Regional Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. So, uh, my name is Jackie Murphy and I'm the vice chair of the Chitten County Regional Planning Commission Board of Directors and I am, uh, sitting in for Bard Hill tonight as he has a conflict. I only learned of this about a half an hour ago or 45 minutes ago. So, I asked for some grace in uh, if I I missed something. Um, but first of all, we started the recording. I'm calling you to order. And uh first thing I need to know if there are any changes to the agenda.

Okay. I'd say we'll move on to to number two. And I think most members are familiar with the group expectations and they I assume they will by Emma. There she is. She's posting them into the the group chat if anyone needs any reminders. But basically, let's all treat people as decent human beings as we would expect to be treated. Um, so, uh, we're gonna kind of move right through this because we have a really just I just, uh, there is public comment for anything not on the agenda.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Yeah. So, I'm looking for public comment for anything not on the agenda. So, that would not include the public hearing, right? Anything other than that? I don't I have a very small screen, but I don't see anyone raising their hands. We're We're good. Thank you.

Okay. So, Charlie's going to keep me on track. Um, but we we do have a packed agenda. So, we're going to um move right into the FY2027 unified planning work program public forum or the UPWP. And I'm not sure who's leading that is um I don't know that we need any staff person. I think we just ask if there's any members of the public who would like to give us any comments for the FY27 public forum at this point in time. And if you if you are here, if you could raise your hand so we could know that you would like to make a comment.

Jackie, we have uh Chuck here in the room. Okay. Conference room. We're just waiting for the owl to to catch up. Chuck, can you please introduce yourself and and talk to the owl so the camera can see you? My name is Chuck Lacy. I'm from Jericho. Okay. Thank you. And you you have some comments that you would like to make about the UPWP? I do. Well, floor is yours.

Um, so my comments are on the housing section. Uh, I'm from Jericho. Uh, I've lived in Jericho Center for 40 years, raised my children there. I also farmed in many places. Can you talk into a microphone, please? Uh, please talk louder and talk to the owl. Um, it might help if you Yeah, you can move over here as well.

Yeah. And um Chuck, I started to get the sense that you want us uh give us a comment on the regional plan as opposed to our work program. Is that correct? Well, uh the thing that whatever was attached to the uh notice for this meeting. Yeah. And I'm sorry. We have two public u comment topics. one is our work program and then the next topic will be our regional plan. I'll wait for that. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. I was I was going to ask the same question. So So let's

are there any other members of the public who would like to comment on something not on the agenda? um or or the UPWP work plan, the the FY2027 work plan, which is just kind of being formulated now. And the only other person that popped in, Tom Darrenthal, are you here to comment on the regional plan or on our work program? Okay, we asked. It doesn't sound like we have any comments on our work program.

Okay, let's move on to uh item number four on the agenda, which is the draft ECOS regional plan. This is the first public hearing. I'm going to turn it over to staff member Taylor Newton, who will give us some background and then we'll open the public hearing. Thank you, Jackie. You're welcome. Are folks seeing this in uh presentation mode? No, we're seeing presenter mode. Yeah, got it. We're gonna swap. Thank you. That's why I asked. All right, you guys seeing it in presentation mode now? Yes. Yes.

Excellent. Uh so for an agenda for this part of the agenda, uh I'm going to do just a very base level reminder about where we are in terms of development of the regional plan itself. Then I'm going to very briefly review the pre-application comments that we've received from the L news review board. We received those comments on December 22nd. Uh and we haven't had a board meeting since then. Then we'll open the public hearing and we'll hold the public hearing. I just want to remind board members that the point of the public hearing is to hear from the public. We don't need to respond. We're just going to record comments um and we'll provide a written response to uh comments that we hear tonight um back out to the public in the next week or two. Uh lastly, you'll close the public hearing and then you can have some discussion amongst yourselves if you would so choose. Any questions on how we're going to handle the public hearing hearing? None. I'll move on to just uh providing you with a status update. Um back in September at your board meeting, I provide you know the full review of of how we developed this plan over the last four years.

Um so go back and click on that presentation if you you want to get the full review. Uh but back in October, the board decided to submit our original plan to the land use review board uh for pre-application review. Uh we held a meeting with the land use review board in December, actually series of meetings to review our regional plan and then the lur provided us with a a written memo uh on December 22nd. And we'll review the findings uh in a moment. Um and so now we're at the stage where uh we're digesting those alert comments of staff. We're starting to work with our long-range planning committee here at CCRPC to decide about how we're going to respond to that feedback from the LURB. Um, and then tonight we're also gathering public feedback. We also have a draft of the plan posted online that we have a bunch of feedback on. We'll gather that all together uh in the next day or two and then uh review it with our long-range planning committee uh next week. So, in terms of the land use review board comments, um they provide a memo and the land use review board reviewed our plan for uh conformance with a few different things. Uh one conformance with the statewide planning goals. There's 15 of them. That's in 24 BSA 4302. Uh there's a section of statute that talks about the purpose of the regional plan and whether or not we're we're meeting the purpose of what a regional plan needs to be. uh the lurb looked at uh to confirm that we've done outreach uh in a way that comp complies with state statute that we've done meaningful participation with our municipalities specifically. Uh the last thing alert is looking at is uh ensuring that we meet all 12 required elements of a regional plan including uh developing a regional future land use map uh that uh meets the requirements of act 181. The lurb has provided uh both required

changes and advisory recommendations to the CCRPC. Uh internally we've we've kind of taken advisory recommendations to be of two flavors. Uh one is like a true advisory recommendation where the lura said you meet this element or you meet this goal but here's something else helpful that you may want to include. Uh there are other times particularly on the map where the lur has said we're not sure if you comply with statute or not but here's some advisor recommendations. In that case we're taking those advisory recommendations to kind of be some hints about how we could comply with statute. So overall key takeaways from the LURB letter. Uh in terms of the state planning goals, uh we meet 13 of the 15. Uh the two planning goals that the LURB has uh kind of red flag for needing more content, perhaps an additional action or two are related to educational and vocational training opportunities and providing those opportunities in Chin County. Um and then also the state planning goal related to natural natural and historic features. Staff has already uh talked about uh this specific comment with our long-range planning committee. Uh we feel very confident about uh being able to respond to the LURB's comments and comply with statute related to the goals. Uh in terms of the plan elements, the LURB has found that we meet all of the required plan elements. However, the LURB does have some comments on the regional future land use map. itself. Overall, the lur generally agrees that we've we've made a regional future use map uh that complies with statute. So, overall, pretty good job CCRPC like we're we're in good shape. Um but they've, you know, noted a few issues and I'll I'll be general here and we'll get a little bit more specific by category on a few slides. Um, you know,

one of the general uh things that they have uh comments on or they've asked for more information about in a future submitt is where we've mapped uh new or non-traditional centers. Um, think Village Center on Shelurn Road in South Burlington or think um uh Village Center on Shelurn Road in Shelurn. um these kind of places that don't that aren't historic. They don't have a lot of historic features um but are important centers of our community where we have a mix of uses and where our municipalities are are planning to grow. And so, you know, we're working with our municipalities to go one by one there to figure out how to address that general comment. Um, also the lurb noted that our our neighborhoods, which as a reminder are the planned growth areas and village areas on the map, are pretty broad or pretty large geographies. That's because of having access to water and wastewater infrastructure in most of those cases. And so for some of those plan growth areas in particular, the lurb is asks for either more information to justify uh having that area be a plan growth area and complying with the requirements for plan growth areas and statute. In other areas, the lur has directed us to use a different future land use category, mostly transitional or enterprise in some circumstances. Uh lastly, the lurb noted that we have four municipal plans that may expire. Uh in the past this hasn't been an issue. We could just adopt the regional plan with missile plans expired. But now state statute talks about specifically with plan growth areas and village areas. Uh for those areas to be mapped in municipalities, there needs to be a regionally approved and confirmed planning process for the municipality. And so, um, these municipalities know that they need to get that regional approval and get confirmed before we, uh, warn our second public hearing in

April. We've set up schedules for these municipalities to, to hit that deadline. Um, but the lurb did remind us that that's that's important given the criteria for those two land use areas. Any questions on general comments? uh hearing none. Just a reminder, this is our framework for act 181. We have our regional future land use categories on top. There's 11 of them. Four of them are areas that uh descend down into being a part of either the center or the neighborhood uh state designation program. And some of these areas are uh eligible for tier 1b exemption from act 250, 50 units of housing or less. That's your your two center categories, your PGA, your plan growth area and village area. And then we have our two centers in our plan growth area uh that are eligible for tier 1A full exemption from act 250 uh provided the municipality applies for that in the future after the regional plan is approved by the lurb um and that municipality meets certain requirements in statute. Just want to regground you in those categories uh with centers our village centers in our in our uh downtown centers. Um, as I noted before, um, there's just a concern about the lack of existing compact development in some of these centers. Um, I noted a few on Shelurn Road in particular. Um, and the lack um, of civic or historic resources resources in some of our centers. Um, in some cases they're just saying make these areas plan growth areas instead and sometimes they're saying make them transition. U, we flag five municipalities here where we have some questions about centers. uh and we've begun to work with those municipalities about how to uh resolve those issues. Um in Essex, for example, uh their downtown center may go away. Just might become plan growth area. Burlington, they're asking to combine a few different centers. Um in Shelurn and South Burlington, uh we may lose a

center or two, make it plan growth area or another category. We need to decide uh how we're going to move forward. Next category is plan growth areas. Again I noted plan growth areas have been flagged as being very large. Um there is some uh discussion at the lurb about the kind of connection between the plan growth areas in the centers via complete streets. Um in some areas that we thought might be flagged like frankly the southeast quadrant in South Burlington it's all it's all okay. Um in other areas South Burlington is not so much okay um particularly along Shelurn Road. Um and so um there is also this bigger question of of uh plan growth areas because they're required to be mixed use and plan for high density uh development or residential development. Um like how much geography can we include? They are really employment centers where residential uses are not allowed. And so this is a particular concern along the Shelurn Road and Willist Road corridors in Shelurn, South Burlington and Williston. Um so we're starting to have conversations. We are in Wilston actually last night the planning commission talking to them about um how to address the LER's comments uh related to that employment center versus a true mixeduse space um and what those boundaries could and should be. Uh next moving on to village areas. Um uh these areas typically have water or wastewater or soils. Um similar comments again about the size about connectivity to centers. Colchester notably Colchester's got a really great bike ped network. Um but there's a lot of you know long distances between village areas and centers. Um so that we might lose a little bit of village area in Colchester for example. But mostly advisory recommendations in this category. Overall I feel like we've done a really good job with village areas.

