manna, Associate Public Works Engineer
CC: Phillip Peterson, P.E.; Senior Transportation Engineer & Planner
 Laura Wheelock, P.E.; Division Director of Technical Services/City Engineer
Subject: Public Survey Questionnaire- Traffic Signage at Approaches to Queen City Park
 Road Bridge


DPW Staff recommend the DPW Commission remove the following addition from:
Appendix C, 3; Stop sign locations, and add the following to Appendix C, 4; Location of
yield-right-of-way signs.

The following place(s) is hereby removed from Appendix C, 3; Stop sign locations:

 • Sixty (60) feet in advance of the east entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road
 Bridge causing westbound traffic on Queen City Park Road to stop.
 • Sixty (60) feet in advance of the west entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road
 Bridge causing eastbound traffic on Queen City Park Road to stop.

The following place(s) are hereby added to Appendix C, 4; Locations of yield-right-of-way
signs:

 • Sixty (60) feet in advance of the east entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road
 Bridge.
 • Sixty (60) feet in advance of the west entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road
 Bridge.

Final language of the amended ordinance is subject to the review and approval of the City
Attorney’s Office. (See Attachment-1.)




 Page 11 of 37
Purpose & Need:

In recent weeks, the Department of Public Works has received several correspondences from
businesses and residents near Queen City Park Road, expressing concern over increased traffic
delays at the one-lane bridge, specifically during evening commuting hours. These concerns
emerged following the conversion of yield signs to stop signs at the approaches to the Queen
City Park Road Bridge—a change originally implemented to enhance clarity and safety at this
constrained, single-lane crossing.

Recognizing the importance of community input in shaping transportation policy, DPW initiated
a public survey to solicit feedback from residents and frequent users of the bridge. The intent
was to gauge public opinion regarding the operational impacts of this signage change, and to
better understand its effectiveness.

After reviewing the results of the survey, DPW Staff is recommending the restoring the yield
signs at both approaches to Queen City Park Bride.

Survey Findings:

The survey was distributed through multiple channels, including Front Porch Forum and targeted
outreach to local businesses and residents. Responses were collected between January 9 and
January 15, 2026.

 • Total Responses: 79

 • Travel Frequency: A significant majority of respondents reported using the bridge daily
 or weekly, underscoring its critical role in local mobility.

 • Peak Travel Times: Morning and evening periods were most frequently cited, aligning
 with observed congestion patterns and commuting hours.

 • Signage Preference:
 o Approximately 80% of respondents expressed a preference for the previous yield
 sign configuration, citing improved traffic flow and reduced delays.
 o Roughly 15% favored the current stop sign arrangement, primarily for its
 perceived clarity and uniformity.
 o A small minority indicated neutrality or mixed views.

 • Safety Perception:
 o While some respondents acknowledged that stop signs may offer a heightened
 sense of predictability, the overwhelming majority reported no discernible
 improvement in safety outcomes.
 o Several respondents suggested that the operational inefficiencies introduced by
 the stop signs—particularly during peak hours—may inadvertently contribute to
 driver frustration and risky behaviors.




 Page 12 of 37
Traffic Control Review & Operational Assessment:

Following installation of STOP signs at both approaches to the Queen City Park Road Bridge,
DPW conducted a post‑implementation review consistent with MUTCD Section 2A.09, which
directs agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of traffic control devices after installation. This
review included field observations, operational analysis, and structured public input from
residents and businesses who use the bridge daily.

Under MUTCD Sections 2B.04 and 2B.06, STOP signs should be used only where engineering
judgment determines that the normal right‑of‑way rule is insufficient to provide safe and
efficient operations. Post‑installation evaluation found that the STOP control did not achieve the
intended operational or safety benefits. Specifically:

 • Excessive delay and queuing developed during peak periods, inconsistent with
 MUTCD 2B.06 guidance that STOP signs should not be installed where they would
 cause “excessive delay” or “unnecessary stopping.”
 • Driver compliance was inconsistent, with many users treating the STOP control as a
 yield. MUTCD 2B.04 emphasizes that right‑of‑way control should align with driver
 expectancy; observed behavior indicated a mismatch between the device and typical user
 understanding.
 • No measurable safety improvement was observed, and crash history does not indicate
 a need for STOP control, consistent with MUTCD guidance that STOP signs should not
 be used solely for speed control or in the absence of a demonstrated safety problem.
 • Sight distance and conflict levels remain appropriate for YIELD control, consistent
 with MUTCD 2B.04 allowances for yield control where conflicts are limited and
 visibility is adequate.

