 The short term, do you want me to bring you a slice? I'd like to hear your e-mail. The service. I won't make sure. Matthew, is there anybody else out there that wants to be in for the training? I think there's one person. OK, thanks. That was subtle, wasn't it? Catherine, that's it. You're gone. Yeah. No, I don't think so. Oh, I have to sign too? Right, yeah. That's the trade-off. Sacrifice 45 minutes so that you're not showing me the prowling. Right, right. What do you do? I'm ready when you are. Oh, OK. So then let's get started. All right. So good evening. This is some board training for the Chinden County Regional Planning Commission here on September 18th. We're going to get started and maybe let people somewhat close that door a little bit. Thank you. Because I can figure out how to work this. We're going to pose the PowerPoint on our website. Yeah, at the very end of this, I show you that there's a page on our website that has kind of board member materials resources. And so here the four basic topics I'm going to cover are kind of just the role as a citizen planner, which is probably not too much new to most of you. Kind of the role of committees, the basic RPC and MPO duties is kind of distinct. And then just because we will inevitably use too many acronyms are going to give you a dose of acronyms, which is just our partners. There's a lot of other. Every industry has their acronyms. So just in general, you know, as a representative of your community, you know, we're hoping that you're communicating with your municipality or if you represent a constituency. So we also have a few members like Tom representing the agriculture community that we're hoping there's communication, both informing them and getting their perspectives on what we're doing. And then participant second point is participating in one or more of our committees. We actually have that kind of written our bylaws that there's that we went past a hope and to an expectation. It's not always possible for everybody to participate, but we do try to do that. And then of course, participating in the full commission meetings that happened monthly or almost monthly. And then just, just, you know, kind of how to act and please interrupt me if you have questions on anything along the way here that we are conducting regular outreach with the public. So, you know, we hope that you feel as kind of a little bit of an emissary, you know, out there to either get us feedback, get perspectives, seeking input beyond our board members. We don't want to just get an echo chamber of listening to ourselves and certainly back to your legislative body is very important. I'm actually, you know, I kind of do a little gut check with that every fall and go around to each select board and city council and village trustees to just, you know, make sure that we're, you know, being consistent with our members. Obviously feedback, you know, if it can be constructive and timely is more helpful. And we're going to have diversity of thoughts and opinions on issues. And, you know, it doesn't make them bad. They're just different. And we'll try to get to the right place. The written communication for each one of the legislative bodies of the communities is, I think, really important because you started that about what, seven or eight years ago. And before that, there wasn't anything like that. And so lots of times the legislative bodies were concerned about what is the MDO or the RPC do. And so that's a really important part of the communication. And for the new members, when Charlie goes to your legislative body, it's good for them to go with it. To let them know who you are or what some board are. Or be there. Some people are members of their select boards, but not everybody is. And so it's always good, especially for the, you know, for some of the, maybe not the core communities, but some of the rural communities. This is generally the only time they'll get to see you. Yeah. Sometimes I feel like it's the only time each of the select boards is seeing me, but I'm thinking that's okay. Well, I'm talking about the commission members, too. But yeah. Outside of your interview, they did a good job. If you're not on the select board, that's right. Yeah. And it is helpful. I'm in that process right now. And it is, I find it really valuable to me and to the organization and just to make sure we're, you know, as well connected as we can be there. So then to turning to committees and kind of like pulled up this quote. So some of this is some training that we've done before, but right. We merged the MPO and RPC or two separate organizations to separate boards. They're legally two separate organizations. We merged in 2011. And for previous training, we had this quote from Mark Landier, who was on the Colchester select board at the time. And I can't remember if he was our chair or vice chair or past chair, but he was in that track. Yeah. And, you know, he really noted that we need to rely a little bit more on the committee structure because the board now had kind of twice as much business going to the board. And so we really wanted to talk about using the committees as the primary reviewer. Ask them to really review an issue. Maybe when we send something back to a committee and say, can you, you know, update it or what about this perspective? Did you consider that? But and we want them to really focus attention on the most critical issues, kind of put things in their proper sequence and give the board sufficient information to make a decision. So it's usually comes in some form of a recommendation from a committee. That's that's the last bullet there. And so now we get to start to get real word heavy and we're going to get worse, probably. But here are, I didn't count them. There are eight, nine, 10 committees. So all but the last bullet are actually from our bylaws. So they're, you know, we already kind of legislated in our bylaws that we're going to have these committees. The executive committee, they meet every month kind of off cycle from the board. So the board meets on the third Wednesday, the executive committee meets on the first Wednesday. And they look at overall administration of the organization, including looking at the board agendas and things coming to the board. They're responsible for the personnel policy responsible for doing my evaluation. I probably should have included that in there. And then also under our current policy, they review the act to 15 section 248 applications and stop if you have any questions on these committees or and that's, you know, that's the officers plus a rep