Uh lastly, in terms of areas, our rural areas, it's really four categories. Hamlet's rural general, a forestry, and conservation. A lot of advisory comments here. Um some nitpicky comments about how we're mapping road rights of way. We're going to work through that. Um a reminder to map river quarters and shoreline as rural conservation whenever possible. We're we're going to do that. Um some advisory recommendations about specific properties. we're going to mow on that with with the municipalities that are impacted. Um, and they didn't particularly like how we map rural general in areas with forest blocks. They want to see more smoothing um of making those areas rural general instead of having pockets of sorry, rural conservation instead of having pockets of rural general. Um, I think we're going to stick with what we've got because it's an advisory recommendation. Um, you know, the thing I want to note with with all these comments from the LURB is, um, on the next slide, we're we're trying to figure out how to interact with the land use review board moving forward. You know, right now it's it's set up in a way where we complete this pre-application process. Um, and then we talk to the lurb again after the board has approved the plan. And so we don't talk to again until let's say May or June. And we've really stressed to the land use review board in December that we need to have some interaction particularly about these tricky spots on Shelburn Road and in Willist Road. And so the LERs talking amongst themselves about how that how that can happen. Um and we hope those conversations are fruitful and we can bring back more information to the board and the long range planning committee in the next couple weeks. Here we just want to provide you with some dates about what's happening moving forward. um long range uh planning committee. Uh thanks to you know Ben, Andy, Karen, Dana. Um hopefully I'm not missing anyone, but you know, those folks have been sticking out with us, showing up, providing us really great feedback about how to how to proceed. Um they're going to meet four more times. Um hopefully just four more times uh to talk about how to edit the plan to comply with the LER comments and the public comments that we received

tonight. Um and then in terms of the board, um we're going to keep you kind of uh you know, up to date monthly. Um, but we don't really expect any heavy action until at least March in terms of reviewing edits. Perhaps April. In April, we'll ask you to warn that second public hearing. We'll hold it in May. Hopefully adopt the plan that night and then we'll pursue uh going to the LURB uh to get that final approval. Any questions on the LURB comments uh or how we're moving forward before we open the public hearing? Taylor, it's Jeff. Hey, Josh. Uh, a couple of process questions.

Um, is it your feeling, and I'm sure you're talking to other RPCs, are some of those issues along Willist and Shelurn Road endemic to just Chittening County or do they have those kinds of Route Seven problems in Rutland, Route Two problems in central Vermont? and um and you know Route 100 problems in in other areas and Route 4 problems in the southern part of the state or is this a Chittney County problem?

Uh good question. Uh you know Rutland RPC and Northwest RPC Franklin and Grandal counties are are our two other RPC partners going through this process right now. Um you know I I want to go back and look at Rutland's comments. I feel like uh Northwest is in pretty good shape on their comparable routes of Route 7. So, I have questions about consistency. Not trying to point any fingers in a negative way, but uh and I don't want to I don't want to hurt Northwest either, but I I do have questions there. Um you know, Rutland's running into some issues. You know, Killington Access Road for for example, um where they're going to have to make some changes that maybe are more comparable to what we're dealing with uh in our region. Um, but it, you know, I I'm not quite sure yet, Jeff. Not quite sure.

Taylor, if I can jump in on that one, Jeff, definitely Rutland did get a similar comment, but interestingly, St. Albins's did not. So, um, it's not just our region, and you're right, it is these um, state highway strip development areas they're struggling with. And and then my followup is, if you don't mind me asking a follow-up before everybody else goes, um, was the lack of recourse after the LURB makes its decision an intentional design of the enabling legislation or was it an oversight? and can we get that fixed before we have no way to push back on the lurb um when they start to disallow some of these centers that the communities want to have that they have in their town plans that the lurb is overriding.

So this is in reference to the fact that the lurb decision is not appealable. Correct. That's correct. And I just didn't know whether I wanted to know I mean Charlie sat there while this was going on. Was that intentional?

Yes, that that was intentional to not have it uh get into the court system on on these maps really and just to kind of leave it as more of an administrative process. Um so the recourse u there's two things and I don't really I don't blame the lurb. I think it's really the statutory language that they're working with is where the issue is. And so that is um we have been in conversation with and have some language that we're working with and talking to legislators to see if we can get action uh in this session or not. Um so there is u there is the the issue has been identified and we are working to address it. Got it. So thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

Hi K. Um, thank you. Um, I would, uh, thank you for asking some of those questions, Jeff. They were on the tip of my tongue. Um, I guess in hearing how all this is going is is uh, why do we bother having a regional planning commission or for that matter, why do we bother having town planning commissions? Um, why don't we just tell the state, okay, you guys do it all and we'll do whatever you say. Yes, sir. I I'm sorry. I'm I do believe in some oversight, but I also believe strongly in local control on how people want their communities to grow. And I I realize I'm representing Bule's Gore and none of this is really affecting Bule's Gore to speak of although some does. Um but I find this offensive. Um yeah, and just when I've looked at the situation and Garrett, you're right from that perspective. Um, this is really the first time the state is actually getting a clear sense of what is in town plans. You know, there's never been a process really where the state looks at the town plans except for, you know, maybe discreet uh, you know, investment decisions or something like, is that in your town plan? Okay. Um, and so this is the first time they're actually looking at it on a map. And so, and while we were instructed, let's do bottoms up and work with our communities to develop this map, the legislature also put in some statutory state, you know, I think they even refer to them as guard rails. And that's where the rub is right now. Um, and you know, I do think, uh, we're

getting some clarity on some language that would help, um, bring the two together in a more uh, supportive of the local government way. That's good to hear. I mean, one thing I did think of that does apply in Buels Gore and in many other rural communities is the mix of the rural classifications. On the ground, there are mixes. And for example, in the Gore with the McCulla Turnpike right away, um it makes for an ugly looking map because the state owns all this land that we have no control over. And the last thing we need is them jumping our case for something over which we have no control. So, um I'm really really hoping that we do get a chance to react back. Um you know, hearing that it is possible that this was on purpose that we not get to respond really bugs me. Thank you.

Not that well thought out, Garrett. Honestly, I I I don't think I don't think anything nefarious about that. I I and I I do think the LER has shown a willingness to to talk to us and and and want to adjust the process to work with us and so I am encouraged by by that. But otherwise I I hear you Garrett. I hear you. Thank you. I'm done now.

Chess, did you have anything to add? I mean, Jeff and Garrett mostly covered what I had to say, but I just find it very frustrating that they would push back against that part of the plan and like saying it's because of the statutory language when I thought sort of one of the overarching goals was of the laws that have been written was to try and mix the use areas. So trying to, you know, push back against us saying like, "Oh, well, let's make this more of a mixeduse area where there's transportation, infrastructure, all of this is just incredibly frustrating to me because it feels like that's a move that gets in the way of us achieving the goals that I thought they wanted us to achieve."

Agree. I've worked through most of that frustration already, Tess. But I I agree with you. Um not not to mention Taylor and Tess that we got some educational thing that isn't even in our purview to do that has to be added. I mean with they forget we're not a school district that we don't have anything to do with vocational training and stuff like that. Yeah.

Confusing too. Is there I I don't know. ju just to that point, you know, I think um the reality is right now that title 24 chapter 117, which contains all the state planning goals, is getting to a point where it's we're just a little old, a little dated. We've kind of just been adding brick by brick different stuff, and it's probably due for a little bit of a cleanup about, you know, what really are the planning goals that we have control over as municipalities and RPCs versus, you know, other parts of the public sector. But I I hear you on that, too. But we're going to add more meat on the bone to address lur comment. I as a board I would not be worried about it.

We're taking valuable staff resources away from things that we should be doing to do something that is an artifact of an outdated statute. I can't disagree with that, Jeff. Uh any other comments before we move on to the public hearing?