As part of this evaluation, DPW staff notified residents and area stakeholders of the option to
participate in an online public survey regarding usage and functionality of the bridge on January
9, 2026, with the survey concluding on January 15. This outreach was conducted as a
component of the MUTCD‑directed post‑installation review process, which recognizes public
input as relevant to engineering judgment when assessing device effectiveness. Survey results
showed that approximately 80% of respondents preferred the previous YIELD condition and
reported that the STOP signs introduced operational inefficiencies without improving safety.
Responses from the optional public comment are included in Attachment‑4.

Attachments:

 1. Regulation Change Form
 2. QCPR Bridge - Public Survey Questionnaire
 3. Survey Results
 4. Optional Public Comments Received




 Page 13 of 37
Attachment 1:

 CITY OF BURLINGTON


In the Year Two Thousand Twenty-Six Sponsor(s): Public Works Commission
 Action: Approval
A Regulation in Relation to Date: ______
 Attestation of Adoption:
 Rules and Regulations of the Traffic
 Commission— __________________________________
 § 3; Stop sign locations and, Phillip Peterson, PE
 § 4; Location of yield-right-of-way signs. Senior Transportation Planner, Technical Services
 Published: ________________________
 Effective: ________________________

 __________________________________
It is hereby Ordained by the
Public Works Commission of the City of Burlington as follows:

That Appendix C, Rule and Regulations of the Traffic Commission, § 3; Stop sign locations, and
§4; Locations of yield right-of-way-signs of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Burlington is
hereby amended as follows:

§ 3 Stop sign locations
(a) The following locations are hereby designated as stop sign locations:

 (1)-(324) As written.
 (325) Sixty (60) feet in advance of the east entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park
 Road Bridge causing westbound traffic on Queen City Park Road to stop.
 (326) Sixty (60) feet in advance of the west entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park
 Road Bridge causing eastbound traffic on Queen City Park Road to stop.

§ 4 Location of yield-right-of-way signs.
 Yield-right-of-way signs are authorized at the following locations:

 (1) Sixty (60) feet in advance of the east entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road
 Bridge.
 (2) Sixty (60) feet in advance of the west entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park
 Road Bridge.
 (3)-(19) As written.




 Page 14 of 37
** Material stricken out deleted.
*** Material underlined added.

/CEM: BCO Appx.C, Section 3,4
1/21/26




 Page 15 of 37
Attachment 2:


 Queen City Park Road Bridge – Public Survey

The City of Burlington Department of Public Works recently replaced the yield signs at both
approaches to the Queen City Park Road Bridge with stop signs. This change was made to improve
safety and reduce confusion at the single-lane bridge. We are seeking feedback from residents on
whether you prefer the new stop signs or the previous yield signs. Your input will help us evaluate
the effectiveness of this change. Please answer the following questions:

1. How often do you travel across Queen City Park Road Bridge?

 ☐ Daily ☐ Weekly ☐ Occasionally ☐ Rarely/Never

2. What time of day do you most often travel across Queen City Park Road Bridge?

☐ Morning ☐ Noon ☐ Afternoon ☐ Night

3. Which option do you prefer for the approaches to Queen City Park Road Bridge?

 ☐ Yield signs (previous system) ☐ Stop signs (current system)

4. Please explain why you prefer yield signs or stop signs (open-ended):

 ________________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________________

5. Do you believe the stop signs have improved safety compared to the yield signs?

 ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure

6. Additional Comments: (optional):



Contact Information (optional):

Name: __________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________



Email: __________________________________________




 Page 16 of 37
Attachment 3:




 Page 17 of 37
Page 18 of 37
Page 19 of 37
Page 20 of 37
Page 21 of 37
Attachment 4:

 Additional Public Comments in Survey

 This bridge really needs to be made into two lanes to accommodate the heavy traffic and large
 1
 trucks.

 2 Appreciate the change and this survey

 3 Please bring back the yield signs!!!

 4 Please replace the bridge soon.

 5 Stop sign is a waste of energy & brake power

 I think the folks that wanted something different just didn’t realize that 2-3 car’s going over the
 6 bridge at a time each way was actually more efficient and saved time, now, they have to sit and
 wait!