All right, so we're going to move on to the public hearing. There are a couple members of the public here. I just ask that folks try to keep their comments to three minutes or less, please. Um, additional comments, I I'll take those in writing. Hopefully by tonight, um, if it's tomorrow morning, I I won't tell anyone. We'll take those, too. Um, please try to keep your comments focused on the plan itself. It's pretty broad plan, so you got a lot of runway to work with. Um, and I just want to repeat to that, you know, any comments we received tonight, we're going to respond to in writing um, over the next couple weeks. I can't give you an exact date yet. It really depends on what we receive and and how we uh need to respond. And so with that, uh,

Madam Chair, I move we open the um public hearing on the ECOS regional plan. I'll second this. Thank you. Thank you, Garrett. [clears throat] You read my mind, Jeff. So, members of the public, any discuss No. Any discussion and a vote, Madam Chair? Oh, I'm sorry. You [laughter] have a motion on the table. Yes, that's right. Thank you, Jeff. You You should be sitting right next to me. Um, all right. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I or raise your hand. I I.

Any opposed? I don't see or hear anyone. Say I or raise your hand if you're opposed. Okay. the the meeting the public hearing is now open and if you have your hand up it's I have I have difficulty I will I will let you know if anybody raises their hand Jackie okay um yeah Chuck do you want to yeah resume

sure uh sure uh my name is Chuck Lacy I live in Jericho Center which is one of the three uh town centers in Jericho I've lived there for almost 40 years, raised three children there. I also farmed in uh numerous places in Jericho. Um I'd like to make the case that the map is too restrictive particularly with respect to uh multif family housing. Uh Jericho has had a regime of exclusionary zoning for 50 years which has transformed the town from basically a cow town, a rural town into probably your most elite town uh in Jer in uh in Chittna County just based on the statistics. I believe your plan would have worked in 1965, but the town centers and the village areas have been built up in a way with a land use pattern that is going to make it very difficult to add additional housing. The bulk of it is in uh neighborhoods with houses on half an acre, 3/4 of an acre, 1 acre with a house right in the middle. uh to add new housing there involves a homeowner deciding they want an additional house in their front yard or their backyard. They have to get the financing to do it. They need to get the knowhow to do it, an architect, and they have to want to live with an additional person um you know, additional family on, you know, on their lot. I asked the staff here for examples of where housing, substantial housing has been added to neighborhoods like this and the [clears throat] staff here, you know, did not have an example which, you know, um, didn't surprise me. In addition to that settlement pattern, and I've been through the land records in Jericho,

there's over 500 homes in Jericho that are participating in neighborhood contracts, either HOAs or deed restrictive covenants, which ban anything other than single family homes, no ADUs, no duplexes, no triplexes, uh nor for no forplexes. Um we uh so I think the possibility of substantial new housing in the village centers is um you know is quite low. Outside the village centers, Jericho has used exclusionary zoning to really reserve most of town uh for the wealthy. And I'll just give you a couple examples. This is a this is a photograph of a triplex that's on route two in Waterberry. Um a triplelex like this is currently illegal in 70% of Jericho.

Yeah. Um and this is this is a this is maybe we we're not able to there. Yeah, that's what it was. Maybe you can hold it for him since it seems to focus on me. Okay. Yeah. Right. Here you go.

So, this is a typical home that's built in Jericho. Sold for $1.3 million. The median price of a new home in Jericho built in 2025 is well over $800,000. uh and Jericho's uh banning of multif family housing in most of Jericho means that this is what we're getting. We're getting developments of eight or nine million dollar homes with somewhere between 35 and 45 bedrooms. at the same time. This here is uh

okay this is uh anyway this is a collection of h of of of of condos here uh on one acre eight condos in one acre. This happens to be in Jericho um in a in one of the the village areas. Homes like this, two or three bedrooms which currently sell for $400,000 are illegal in 86% of Jericho. So this is what we're getting. what the select board in and and the the the interpreta the local interpretation of smart growth in Jericho is to reserve most of town for the wealthy with an expectation that middle and lowincome people are going to live in the village centers where there's very little housing um very little housing built. Um and I I think this is uh it's cruel. It's it's not it's just simply not fair. The excuses are ridiculous. If you have wastewater for 45 bedrooms of million-doll homes, a community wastewater system for 45 bedrooms of million-dollar homes, you have water and wastewater available for a cluster of condos. That's just a lame excuse. And Jericho right now is, you know, in terms of local control, Jericho is is um so extreme in its wealth. I mean, we have the lowest percentage of children eligible for free and reduced lunch in Vermont. Our high school has lost almost 40% of its students. And the reason is not that rich women have fewer children. It's that we don't have many women of childbearing age. In Chipman County, we

have the same number of women in their 30s and 60s. In Jericho, we have twice as many women in their 60s as in their 30s. People in their 30s who are forming families simply can't live, can't afford to get a place in Jericho. And that housing is going to be multif family housing. And we need more places where we can build efficient dense clusters of housing. It is ridiculous that multif family housing in Jericho is illegal along Route 117. This cluster of $9 million homes has a driveway that enters onto Route 15. And this is a place where it's illegal to build multif family housing. Jericho has five luxury home developments under construction right now. All with either eight or nine homes. In every single one of those locations, the same number of houses built in a multif family situation are illegal based on Jericho's zoning. We can't even see low-income people or middle- inome people from Jericho anymore. So when I look, we have we have five people on our housing committee, seven people on our planning commission, five people on our select board. Only two of us, including me, live in a place where a triplex can be permitted and built. We can't even see the people that might live in the type of housing that that uh you know that that I that I feel we need. We need more areas in Jericho where we can build multif family housing, dense multif family housing. And my concern is and again we have the HOAs dominate the

area where you say you want additional housing with with the restrictive covenants. You added new land to the map in terms of development area. You added the high school, the high school ball fields, two exclusive developments that are already built with large conserved areas having to do with their PUD. That's simply not a realistic addition of of um you know of of of housing potential. So my fear is that our select board will continue to interpret your plan as a justification for exclusionary zoning. You must let us build multif family housing in more places.

Thank you, Chuck. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others? Uh Nora, did you want to do you have any public comment? No pressure if you don't.

Yeah. Um um well my um thoughts are around the Shelurn use corridor just and I know that we just brought that was just raised around um lurb and and um but the in terms of the density that's planned in the mixed use um one of the things that um and I don't know what the regional planning committee can really do about this but um but one of the things when I look at that map that's a concern for me is um is that if we put a lot of housing when we put a you know as housing grows in that area there's not a lot of green space um and and I know that the state basically the state's in charge of Route SE seven right and so the the the South Burlington would have to work with the state around a lot of what happens. Is that correct?

In terms of the road itself, yeah, of road itself, but um and I don't know I don't know what support or um um they don't control the zoning. It's still local zoning. Okay. And and you know, in Shelurn, for example, you can either use local zoning or you use formbbased code. But if you use formbbased code, you got to buy build commercial on the bottom and housing on top and put it within 40 feet of a road that has 15,000 cars at 25,000 cars a day. So it's going to be it's going to and I'm sorry, Jeff local.

I'm sorry, Jeff. I I don't want this to turn into a back and forth. I want to we just want to hear from the public and then Well, she asked the question what could could be done. Yeah. Thank Thank you, Charlie. This is to hear from the public and the board may we can interact after we close the public hearing. Yeah. [snorts] And I'm sorry. No, that's okay. And then um and then regarding the document, I don't I don't have any um other sort of comments on it. Um I emailed Tyler earlier. So great. Thank you very much. And terms of members of the public, Tom Darrenthal.

Yeah. Hi. Um, is it okay to talk about transportation or is that something later? Absolutely. No, that's uh all part of the plan.

Okay. My I guess my concern is that um the UVM Health Center, all right, in Burlington is planning a major expansion uh between now and 2032. All right. uh they're they're talking about adding a couple hundred beds um and needing an additional number of employees in the in the neighborhood of maybe 900. And I'm wondering how engaged the uh Chin County Regional Planning Commission is to try to figure out how to get those people to the to that location and to work and out of that location when they're not working.

Tom, thanks for bringing that to our attention. I had not heard that yet. Um uh and you know that will go through uh act 250 I expect and uh traffic impact studies will be done. Um so that'll be addressed through the permitting process. Uh but I'll uh I'll reach out to the medical center to uh get a sense of what's going on because I had not heard about that being in the works. Charlie, I've got a name for you and I will email that um Oh, great. either tonight or tomorrow.

Thank you. Can I just follow up on that comment um as well? Um so a lot of there's a lot of more planned growth on Tilly Drive to be more specific and there currently isn't a lot of bus service. So we can't it's not just also about employees but we can't there isn't bus service for patients um who who don't have transportation. So, um, and so SSTA does, um, works with Medicaid to do vans, but there isn't sort of a more there isn't, um, as much there isn't hardly any at all bus service down this way. Yep. Thank you.

Uh, Nolan, did you have a public comment here?

Yeah, sorry I'm uh calling in late. I was watching the the town meeting TV. Um, I said I wasn't gonna say anything, but I just wanted to um give give some extra comments. Um, I I talked with um Taylor and attended the the um uh long range planning committee meeting and and gave some comments ahead of time and and commented on the draft. Um so anyway, um first of all, thank you so much for having great at least from my perspective, great public outreach and organization around this whole thing. Um, and that that whole process has been really easy and talking to the CCRPC has been very easy. So, thank you for doing all of that. Um, the main comments that are also reflected in the draft, um, comments that I and a bunch of other people I know made, um, are that one, the we're concerned about the population estimates um, that are included. this kind of in the in the beginning of the document. Um, but it looks like it's the same table from the 2018 plan. Um, and it seems very unrealistic because uh it goes from like 161,000 people population in 2015 I think um to uh 83,000ish in uh Chin County in 2050. And that seems very unrealistic because we're already at 171,000. So we're we're almost already halfway there and we're only 10 years in. Um so that seems like it should be updated somehow. Um

agreed. I don't know how these projections are done but um and and I don't know if that gets reflected in the um in the housing counts. I don't know what data was used for that. I probably just didn't read it closely enough. But um uh in in my perspective and the perspective of some people that I also know who live in Shannon County um those numbers could be higher for um proposed uh housing goals. So um I I think I would just express that. Um and then um the other things that we wanted to express are that um at least and I said I talked already too much about this so I'll try to keep it short um just concrete goals with with timelines um so that we can measure progress accurately um and be ambitious about these goals. So like uh a thing that I like to think about is if if our goals include u modal shift in transportation then um something like having a certain amount of infrastructure built for that modal shift by a certain date would be helpful. I think um I would I would love to see um the the major communities uh in around Burlington connected by isolated protected um bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure um in 10 years say something like that. Um currently we have a very disconnected network. Um, one of my one of my somewhat snide comments, I apologize for that, was that, you know, in in the bike network, we have um, you know, we have disconnected protected infrastructure like a bike path and then it turns into

nothing or a bike lane. We have sidewalks that just end. If you had a road that just ended and wasn't connected to another road, nobody would use it. Um, and so that's kind of the reality. I like to use Willist Road as an example. We just have random sections of sidewalks. Um, if there's any mechanism in this plan to say like if we're doing a a project, we need to actually have connection and use use those dollars to make even if it's just 500 feet between uh what's existing and what's getting updated. um if to to make that connection for um active transportation. I think I think that would be nice. Um so just stuff like that. Um we would like to be specific and ambitious regarding those things. Um and uh that's all I'll say for now and I appreciate you taking these comments and uh and the written comments and I'm I'm really impressed by other people's comments tonight. So thank you.

Thank you Nolan. And uh two more people potentially. Uh Deb Saxs, did you want to offer comment? Sorry, I'm guessing it. Who might want to offer comment here? Nobody's raising their hand, so I will push. Thanks. Um Deb Saxs, uh I actually live in Charlotte and um and I have relationship with the RPC. Uh and I just want to thank everybody for all hard work on this. This is huge. and um I don't really have any specific comments but this represents a lot of work and thank you for your work. I would here to observe.

Thank you De and Michael Chaucer. Uh did you just plugged in? Were you hoping to ride provide comment here in the public hearing on the regional plan? No, sorry. Just keeping up myself up to date here on on progress. All right. Great. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I don't see any other members of the public that might offer comment. I don't know if I can be a member of the public. Oh, sure. [laughter] You all you all live here,

right? I I I do. I guess uh from uh Philip Peterson, senior transportation engineering planner with the city of Burlington. I guess thinking about the city is preparing to launch plan BTV 2050, which is Burlington's next comprehensive planning effort. CCRPC is involved in that for sure major funer of the mobility element, the transportation planning element. And so just thinking about how this initiative includes four major components. The comprehensive plan, which is update to the city's master plan, has to be done every eight years. Um the economic development strategy, which is unprecedented work for the city of Burlington, an update to the park's master plan, and then plan BTP mobility or the transportation plan. So this work is kind of happening. Um and uh the contract with our consultant team was approved last night at city council. Just thinking about how we can make sure one of the big themes that the mayor talked about last night uh when this was approved is making sure that city staff are not working in silos. Um and and we're not, you know, we're not working in silos. We're we're working as a team parks and office of city planning and [clears throat] CEDO the community economic development office and then of course folks from public works we're all working lock lock step together. So, how do we make sure that we're integrating an effort like the regional plan here with with this kind of work where we're updating this ma major planning effort which we're also trying to integrate so many other plans and we you know plan BTV walk bike uh plan BTV do north end plan BTV south endn all these different planning efforts so all this work is done and is out there um so I guess I would just encourage us to think about as city plann planners and engineers as we're engaging in these projects. And I

Nolan is part of the walk bike council. So, and I stole his book. Did you get your book back, Nolan? Um, I hope you did. Um, and um, his comments aren't lost on on on uh me at all when we think about network connectivity. um and and how we want to engage with the public and make sure that projects are meaningful and and we're not doing work in silos. So, I guess that's just my comment. Thank you. I think that's it.

Those uh comments were all excellent and we appreciate the public attending the meeting. And I'm having a fire alarm go off in my little house, I think. Sorry, I don't think there's a real fire. I think it's just a smoke detector that's very sensitive. Um, so may I have a motion to close the public hearing? I see Garrett raising your hand in a second. I'll second that. Or Andy. Okay, Andy or I think Andy was first, Chris. All those in favor of closing the public hearing either raise your hand or say I. I.

I. Okay. Anyone opposed to closing the public hearing? Hearing none. I uh declare the public hearing on the regional plan to be closed right now. Number five on the staff introductions. Uh number five on the agenda is staff introductions. And the first person we are going to hear from is Darren Shibler who is a senior planner and project manager. Hi Darren.

Hi Jackie. Thanks for the introduction. Uh it's been about a year since I've done one of these. So hopefully I remember how to do it. Um as Jackie mentioned, I'm a senior planner. I've been with CCRPC for just over three years. Uh I am on the land use side. So I work on just about everything except for transportation projects. Uh so that may include working on the regional plan, uh working with our municipalities on updating their municipal plans and uh zoning bylaws, doing a couple of special projects in terms of housing. I also spent a lot of time working with Dan Albert on our brownfields program. So we've been working to stand up our revolving loan program as well as continue uh [clears throat] our assessment grants for remediation of contaminated sites. And uh a couple of things that are coming up for me. Oh, sorry. One more main element [clears throat] of my work is uh doing GIS. uh working on town plan maps, doing a little bit of work on the regional map and uh right now my biggest project will be working with city of Essex Junction on their comprehensive plan update and also working on our infill housing campaign with our four cities Burlington and South Burlington, Winski and Essex Junction to promote infill housing which is uh that exist areas of existing development and allowing for um multi-unit or accessory dwelling units in areas that are already built out. So, similar to what Chuck Lacy was talking about earlier, trying to find ways to make those projects happen. That's pretty much the scope of my work. Um, happy to answer any questions that folks might have.

Any questions for Darren? Anyone? Thanks, Darren. I he made a co when we talked about cats earlier when we were just before the meeting started. [laughter] He he smiled. So, how many cats does he have? You just missed the two cats here. They uh started to come up to say hi, but then they're [laughter] now off carousing. And we also have two dogs and uh let's see. We have uh 21 birds uh chickens and ducks and five goats on our farm in Essex right across from Chapen Orchard. Oh, cool. Wow. [laughter] they won't join the meeting, but uh you're all welcome to come say hi anytime, especially during apple season. I

think they keep you busy, all those animals. Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. Thanks for asking that, Katherine. You're welcome. So, um our second staff member is kind of a kind of sad because it's Elena Churchill [laughter] and Oh, Jackie, I hope it's not sad. Well, we're gonna miss you, Elaine. And I'm not sure everyone knows that you have announced. I I'll let you I'll let you talk about it, but first introduce yourself.

Well, I I will introduce myself and then I will make an announcement. [laughter] So, hello everyone. Heleni Churchill. I'm the transportation program director here. I'm approaching probably 10 years in this position. I don't know how time flies. Um so um just a little bit of a background for me and then I'll just circle back to what I do as a transportation program uh you know like director. Um so I am originally from Cyprus. I came to this country many many many years ago to study engineering. I got my uh civil engineering degree from Drexel um bachelor's and masters from Clemson and then I moved to Vermont and I got a job with the Vermont Agency of Transportation where I worked for 12 years maybe maybe 13 I don't remember now uh and I started as a traffic engineer there and then I moved into planning and I did a lot of policy and policy plans there and then in 2007 I moved to then CCMPO uh which merged with the CCRPC in was it 2011 Charlie or yes. So I was hired as a um like a a transportation planner engineer and I did a lot of the corridor studies, scoping studies and all all sorts of different studies when I I first came here. I also worked uh on the the circle alternatives process for many years and that just it was an incredible work that we did for that. Um and then right about like 2015 16 um I got this job after Michelle left um and as a transportation program director. I manage the transportation program in the in the CCRPC which is um you know it grew tremendously in the last few years but we still have the

same staff number that we had like four years ago. Right now we are approximately 7 million maybe Charlie will correct me on that maybe six and a half. So it was a lot less I would say like in you know four years ago. So we have a lot of work to do. I also um in in addition to basically managing the program as you know in the hall which is 100 plus tasks and projects and activities uh I I manage and I work with uh with seven transportation staff planners and engineers. This is an incredible team and a professional uh people that I really had the privilege to work with. So together all of us we basically we you know manage well I manage the program we manage projects for our municipalities. We also manage our partners. We provide technical assistance to our municipalities from anything small questions on a on a phone call to actually like things that become you know like studies with counts and everything else. and we basically you know try to promote and achieve our uh MTP goals. We also do a lot of the uh we either do like the MTP the metropolitan transportation plan which is our regional plan uh we actually do in house and we do a number of other policy plans the TDM plan which the one that we just finished we're going to bringing another plan to you next month which is the regional uh safety action plan. So, we've been busy. So, um with that, I'm gonna I'm gonna basically end saying that uh I will miss all of you and I will miss first of all my team and the entire team at the CCRPC when I

retire at the end of this fiscal year, end of June. So, uh that's all I had for you. Do you have any do you [clears throat] have any questions? Thank you, Deb. [laughter] Anyone have any Oh, Dana. Oh, Dana, I just want to say thank you. You've been such a joy to work with um over the years and you've done such a great job. And um yeah, thanks Dana. I think we all all agree, all of us on the board who have worked with Alenni agree. My my question though maybe is is there still any nothing that we can do to talk you out of it? [laughter]