 7 A lot of times I stop when there is no traffic coming

 There has never been a significant safety problem - only two camps of drivers 1. Those who
 alternate turns one by one and 2. Those who appreciate the efficiency of small groups of several
 8
 cars going together and self-alternating in groups. Frankly I wouldn’t recommend either yield or
 stop signs (or traffic light.). How about a flashing yellow light?

 I’d also like DPW to replace the grated pedestrian walkways with solid ones to provide a safe
 passageway for dog walkers - many dogs won’t walk on the grates so the people/dogs are forced to
 9
 walk in the street, further complicating this already compromised situation. Thank you for all you
 do!

 10 Still seeing some confusion.

 It is more dangerous now because of long lines of cars partially blocking the intersection and sight
 11
 lines.

 12 It seems like a great deal of people disregard the stop signs and just cruise through

 I'm not sure which is better STOP or YIELD; both have issues. The problem is that the distance of
 13 the bridge makes the STOP signs difficult to interpret who has arrived 1st. How about a LIGHT?
 Just a thought.

 14 Much ado about nothing! Spend money and time on real isdues




 Page 22 of 37
 We need a two-way/two lane bridge. And when the Champlain Parkway actually connects to I-89,
15
 maybe this becomes a non-issue?

16 Barely a difference in wait times

 A longer term solution, like a wider two lane bridge with a better pedestrian/bike lane, is needed.
17 There’s a lot of large vehicle traffic on there - GMT busses and Barrett’s Trucking rigs and tractor
 trailers for Rhino and Edlund that would also be better served by a wider bridge.

18 Stop and start is not an effective traffic control pattern.

19 Whether stop or yield, you should add an “Alternate”Sign

20 Technically, it may be safer, but in terms of time and energy, the former system was better

21 Traffic lights at both ends of the bridge is a common method for dealing with this situation.

22 Unnecessary interference We are adults

23 Everyone knows what Stop means, but not what yield means.

 Safety should not be the only consideration - if it were, driving at all would be illegal. Common
24 sense would say that if you have three cars on each side, the fastest thing to do is for one side to go
 completely and then the other.

25 Traffic would be smoother if there was a sign saying “three cars at a time, please”

 I say "maybe" in #5 only because drivers have become more reckless, lawless and/or impaired in
26
 the past 5 years - probably none of whom would obey a yield sign (but might obey a stop sign?).

27 Opening the bypass will help traffic flow. Please open asap.

 I’m SO happy that this survey has been sent out, me and my neighbors and my friends who work at
28
 at burton are so frustrated!

 This was a completely unnecessary change that has significantly disturbed the flow of traffic.
29
 Please rectify!

 While I understand the safety precautions of stop signs I don’t believe it has helped with traffic
30 patterns on this bridge and if anything blocks people from safely getting into the red rocks parking
 lot and neighborhood.

31 Bring back the yield sign!

 I would suggest that adding a large sign under the stop SIGN in yellow "VERY NARROW ONE
32
 LANE BRIDGE" to alert straingers to the area that it is just one lane.




 Page 23 of 37
 the change wasn't needed. system worked fine as it was. you have just slowed down traffic and
33
 frustrated the community.

34 Thanks for asking us our opinion.

35 This bridge needs to be two lane!

36 Please bring back the yield signs!

 It is unclear what meaningful safety benefit the stop signs provide and, in my opinion, any
 marginal safety improvements are not worth the additional congestion the stop signs cause..
37
 Visibility of the bridge is good, there is a separated pedestrian walkway on the bridge, and speeds
 are low for almost all drivers on the bridge.

 Traffic is being backed up. And it’s not just the bridge that is one lane. Two cars don’t fit on the
38
 road in the Burlington section in what is supposed to be the driving lane

39 But only because the lack of understanding of the previous system could result in mild road rage




 Page 24 of 37
 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



 MEMORANDUM
 th
Date: January 21 , 2026
To: Public Works Commission

From: Caleb Manna, Associate Public Works Engineer
CC: Corey Mims P.E., Senior Public Works Engineer

 Jack Keller P.E., Public Works Engineer
Subject: CY26 Street Reconstruction Program - Complete Streets




DPW Staff recommend the DPW Commission approve the following exemption request for Municipal
Complete Streets Compliance Forms as part of the CY26 Paving Contract: Depot Street.


Background:

The City of Burlington is committed to providing a range of interconnected, safe, affordable, efficient, and
convenient transportation choices for residents, visitors, and employees alike. Recently, this commitment has
been formalized through state and local policies, but the real challenge is still ahead of us as we implement these
policies -- making every Burlington Street "complete."