[gasps] Not right now, Jeff. Not right now. Thank you, though. I would just add that it has been an honor and a privilege to work with you. And I think that thing that I appreciate working with you the most is you have the ability to just cut through the crap. Just, [laughter] you know what I'm saying? Very elegantly. Yeah. I mean, just the the pies in the sky, Philip. No pies in the sky. we have to have something that makes sense and I always appreciated that and um yeah well I I still have like six months to go so I'll figure out so [laughter] it's okay I'm not

we will come back to this topic in June so um oh dear [laughter] and but and we really do appreciate all all that Elania has done for the staff and for our communities and for the region in general and and for the state. So, thank you, Elanie. Thank you. I got one thing to say to Elanie. We're going to miss the mascot dog. My god, that dog. I love that dog. [laughter] My therapy dog when I got I'll bring her to visit, Bruce. I'll bring her to visit. There you [laughter] go. Yes. Yes. Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

Okay, moving on. Um, uh, the draft minutes of the November 19th, 2025 board meeting. Um, can I have a motion to approve? Are there any changes? Okay. Katherine, any changes? Any corrections? I'm either losing my touch or the u the all the uh AI and all the people are paying more attention, so it's harder catch [laughter] anything. I didn't find any either. And neither did I. And I'm sorry for the minutes taker. Katherine, did you second that motion? Yes. Okay. So, it's Chris, Chris, and then Katherine. Got it.

All right. [snorts] All those in favor of approving the minutes of November 19th, 2025, signify by raising your hand or saying I. I see a lot of hands up. Any opposition to approving the minutes? I don't I see one hand up by Chuck Wilson. Is that you just you don't mean to have it up, I guess. Okay. All right. So, the minutes have been approved. So, moving on to um item number seven on the agenda is committee appointments to Brownfields and TAC. And I'm I'm guessing that's you, Charlie. There's no

Yeah. Yeah. There's just um we had a couple vacancies that occurred uh as a result of retirement at at GBIC and um we're kind of halfway through the fiscal year. So are asking you to make an appointment of uh Alex I hope the uh uh Alex Demily to uh fill the seats that Sam Anderson previously uh filled. So, can I have to do we need someone to put that in the form of a motion? Um, yeah. Or, uh, yeah, I guess that would be easiest. [laughter] You know, our appointment process is a little convoluted in our bylaw. So, yeah, that covers our basis for sure.

I'll I'll move we approve Alex Demily, vice president of GBIC, to that fill the vacant vacancy that we have with Thank you, Jeff. Looks looks like Garrett seconded. Yep. Thank you. All those in favor? [snorts] Any any any opposition? I'm seeing a lot of hands up. I think the motion passes. And just a a note for the minute taker. Uh Ben, was I noting that you wanted to abstain from the minutes vote?

Yeah, that's right. I I wanted to abain. I wasn't able to attend uh in November and uh so I didn't feel I had I was in a position to determine what was said or not said. So then sorry I missed that.

Oh [laughter] okay. Uh number eight is FY 2026 budget and UPWP midyear adjustment. Forest or Charlie? Um I I guess I'll take this and start off and Forest will back me up if we get too detailed. Um you So there's really two documents. One is really long and really has a lot of really small print. Uh the UPWP the and for those of you that are newer, that's the unified planning work program. So that's our annual work program.

Uh the board adopts it in May and every January we do this what we call a mid-year adjustment. We update it. Um, and it's really just kind of reconciling, you know, at that by this time we know like how much how many funds carried over for individual projects. So that's uh, you know, up to date in this. And then there's always some projects that come in or out for a wide variety of reasons. Um, and so there's a if you go through that long table and there's a a legend at the outset, but things in uh pink are projects that are deleted. Typically, those are because um maybe shifting priorities in a town um or there may sometimes be a grant that we thought we might get at the beginning, you know, or 10 months ago that didn't come through. Um then there's light blue tasks which are new land use projects or non-transportation projects. Uh light green are new transportation projects and yellow u may just uh highlight a pending project. Um there's still a couple of those that are pending grants out there. Um and I I'm not going to I I like you all. I'm not going to walk you through rowby row. Are there any questions though on any of the changes that you see in there? any of those color-coded lines or cells or any questions in general about the work program and and I'm going to switch to the budget in a moment. I'm not seeing any questions on the work program. Okay. Um and the budget if it's okay I'm going to actually share just to because I'm going to reference some individual lines here. Um so this is uh this was a separate attachment uh on the web page. Uh just a

couple things to note. Um the regional planning line on line four here um is just reconciled. There is uh this also includes a small cut of 1.3% that is uh proposed in the budget adjustment act that's in front of the legislature right now. they typically act on that in February. Um so there's um I think we got about a $15,000 cut. You'll see that line is increasing by about 15,000, but that's um just as we kind of get the accurate numbers for what it is, it um was 30,000 more than we thought. So it's um net 15,000. Um other significant things, um row 15, the shared municipal policy advisor, um there was uh hopes that three towns were going to kick in $25,000 for uh more direct assistance from Anne Nelson. Uh and um as it's played out, it's turned into two towns with 10,000 each. So u that is just reconciled to what the actual budget is. Um, and then moving on, you see on the MO transportation staff funding line row 22, uh, significant decrease, 185,000. Um, let me see if I can make this a little bit bigger to make it easier. 185,000 um reduction. Most of that change is uh due to us uh being able to get approval from Federal Transit Administration to charge staff to this raise grant Northwest Vermont TOD. So um you know twothirds of that 180 is uh just a shift in the funding source uh of staff time and then other you know dynamics of just

um you know people working on other projects or uh we've also had a little bit of uh family medical leave time this year. Um most of the board members know we've had a bit of a baby boom. I think four four babies in the last 24 months, some pretty close to that. Um and so yeah, we're having a little bit more leave time associated with that. Um and then uh a couple tasks here in pink that grant funding did not come through with rows 40 and 41 here. A new storm water project here on row 52 uh but small dollars. Uh and then I highlighted uh row 59 here, the emergency management performance grant. Um you can see this somewhat significant reduction of like 24 $25,000 a reduction. This is really tied up uh this is you know a potential impact from federal government decisions. Uh, so this is kind of just tied up in Homeland Security and FEMA. Um, and the state is negotiating with them. Um, so I took a pretty conservative view of that and um, just assumed that we would not get a new grant this year for that work that has been going on for 20 or 30 years with the the state emergency management department. Um and so anyway, just note that this is a probably pretty conservative uh budget in terms of revenue. Um uh having said all that, you know, the bottom line, our operating budget budget, which pay pays our staff and office expenses, uh is virtually the same as it was before. Uh uh 3.8 8 million uh about $7.5 million passing through us to consultants or other subgrantees

and uh total budget of 11.3 million. Any questions on those revenue lines or anything on this page? I'm going to switch over then to the expense side. Um and uh on the expense side the uh direct project 7.5 million carries carries right on. Um and then you can see most you know our largest expense of course salaries and benefits. Um salaries are fairly level uh just some uh pretty modest uh changes. Um benefits is the biggest thing. Um where uh and mostly this is attributable to health insurance. Um, so no shock. Uh, we've been able to mitigate health insurance impacts pretty well, but um, looking at a 7% increase this year, so that was a a driver there. Um, and everything else we pretty much left the same. But, um, but those those revenue decreases I mentioned um, you know, have a result here that, um, this is a negative budget I'm presenting to you, uh, which I've not done in a long time. Um so but also this is not the truth. Um so the reality of our situation we will end up positive. I mentioned the health insurance. We are uh self-insured uh with a thirdparty administrator for health insurance and um we switched thirdparty administrators this past year and uh got a decentsized check of about I think $92,000 um of basically unexpended u uh premiums that we had deposited with that third party administrator. So that is going to come in and be net positive revenue to the organization. So we will end up net

positive. But I also didn't want to uh put my too rosy of glasses on uh and uh present that to you as if um there aren't other issues going on here. [laughter] So you know there are um so this is my way I'm signaling a little bit of um concern. We'll see how the FY27 budget shakes out over the next few months as the work program committee uh reviews applications and and we talk to agencies and the legislature does their work. Um we'll see how the budget shakes out. Um so sorry I'm like giving you a negative story and then saying just just kidding. It's not as bad as it looks. But um any questions on that or did that raise any questions for anyone?

No answers my questions. No questions. Thank you, Katherine. [laughter] Um and then um and then at the bottom of the budget, you know, not necessarily part of the budget, but um we do have this little table down here. And for those of you that are newer to the budget, uh we have an indirect rate um which is also which basically covers everything that can't be directly build to an individual grant contract. Um and those get approved by the state every year. Um but what I really wanted to point out was just that the last uh five fiscal years and going back even six or seven have been fairly positive years. Um you know around $80,000 a year positive. Um this year um will be positive also. I don't think it'll be maybe plus 80 but maybe it'll be plus 40 or something. Um and then um and so and next year you know just to kind of prepare you we may have an offsetting negative year as we you know kind of deal with changing dynamics particularly from the federal government. So um and at the bottom very bottom you can see our cash balance as of last week u you know over one over one and a quarter million uh in our accounts right now. Um any questions on overall finances at the moment? anything be helpful? Okay. Um, yeah. So, with that, we do ask, uh, I'll stop sharing and I'll let the chair ask for a motion.

Uh, a motion to approve the So, we're looking for a motion to approve the report on the 2026 budget and the UPWP midyear adjustment. And it look like

Garrett. Oh, all right. Andy and seconded by Garrett, I'm thinking. Okay. All those in favor, please signify by raising your hand or saying I. Are there Oh, looks like most people put their hands up, but are there any disapproval? Any nays? Any nays? I don't see any. Don't hear any. I guess you would do that if you were if you were disapproving. So, it looks like the motion has passed.

Number We're We're making our way. We're getting down there. So, um, now we're on the draft number nine, draft stipen policy, and we'll ask I think Ann Nelson to give us a little bit of a presentation about about the proposal, the pro proposed changes in the policy.

Thanks, Jackie. Um, nice to see you all. I'm going to walk through an updated stipen policy for CCRPC. I'm going to share my screen and just walk through the memo together. If I have to dip out before I get through this conversation because of my one-year-old who's past his bedtime, I will pass it to Charlie and Emma, but I'm hopeful that I can get through this. Um, so this is the memo with some background and context around this stipen policy. So CCRPC is starting beginning the process of updating our public participation plan as a whole and this stipen policy is kind of one piece of that puzzle and the first one that we're tackling. Um we are updating this policy we have updated it so far to reflect current best practices. So this research has been going on for a couple of years now to inform this policy. Um, many Chittening County residents care deeply about their towns, cities, and the region and have really rich lived experiences and want to contribute their time, knowledge, and passion to public processes. But not everyone has the same ability to volunteer. Um, as we know, there are barriers such as time, financial constraints, child care, or transportation that can make participation really difficult or impossible for some. And this leads to disproportionate input and decision-m uh by people with flexible schedules, higher incomes, and fewer obstacles to engagement. Stipens are a tool. They're they definitely don't solve the issue, but they're a tool to help address those barriers, working towards ensuring that participation is more accessible to a wider range of residents. So in doing this as an organization, CCRPC is affirming that all voices are valued in shaping the region region's future and we want to engage with a representative population.

Some background, our public participation plan was last updated in 2014 with a few amendments in 2017, so it's in pretty dire need of of um some new language. Um, there was an interim stipen policy that was approved in 2014. Um, and so since then, CCRPC has been issuing $50 stipens for participation in committee meetings or meetings for um to participate in projects or programs. the budget implications. Thus far, we've since I we've I've only been tracking we've only been tracking stipens given out for the past few years. And so since 2023, um CCRPC has spent an average of $750 a month on stipens. It's important to note that this amount includes stipens given out for ECOS engagement. And that was a pretty heavy lift with a lot of a lot of engagement, a lot of stipens given out throughout that process. So, it might be it might be a higher than normal amount. It might not moving forward depending on the level of engagement we're doing. Um, there's a note there that as in the policy recommends that we update that amount to $75 per meeting instead of 50. If that were so, the average monthly spending for the organization would be roughly $1,100 a month. Um, it is allowed, we are allowed to give out stipens under Federal Highway Administration or with Federal Highway Administration funding. They've outlined in their public participation practices that stipens are allowable when participation would otherwise be inadequate or unrepresented or unrepresentative without compensation and or when the stipend or incentive

would help ensure adequate and representative participation. So just a note that this is an allowable practice. I won't walk through the evidence here, but there is a good amount of research out there that backs stipens helping to support more participation in public processes and in urban planning in particular or regional planning. Um, [clears throat] so again, it's not a a fixall. There's obviously other barriers and other ways that we as staff can work to make sure we have representative engagement and participation. It's just one tool. And then below there's a couple of tables and this is uh mostly just documenting some uh research and practices from partner organizations or towns. So that first table here is stipen amounts that other municipalities or the state are giving out just for reference. Um I will note there's a mistake in this table. It says that the town of Essex gives out $138 per meeting for their development review board and that's not true. I'm not actually sure where that number came from. It's $50 per meeting. Um, but you'll see that pretty much across the board it's $50 per meeting. Other than Wooki has begun bumping that number up to $75 per meeting and they've even thought about increasing it to 150 depending on workload for different committees or um engagement activities. So, our proposal of $75 is higher than um a lot of the municipalities in Chitten County and the state, but the state is also in the process of updating their policy. Their policy was established back in the 80s and 90s and um as a [clears throat] part of the environmental justice bill, all state agencies have to come up with community engagement plans that are agency specific. So, um, my guess is that that number will be revisited for state engagement as well. And so, this is kind

of an opportunity for CCRPC to be a bit on the cutting edge of this as we were back in 2014. Um, for other jurisdictions and organizations that I could find, and it was pretty hard to find specific amounts. Um, it varies a lot. It's as low as $35 for an hour in um Hillsboro, Oregon, all the way up to $75 to $100 per hour for organizations such as Race Forward. Um Seattle pays $75 an hour. Um LA metro area pays, you know, up to$100 to $200 per meeting for their advisory bodies. So quite a lot of variation, but the takeaways being that it's essential for our work to be accessible to anybody and everybody in the region who wants to participate. Um, stipens are a tool to increase engagement and ensure that our work reflects the lived experiences of all community members. The policy clarifies um the purpose of offering stipens, which activities are eligible for stipens, who is eligible to receive stipens, um again that funding source allowability, and then the amount to really account for inflation. You know, most of the bump from 50 to 75 can be accounted for just in inflation. Um and also to reflect best practices. So, this is an action item. Um, so we are hoping to get approval on this policy, but I'm just going to walk through the backbone kind of structure of the actual policy. I'm not going to go through it in detail. I'm going to assume that you all have looked at it. Um, again, the purpose, we list some reasons here that we've already covered. It's really increased engagement from communities we don't typically hear from. Um there's a section on allowability and language in um

uh within our funding sources, specifically the Department of Transportation. Um eligibility. Um so you are eligible to receive a stipend only if you're not participating as a paid representative of an employer or an organization and are not otherwise being compensated for your time. and who may face one or more barriers to participation that would make it difficult to engage without compensation. There's a list of potential barriers. It could be financial hardship, transportation, child care, technology barriers, but that list is not comprehensive. There it could be another barrier. So, it's kind of an optin. Participants will identify themselves as being eligible to receive a stipend. There's a note about municipal representatives being eligible to receive stipens as long as they meet the criteria above. We recognize that resources and practices differ across our municipalities. Regional committees often include municipal representatives who serve outside their regular jobs and on top of other local responsibilities. Um because board and committee service is an added commitment, stipens can help acknowledge that extra time and hopefully also reduce some barriers to participation. Um a note about folks under the age of 18 and then ineligibility. So again, kind of other side of the same coin. you're not eligible to receive a stipend if you're representing a paid employer or another organization um or if you're being otherwise compensated for your time and certainly um consultants or contractors are compensated through separate agreements. Um some note about W9s and tax forms which is just a threshold um that we don't need to get into

eligible activities. Um, so stipens can be offered for participation in activities that require a significant time commitment such as membership and participation in our board, membership and participation in a standing CCRPC committee, service on project specific or topic specific advisory committees or working groups and participation in focus groups or workshops or other discussions or activities that are a part of our studies plans or projects. [snorts]

And then the actual policy essentially outlines the amounts. So this table you'll see on the left um how it is the community member is engaging, a description of that form of engagement, the typical time commitment and the compensation amount. And this amount is again a bump from $50 for about an hour and a half of a community member's time up to $75 per meeting. And that amount again is just um reflecting best practices and kind of emerging be best practices from other organizations across Vermont and the country. Reflects the current living wage. Um [clears throat] reflects recommendations from our community engagement advisory committee members. level of responsibility and the skill, expertise, and experience required, the time commitment, including potential travel time, um the emotional labor that is experienced by marginalized groups who contribute to CCRPC's work, and market rate for contractors that we might otherwise hire. So, again, a way to value lived experiences of community members. And then, I won't go into this procedure. This is more of an internal uh a section for staff around how we what the process looks like for giving out stipens um and different options for paying community members. Um and that's about it. And there are uh two appendices and these are um forms that staff could use to get um their opt-in forms. So, forms that we would use to have people opt in or out of receiving stipens. I'm going to stop sharing and see if any questions came up or anything you all would like more clarity on.

I I'll just say and Nelson that it you've clearly put a lot of time and effort into this proposal. So, thank you for being so thoughtful about it. Thanks, Jackie. Anyone have questions? Looks like Mike O'Brien. Yeah. Uh, and Nelson, thank you for that. Um, just question of the optin thing. Are you automatically opt in so you have to opt out or vice versa? Vice versa. You're automatically opted out.

Um, it it actually we thought about doing it the reverse and because we wanted to be sensitive to, you know, for folks to not have to like name that they have a need in front of other people. Um, but I think organization if you know if we're implementing this across the whole organization, it makes more sense to assume that everyone's opted out and then find thoughtful ways to get people to opt in. Yeah. Using this form. Yeah, Scott. Um, follow up to that question. It it seems like though you might have to opt in for specific events or do you just opt in one time?