In June 2012, the DPW convened local stakeholders, decision-makers, advocates, and municipal staff for a full-
day workshop sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency through their Sustainable Communities
Building Blocks Program. Through collaboration at the workshop, an overarching vision was drafted to be a
unifying guide for future planning studies that evaluate complete streets:

Burlington streets will evolve into complete streets corridors that provide safe, inviting, and convenient travel for all
users of all ages and abilities —including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation riders.

Within each neighborhood, the need to move people through the corridor will be balanced with the need to provide
access to homes, businesses, and local institutions within the corridor. The most effective use of finite public space
will be determined through interdisciplinary collaboration with a wide range of community members considering
economic, environmental, and equity concerns.



 An Equal Opportunity Employer
  This material is available in alternative formats for persons with disabilities. To request an accommodation, please call
 802.863.9094 (voice) or 802.863.0450 (TTY).


 Page 25 of 37
The corridor will develop into an attractive public space through creative streetscape, signage, and other site design
features. Promoting social interaction and public health will make the corridor more livable and desirable.

DPW executes this vision through various construction projects throughout the City, with the annual Street
Reconstruction contract contributing significantly. As part of this goal, each street paving is required to have an
associated Complete Streets Form (Attachment A) to ensure project compliance.

Paving:
Attached are the Complete Streets forms for the streets anticipated to be completed under the CY26 Street
Paving contract. These forms will be placed on record with the Clerk/Treasurer’s Office and submitted to the
Vermont Agency of Transportation for complete streets reporting. These streets may be modified in the event
of unexpected deterioration during the winter season.


 Street Limits Length (miles)
 Colchester Avenue S. Prospect-Latham Ct ~0.46
 Cumberland Road Entire Street ~0.30
 Greene Street Loomis St-Hickok Pl ~0.11
 Park Street North St-Sherman St ~0.17
 Summer Street Entire Street ~0.05
 Saratoga Avenue Entire Street ~0.35
 Rivermount Terrace Entire Street ~0.30
 Bennington Court Entire Street ~0.05
 Scarff Avenue Shelburne St-Wells St ~0.10
 Depot Street (exemption) Entire Street ~0.21
 Total ~2.10



Please note, Depot Street is the one exemption being requested for this work under complete streets. Depot
Street is closed to through traffic, and is primarily used as a pedestrian way. Only authorized vehicles, meaning
emergency/municipal vehicles, and local resident vehicles accessing the driveway behind 83 North Ave are
allowed. There are no existing dedicated pedestrian sidewalks or established bike lanes on Depot Street, as the
roadway allows for unrestricted use of non-motorized transportation. The cost of installing new bike/ped facilities
is disproportionate for the current use of the road.

In addition to the CY26 street paving list, there will be further paving activities performed this construction season
that carried over from the CY25 Paving Contract. Streets to be completed in 2026 under the CY25 contract are:
Pearl Street (Battery-S. Winooski), College Street (S. Union-S. Williams), and Cliff Street (S. Willard-S. Prospect).

Pavement patching work will occur under the CY26 Street Paving Contract on Lake Street, Archibald Street
(between N. Willard and N. Prospect), North Avenue (northern end by wastewater plant), and Intervale Road. This
process includes milling the deteriorated surface and keying in the new pavement to ensure a longer life for the
patched section. After assessing the extent of the damage, the affected area is removed and prepared for new
asphalt or other paving material. Finally, the patched area is carefully applied and compacted to ensure a smooth
and durable surface, restoring the road's integrity and safety. The pavement patching procedure is not subject
to complete street reporting.



 Page 26 of 37
Traffic calming features will be reinstalled on Park Street following pavement resurfacing. No other traffic calming
features are proposed under this contract.

If you have questions, please contact me at (802)-503-2358 or at cmanna@burlingtonvt.gov.

Attachments:

 1. CY25 Paving Contract Complete Street Forms




 Page 27 of 37
 MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM

Town: City of Burlington
Road: Colchester Ave (North Prospect Street - Latham Court)
Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna
Position: Associate Public Works Engineer
Date: 01/19/2026

Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred
mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form
serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project
listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the
Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission.

Please complete only one of the three sections.

1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project.
 ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc.
 ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement.
 Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. ✔ Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc.
 Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc.
 Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe):

2) Exemption – Please select one.
 A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law.

 B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature.
 Indicate project scope below.

 Crack sealing Culvert replacement
 Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement
 High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects
 Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance
 Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping
 Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement
 Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities
 Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation
 Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.)
 C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use.

 If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below:




3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification
 for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project.



 Page 28 of 37
 MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM

Town: City of Burlington
Road: Cumberland Road
Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna
Position: Associate Public Works Engineer
Date: 01/19/2026

Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred
mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form
serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project
listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the
Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission.

Please complete only one of the three sections.

1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project.
 ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc.
 ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement.
 Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc.
 Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc.
 Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe):

2) Exemption – Please select one.
 A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law.

 B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature.
 Indicate project scope below.

 Crack sealing Culvert replacement
 Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement
 High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects
 Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance
 Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping
 Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement
 Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities
 Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation
 Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.)
 C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use.

 If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below:




3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification
 for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project.



 Page 29 of 37
 MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM

Town: City of Burlington
Road: Greene Street (Loomis Street - Hickok Pl)
Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL&FILL,STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna
Position: Associate Public Works Engineer
Date: 01/19/2026

Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred
mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form
serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project
listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the
Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission.

Please complete only one of the three sections.

1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project.
 ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc.
 ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement.
 ✔
 Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc.
 Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc.
 Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe):

2) Exemption – Please select one.
 A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law.

 B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature.
 Indicate project scope below.

 Crack sealing Culvert replacement
 Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement
 High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects
 Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance
 Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping
 Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement
 Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities
 Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation
 Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.)
 C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use.

 If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below:




3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification
 for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project.



 Page 30 of 37
 MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM

Town: City of Burlington
Road: Park Street (North Street - Sherman Street)
Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna
Position: Associate Public Works Engineer
Date: 01/19/2026

Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred
mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form
serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project
listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the
Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission.

Please complete only one of the three sections.

1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project.
 ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc.
 ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement.
 Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. ✔ Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc.
 Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc.
 Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. ✔ Other (please describe):
 Traffic calming - Speed Humps
2) Exemption – Please select one.
 A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law.

 B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature.
 Indicate project scope below.

 Crack sealing Culvert replacement
 Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement
 High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects
 Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance
 Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping
 Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement
 Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities
 Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation
 Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.)
 C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use.

 If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below:




3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification
 for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project.



 Page 31 of 37
 MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM

Town: City of Burlington
Road: Summer Street
Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna
Position: Associate Public Works Engineer
Date: 01/19/2026

Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred
mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form
serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project
listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the
Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission.

Please complete only one of the three sections.

1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project.
 ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc.
 ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement.
 Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc.
 Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc.
 Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe):

2) Exemption – Please select one.
 A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law.

 B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature.
 Indicate project scope below.

 Crack sealing Culvert replacement
 Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement
 High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects
 Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance
 Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping
 Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement
 Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities
 Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation
 Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.)
 C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use.

 If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below:




3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification
 for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project.



 Page 32 of 37
 MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM

Town: City of Burlington
Road: Saratoga Avenue
Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna
Position: Associate Public Works Engineer
Date: 01/19/2026

Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred
mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form
serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project
listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the
Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission.

Please complete only one of the three sections.

1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project.
 ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc.

 ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement.
 Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc.
 Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc.
 Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe):

2) Exemption – Please select one.
 A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law.

 B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature.
 Indicate project scope below.

 Crack sealing Culvert replacement
 Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement
 High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects
 Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance
 Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping
 Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement
 Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities
 Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation
 Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.)
 C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use.

 If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below:




3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification
 for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project.



 Page 33 of 37
 MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM

Town: City of Burlington
Road: Summer Street
Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna
Position: Associate Public Works Engineer
Date: 01/19/2026

Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred
mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form
serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project
listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the
Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission.

Please complete only one of the three sections.

1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project.
 ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc.

 ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement.
 Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc.
 Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc.
 Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe):

2) Exemption – Please select one.
 A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law.

 B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature.
 Indicate project scope below.

 Crack sealing Culvert replacement
 Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement
 High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects
 Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance
 Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping
 Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement
 Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities
 Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation
 Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.)
 C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use.

 If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below:




3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification
 for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project.



 Page 34 of 37
 MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM

Town: City of Burlington
Road: Bennington Court
Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna
Position: Associate Public Works Engineer
Date: 01/19/2026

Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred
mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form
serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project
listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the
Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission.

Please complete only one of the three sections.

1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project.
 ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc.

 ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement.
 Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc.
 Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc.
 Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe):

2) Exemption – Please select one.
 A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law.

 B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature.
 Indicate project scope below.