You would just opt in. So, the way that I've done it with our community engagement advisory committee, you opt in. I check in with folks every year. So, that's a a standing committee that meets every month and I'll send an email out and check in with folks at the beginning of each year and see if anybody wants to change whether they're opted in or out. Um, and I will say in my experience, people have been really respectful of the uh, eligibility criteria and I've had folks receive stipens for a year and then reach out and say that um, they don't feel like they need them anymore and they're ready to opt out. Um, for like project engagement, if it were an ongoing work group or advisory group, you would opt in for as long as that project is ongoing. And obviously for a one-time focus group, it would just be a one-time optin. Does that answer the question?

Yeah, pretty much. [clears throat] Yep. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Looks like Garrett has your hand up. Um, actually, not a question so much as a comment that I think it's um I think this is great and will be very useful. I think it's absolutely crucial that it be personal and private. Mhm. [clears throat] Um just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware that I mean obviously the people writing the checks need to know but uh you know other commissioners or members or whatever do not need to know.

Thank you Garrett. Thanks Jeff. Were you clapping your hands or were you raising your hand? I was raising my hand.

Okay. because I think of all the members of the executive committee and the and the finance committee um I've been struggling with this um since it was brought up and it's not a reflection on Ann Nelson's work. It's not um a lack of concern that we need uh to provide compensation to our underserved, low-income and overburdened communities. I'm fully on board with that. I'm concerned that the policy is too broad in terms of its focus and I was have always been of the belief that starting back in 2014 when we started down this road that we're smart enough to be strategic about this. Um, and I I'm fearful that what's come out and I'm not saying it's not well thought out. It's a lowest common denominator policy in search of a common problem that I don't believe exists in the organization. I thought we could have been more strategic. we could have reached out even more from the standpoint of, you know, not even providing $50 or $75, but more um to the low-income, underserved, and overburdened communities than what we're providing. And I'm concerned about taking it broadly organizationwide, undermining the the the volunteer culture that at least since I've been involved with the RPC and the MO for the last 25 years has been very strong. That being said, even though I made it clear that I was going to oppose this at the full board meeting, I understand the need for it, but I want to register strong reservations

about going organizationwide. I'm not going to oppose it even though I said that the last two times uh that we discussed it at the executive committee in the finance committee meeting but I just want everybody to know that taking this broadly organizationwide particularly for the municipal members or for municipal members that are volunteers on some of our committees where all the work is done that we are changing that culture and I don't believe it's a positive change in culture and I think it could have been more targeted And it might have even been more useful to our underserved, low-income, and overburdened communities if we could have taken maybe some of the resources that may go to people who really don't need it. But I'm not going to say that somebody who doesn't need it is going to say that they're going to need it and take it. But we maybe could have focused our resources more towards those groups that were really trying to encourage to participate in our stuff. So, that being said, I'm going to raise my hand, yes, but with a whole heck of a lot of concern.

Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Andy. Um, yeah, the executive committee, as Jeff mentioned, did discuss and finance um discussed this at length and recommended approval that to the board that it be approved. And so with that, I would move to approve the um the policy. Um I'll second that, Dandy.

Thank you, Chris. And and if I could just add a brief comment about you know what Jeff was saying what you know it's we did talk about that some and and in my own view just one of the things that if you put a lot more oversight over this the cost of the oversight in my mind is going to far exceed the cost of actually implementing it the way it's designed right now. Um and there's a lot of you know this really puts on people the way the policy is puts on people you know beyond the part where we hope that they're being honest and if they're not we could always go back and revisit it if we ever if we see that it's being the policy is being abused I think in the past it hasn't been and I think a lot of municipalities they do it different ways um it's not perfect you know it's it's pointed out it's not a perfect policy but it's I think a really good one and it's one I think will hopefully work and can always be, as I said, revisited if it doesn't.

Thank you, Andy. Any other comments before we vote? Okay, then

I would just say that I do appreciate Jeff's points because uh you know he is uh always the voice of caution and reason and targeted uh you know he he's the Jiminy Cricut on my shoulder uh to keep us from throwing everything the baby out with a bathwater. So looking at the uh forwardthinking uh unintended consequences of things and so I do applaud uh his perspective and I value it. Uh in this case as Andy pointed out we on the executive committee did thrash around with this and feel that this is the right move. Thank you Chris. You're going to miss me. Jackie I have a question. I may have a

Yeah, you're gonna miss me when I'm gone. So I guess my question is is um

to I guess I misunderstood some I think was Jeff Jeff are you saying that the CAC um are economically challenged individuals who who need the stipen for I guess I missed that. Are you thinking that the are you saying that C CAC is um economically challenged? No, I'm saying we don't need to offer the same stipens that we do to that group to municipal board members and other board members that don't need it. And I think it could have been a lot more focused on the underserved, lowincome, and overburdened groups that we're trying to encourage participation on. And I'm concerned that by opening it up to the comm community, to the whole organization that we're diluting what we're doing for the communities that we're trying to bring into the process. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Thank Thank you for Thank you for clearing that up for me. Appreciate it.

Last call for any comments. And I wasn't talking about increasing the administration. If we did a narrower focused policy, we wouldn't need all the administration for the rest of it. Dana, now do we have any um evidence or indication that providing stipens actually increases the participation of the groups that we are trying to um to have be more representative in our organization and Nelson?

Yeah. So in the memo you'll see there's a I think there's a section on research nationally. Yes. The research has been done specific to Chitten and County. No. Um and [clears throat] that's something you know that hopefully we will start to do a better job of tracking moving forward just who we're engaging um in various ways through committees but also through projects to see how it changes over time. Um but yes, definitely nationally there have been studies done that back that offering stipens significantly increases the likelihood that you'll get participation from um community members who face barriers. Yeah. And again like Jeff, you know, I hear what Jeff is saying too and it's not this doesn't solve the problem, right? This is one tool that we can use. Um, and there's a lot of beauty to the volunteerism culture and I hope that that continues as well. And we have to face the lived realities that people are facing day-to-day. Um, and keep thinking about different strategies to get more and more voice voices involved. You know, it's it's not just this, but hopefully this can help in some places at some times.

And Nelson, the studies also say that if you make the compensation too low, it threatens to backfire. Yeah. I don't I don't know specifically what you're referring to, but you know, they were in your note. It was in your notes. It was in your table.

Oh. Oh. Oh, I know what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. And there you know there there have been community members who have you know there I there is push back that I've heard on stipens from community members who face barriers as well because of the same belief in that kind of volunteer culture and how important that is. So I don't um [clears throat] yeah there I think there's a lot of validity to what you're saying Jeff and again I just hope it's a tool that we can offer in some places um as one strategy to potentially increase engagement and we'll see throughout time you know what impact it has

and I honestly hope it works. I I I really do. Andy Watts you unmuted now. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. My mic. Um, we've been offering stipens and ethics for u some number of years. I'm not sure how long it's been, but and we a couple years ago did a an anonymous survey of all of our committee members and asked about it. So, um, we did get positive responses that there are we definitely do have folks that are on committees in our town that would not otherwise be able to do it if they didn't receive the stipen. So, we we have evidence. We feel um you know even with uh a small number of people that uh that answered in the affirmative to that question uh we think it's uh valuable. Um so we're continuing to do it in our town.

Thank you. Scott, you're you're muted.

Yeah. Um I just want to say so we had this discussion in Essex Junction I think 18 months two years ago. There was actually a proposal by the council uh to the council by one of the council members to increase the stipen for the council to try to attract uh disadvantaged members of the community or members who um had disadvantages to participate. It was not approved. Um and I think um I'm not saying that stipen increasing stipens for people who need to have stipens is not is not a good idea. I think this is a good proposal. And I want to sort of echo what um Jeff was saying is that to reach disadvantaged groups or those groups who have too much on their plate to participate in municipal meetings, there needs to be outreach as well. And this is something we've been struggling with for the last couple of years is to how to attract people who either have no time or have child care issues or transportation issues or can't afford to participate. It's an ongoing discussion. We haven't solved it and it comes up as probably every single meeting we have in the planning commission.

Thank you, Scott. We probably all have the same experiences in our own towns. It's hard to get people involved sometimes. I think if there are no more comments, I think we can vote. All those in favor of this draft stipen policy becoming the the actual policy, please signify by raising your hand or saying I. And those who are opposed say nay or go like that. Okay. Looks like it has passed. Thanks so much, Ann Nelson. And you made it through this part, but you have one other one other uh maybe but first we have Charlie, I think, in your outreach and engagement.

I certainly defer to to Ann Nelson if uh she would like to come. Chair, I move we amend the agenda for Ann Nelson to bring 11 up to next on the agenda. Uh thank you. Do we have to vote on that? Can we just do it? I'm amending the agenda. You have to vote. Okay. All right. All those in favor of amending the agenda, I'll second that.

Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Say I or raise your hand. I was going to suggest it, but I knew we'd have to do this. So, thank you for doing it. Thank you all. I appreciate that. Um, this will be quick. As you know, in most meetings, I have that short onepage kind of outreach and engagement update with what CCRPC has been working on, what I've been working on in the areas of kind of equitable policy updates and outreach and engagement. Because we're we finished up 2025 and we're now in 2026, I'm sharing with you kind of the full outreach and engagement annual report that I put together for 2025. And this just outlines um progress that CCRPC has made in the past year but also the past few years around different goals that we've established as an organization. Um so the organization of this report is in four uh kind of pillars of action. One is around internal process and capacity. The next one is around the actual regional planning and project process. the third pillar around community engagement and the last one around leadership. And so if you scroll through, if you're interested, there's kind of um a goal under each pillar and then there's a list of progress made in 2025 and a section around looking ahead in 2026 and hopes for the next year. So again, I'm not going to go through it in a lot of detail. you can dig in as you're interested, but I wanted to give you the option in case you are interested in think in um reflecting on and seeing kind of how I'm thinking about this work and what it looks like moving forward and um how we are as an organization. And there is a brief section at the top with just 2025 highlights at a glance that you can also [clears throat]

look at if you don't want to flip through however many pages this is. Um I think that's all I'll say about it and let you all look at it on your own time. But I appreciate all the support and look forward to the next year and I think you've again you've done a great job on this. You you know you gave us some history, you gave us the current and then you're looking ahead too. So it's a a great report in my mind and I don't think it requires anything but saying it was great. Thank you. Go see Ray. Go put Ray to bed. Thank you. I appreciate that. We'll see you all soon. Yep. Bye-bye. Okay, Charlie. Oh, sorry. Jackie Katherine has her hand up.

Oh, I just wanted to I just wanted to catch uh uh uh and Nelson, before she left, because reading that that was an incredible amount of work over the last three years. It was just you you wonder how one person or group of people could do all that and including the outreach. It was just really impressive report. Thank you. I hope everybody will pat Charlie pass that on to Ann Nelson if she's I think she's already gone. Absolutely. Yeah. And it's Yeah. And Nelson's been a great leader in that and also a good good team. Yeah. So I'm seeing Emma's face on the screen here and uh definitely a lot of others. You know, Sarah and really Taylor, you know, really everybody is really leaning into the work. So

that's true.

Um so, um yeah, item 10. Um, so for those of you that are newer to the board, um, every every six months, um, we do just a little policy review. Um, it's maybe getting a little, uh, consistent at this point, but the things that we're keeping track of, uh, which may come up in the legislature. Uh, some of them, you know, come up every every year. Um, there's some that are more u nonrecurring. uh probably act 250 changes has been that recent item for the last couple years. Um the executive committee looked at this list and had uh one modification to it which was to add number 10 which was pay attention to what's going on with school district consolidation. It may have some implications for us uh even though we are you know certainly not in charge of that and not uh very involved with it but uh we will kind of keep track of what's going on. um you know if they do a lot you know realign school districts in Chin County it will have some implications here. So um but happy to take any feedback on this. I think this is really um it kind of grew out of a request I think from the board uh for me to let you all know what things uh staff are trying to pay attention to in the legislature each year. So, um, if you have something that you think we should be paying attention to that we're not, um, please, you know, let me know and we can kind of get it into the hopper and it'll be on the list in July. U, but any feedback on this as you look at it now.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. Well, don't go anywhere because you're you're next. Executive director updates. Thank you, Jackie. I wasn't going anywhere. Yeah, I didn't think you were, but I just want to reassure you. Um, so just um wanted to uh kick off my report. Any any feedback on the legislative breakfast? Any things we should be thinking about doing differently? Yeah, Garrett,

I thought it was great and useful. I was a little surprised by some of the reactions from legislators of oh, we're supposed to deal with that. Um but um overall I felt like there was some good give and take.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I will say yeah, Emma and I I know got got some um some nice comments from legislators even as they were walking in. Um I know Serita was on here for a little bit. Uh but um so well good. Well, thank you and and thanks for those of you that came. I think it really it does feel like a good opportunity to you know kind of make some of those connections with our legislators. Um and always a challenge in terms of legislative update. Um there you transportation funding conversation is definitely one of those that is getting some more attention. Um, I saw the governor in his budget address was kind of saying there's some transportation revenue that has been going to the ed fund uh that um and maybe some other funds, maybe public safety uh that he's hoping to pull back into transportation so that there doesn't need to be a gas tax increase. Um, so I think we'll be kind of watching pretty closely what happens with that transportation revenue conversation. And GMT has also, you know, been actively participating in asking the legislature to um enable some sort of uh com, you know, committed revenue stream for transit um that may be a little broader than relying on municipal property tax uh for matches and things. Um and then um just to continue that transportation conversation, you may have seen a story, I think it was last week on WCAX about the older persons and u and persons with disability uh transportation services transit service, SSTA. It's part of it's really one of three revenue sources or programs that uh pay

for SSTA services. Um and uh again, you know, the budget is getting squeezed here and um some riders may not be able to get as many trips as they have gotten historically. Um so that just want to give you a heads up that that is happening. We we facilitate the partners that are uh provide local match for those services. Um and we will have a special meeting next Friday to talk about some of the changes that are happening. Um and there's been a lot of negotiation. Uh, I want to give um credit to GMT for working through some difficult things, but also uh credit to Colchester um and your town manager who have been very actively engaged in the conversation and trying to make sure your residents are taken care of. Um, so um, you know, even though some of the conversations have been difficult at times, I think it's been worthwhile. Andy, did you want to weigh in there? I I we we have a Essex Senior bus

and uh you know it's with a partnership with GMT and I'm I've often wondered why we're the only ones. Um um the um I don't have a good answer for that. Andy

is it is it something to be discussed, pursued or or considered? I I is it just uh make it all more expensive if you do that? I don't know. It might uh you know it might be something to explore a little bit. Um I will say that uh Titan County is fairly unique in the way that we um have individual municipalities partnering in the service. Um and so um other parts of the state have uh more generic methods that are more consistent across their whole county or region. Um so yeah, I don't know a lot about the detail there, Andy. and and there's, you know, it got set up that way,

you know, 20 or 30 years ago and has continued on. Yeah. Okay. I I will just add that it's the saddest select board meeting I have ever attended. Yeah. in the I' all the years I've been on the select board because um the people who have used this service to get to jobs to get to all all kinds of things um came out in force and their testimony was um was heartbreaking. Yep. And yeah and the timing was just yeah was not great but we don't need to rehash that but anyway. Yeah. Yeah.

And both Colchester and GMT you know have there there's also been conversation in legislative committees this week about this and so legislators are uh definitely also getting sensitized to it. So anyway, thank you to all the parties that are involved in those conversations. Uh item C here. Um just I think I just want to confirm that we will uh and if you could try to plan on being in person in our office for the March meeting.

Um okay, I'm seeing thumbs up and uh we will still legally we have to do hybrid. So you know if u we get a snowstorm or something you know we will go to hybrid and uh can't make it but otherwise we will uh try to get some food here and you know entice you with pizza. that's not too cold or something really fancy. Um that's a joke. Um I think [laughter] uh so okay good plan on that and then um we had a staff retreat in uh December and just you know uh as you can tell from some of the other conversations whether we're talking about the regional plan or the outreach and engagement work that Ann Nelson and others have been working on um you know we kind of we're working on a lot I think uh I think we have 200 individual projects every year that we're working out as a staff and so we're kind of running around. So, we try to take a little bit of time out, [laughter] you know, once or twice a year to kind of catch our breath. And um and this retreat kind of focused a little bit on or mostly on kind of uh building relationships within the staff, but also some appreciation. And um Emma did a nice little uh thing of uh giving you a quick summary, that one pager link. Um if you click on that link you can kind of see uh kind of like six categories of comments that we got from individual staff and you can see the individual post-it notes there if you zoom in u of just uh people expressing appreciation for each other um and things like that. So thank you Ben. Uh but just wanted to kind of share um I think we all felt pretty uh it was it was a nice retreat and a lot of positive energy amongst the staff coming out of that. So, I just wanted to share that and happy to take any questions or comments on that or anything else.

Charlie, I do hope the uh fourth sticky note down uh the fourth column down the fourth row down uh third in from the right. I appreciate the admin team giving us Molly. That's or is that money? I'm being pretty sure that's money gross. [laughter] That was not my sticky note, but I think that's what that's I had to stick that. Not aware of any Molly. We have no access to Molly. [clears throat] I just trying to lighten things up. Thank you. [laughter] Good job. Or anything like appreciate the admin team helping us get get paid. [laughter]

Hey, penmanship is still an art that's needed. I mean, you you could take it also that maybe it's a therapy dog [laughter] rather than something else. Therapy hamster. Yeah. [laughter] Okay. Any any other Charlie? Nope. Okay. Then uh the committee liaison activities and reports are available for your reading pleasure. Uh, are there any members items?

Um, just one really quick silly thing. And Andy, thank you for catching that the uh which committee is is at the wrong time. Oh, the UPWP committee is on next Friday. It's actually at 10 10 in the morning. 10 in the morning and not 2:30. My mistake, Andy. You You got You caught me. And now we know who really read the whole agenda. and and Monday the community advisory committee is meeting on the 26th, not the 28th. That's Wednesday. Thank you. No, and actually I think it's Wednesday the 28th. Oh, okay. The date is right. Monday is the 26th. So,

okay. [clears throat] Two flags. Uh, three flags. I'm out. Um, no. We We'll keep you and do it right. Yeah. So, are there any members items hearing? None. I move we adjourn. And Garrett seconds. All right. All those in favor signify by raising or leaving. Thank you so much for putting up with me. Good night all. Thank you, Jackie. Great job, Jackie. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Thanks, Jackie. Thanks everyone.