 Crack sealing Culvert replacement
 Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement
 High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects
 Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance
 Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping
 Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement
 Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities
 Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation
 Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.)
 C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use.

 If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below:




3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification
 for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project.



 Page 35 of 37
 MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM

Town: City of Burlington
Road: Scarff Avenue
Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT
Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna
Position: Associate Public Works Engineer
Date: 01/19/2026

Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred
mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form
serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project
listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the
Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission.

Please complete only one of the three sections.

1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project.
 ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc.

 ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement.
 Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc.
 Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc.
 Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe):

2) Exemption – Please select one.
 A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law.

 B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature.
 Indicate project scope below.

 Crack sealing Culvert replacement
 Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement
 High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects
 Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance
 Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping
 Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement
 Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities
 Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation
 Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.)
 ✔ C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use.


 If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below:




3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification
 for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project.



 Page 36 of 37
 MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM

Town: City of Burlington
Road: Depot Street
Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL,
Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna
Position: Associate Public Works Engineer
Date: 01/19/2026

Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred
mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form
serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project
listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the
Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission.

Please complete only one of the three sections.

1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project.
 Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc.
 Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement.
 Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc.
 Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc.
 Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe):

2) Exemption – Please select one.
 A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law.

 B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature.
 Indicate project scope below.

 Crack sealing Culvert replacement
 Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement
 High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects
 Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance
 Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping
 Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement
 Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities
 Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation
 Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.)
 ✔ C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use.


 If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below:
 Depot Street is closed to vehicular traffic, with the exception of authorized vehicles. The entirety of the roadway is primary used as
 a pedestrian and bicyclist facility. The cost of installing dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facility is disproportionate to the current
 use of the road, which allows unimpeded walk/bike access.


3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification
 for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project.



 Page 37 of 37

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
 645 PINE STREET
 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401
 COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 21, 2026
 DRAFT MINUTES

 See video for full meeting – link below
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHlK4da-zRo

Commissioners Present: Commissioner Barr, Chair Damiani, Commissioner Davis, Vice Chair
Fox, Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Hays, Commissioner Munteanu (Via zoon),
Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco
Commissioner Absent: Commissioner Davis
ITEM 1 – CALL TO ORDER
 Chair Damiani called the meeting to order at p.m.
ITEM 2 – AGENDA
 Commissioner Barr made a motion to approve the agenda.
 Commissioner Munteanu seconded
 Unanimous Approval

ITEM 3 – PUBLIC FORUM

 No public forum

ITEM 4 – CONSENT AGENDA

 4.1 – Approval of Draft Minutes 11-19-25
 4.2 – Barrett St On Street Parking Removal GMT
 4.3 – North Champlain St Parking Changes
 4.4 - North Champlain Vehicle Loading Zone

 Commissioner Damiani asked for a motion to approve consent agenda
 Commissioner Barr made a motion to approve consent agenda
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco seconded
 Unanimous Approval

ITEM 5 – QUEEN CITY PARK ROAD BRIDGE

 Associate Engineer Caleb Manna

 Commissioner Barr made a motion to approve the signage change
 Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco seconded
 Unanimous approval

ITEM 6 – COMPLETE STREETS – CY26 PAVING
 Associate City Engineer Caleb Manna
 Commissioner Munteanu makes a motion to approve the exemption request for
 Municipal Complete Streets compliance as a part of CY 26 paving contract specifically
 for Depot Street.
 Commissioner Barr seconded
 Unanimous approval

ITEM 7 – DPW PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

 Public Information Manager Robert Goulding

ITEM 8 – Commission Rep for Plan BT:2050

 Director Chapin Spencer – Chair Damiani

ITEM 9 – DIRECTOR’S REPORT – UNACCEPTED STREETS BRIEFING

 Recycling
 Accepted Streets

ITEM 10 – COMMISSIONER ITEMS

 Commissioner O’Neil-Vivanco survey for North Avenue for traffic calming
 Commissioner Davis – Champlain Parkway where train goes by
 Commissioner Munteanu -Home Avenue/Pine Street bus stop accessibility issue
 Piles of snow at areas in center of city snow piles Bank Street/So. Winooski Avenue
 accessibility issue
 Commissioner Davis cold weather coming anything city doing
 Commissioner Damiani budget

ITEM 11 – ADJOURNMENT & NEXT MEETINHG DATE – FEBRUARY 18, 2026

` Commissioner Barr made a motion to adjourn
 Commissioner Munteanu seconded
 Unanimous approval