for a large town and a small town. So there's six members. The executive committee finance committee is typical what you would expect them to do. They're looking mostly at the budget and audit. They often are meeting with the executive committee because we have three members on the finance committee. Two of them are on the executive committee and then Jeff. So sometimes he just joins the executive committee and they review things together. The board development committee. Probably the thing they do every year is look at nominations for officers. So they do that each spring. They often and they probably spurred on this training by saying, hey, we should do some training in the fall. That we have new members, particularly. And then also as I look back in the bylaw, it also refreshed my memory that they are also responsible for review in the public participation plan, which we only update every so often. I think we're about five years out now. So we'll probably be looking at that in the next year or so. And that will come through that committee before it comes to the board. We then have what in our bowels called the unified planning work plan committee or sometimes we call the unified planning work program committee. But that document, that UPWP is a document that guides our annual work. I'll go to that a little bit more later. And that committee only meets three times early in the calendar year to make a recommendation on the work plan. The transportation advisory committee or the TAC. And this is, Tom, you were asking me about MPO business. Their primary work is looking at MPO business. So that's a metropolitan transportation plan, the transportation improvement program. They also look at the UPWP and they also approve consultant contracts. So when we're hiring a consultant to do a transportation study, it runs through the TAC. The planning advisory committee, I'm sure, well, the other TAC, trying to remember if I had more, if I got into more, no. So I can remember if I had a page on each one of these committees. So I'm glad I don't. We'll talk, but the TAC is primarily the public works folks from the towns. Sometimes there's a town administrator if it's a more rural town or a highway foreman or sometimes a town planner. But typically it's a public works folks. The planning advisory committee, as you might expect, is the town planners. We use them to, they do kind of a peer review of municipal plans, make sure they're compliant with statute. And they also look at the Act 250, Section 248 review guidelines. So they recommend those to the board. We just updated those a year or so ago with new energy requirements. And then the long-range planning committee. That's a committee that only meets every five or eight years. And I'll talk about the regional plan and the metropolitan transportation plan a little bit more later. The Clean Water Advisory Committee is our newest formal committee. They look at the watershed basin plans, which is something that the agency natural resources works on. And also provide, they review assistance that we provide to the MS4 community. So feel free to fly in with acronym. But MS4 is a stormwater permit from DEC on our urban towns. And they have some common requirements that we help them out with, that get reviewed by a subcommittee of the Clean Water Advisory Committee. And then we do add how committees is needed. The most recent one's probably been Act 250. We've had a committee looking at what the state is doing for Act 250. So then a couple slides on committees. Yeah. Sure. How does one get on these committees? How does one get chosen to be on these committees? You are asking that question the right night. Right. And I saw the email and still was like, how does this all happen? Yeah. And so partly you raise your hand. So which is kind of what you saw. And then the bylaws have some restrictions on the committees in terms of how many board members they have. So it may be in part like if somebody's kind of ready to trade and say, hey, you know, I'm on three committees. I can step off one. This is a great night to have that conversation. It's that simple. Yeah. Yeah. And it's just the chair is supposed to approve it, but the board concurs with the chair. I think it's a phrase. I can't remember or needs to approve what he does. The chair appoints provides the information to the members. Yeah. But it literally says the board, as long as the board concurs. Yeah. Yeah. Which is right by the board. Has there ever been a time that the board was not concurred with the chair's appointments to committees? Not yet. Has there ever been a time when somebody really wanted a committee and didn't get it? Yeah. I don't know if there's a waiting list for any committee. I can tell you, no, there's not. My whole experience getting back to 2001 with the FBO, there's never been a waiting list for a committee. If you raise your hand with the interest, there's a good chance here. As a matter of fact, the problem is, is we have openings that shouldn't be there. Right. Or somebody's on multiple committees. Yeah. That's cool. Yeah. Yeah. Catherine, maybe you have time to. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. So just starting with the RPC responsibilities. And this is a really generic kind of language that comes out of state statute, you know, doing studies and plans or recommendations on a broad side of issues, which could you get any more broad than that, you know, having staff and consultants and working to provide information, carrying out programs for the appropriate development and use of the region's physical and human resources, which is also pretty broad. And then, or other acts that the RPC teams would be necessary appropriate. So it's pretty broad, you know, support for the municipalities on any issues. I usually phrase it as any issues of common interest to our municipalities or maybe other members. And then to get a little bit more specific about some duties that gets into promoting mutual cooperation. So, which I think is probably a good way to think about like we're just supposed to promote cooperation. Hopefully we're doing that and the work we do. Again, assisting and advising municipalities and plans and studies and bylaws around the development of the region's physical and human resources. Third bullet is a regional plan at least every eight years. So that's, you know, kind of a more formal document. And I think I'll touch on this later, but and I always remember, I think there's 14 goals now and like 11 elements that are required and say statue in the regional plan, something like that. There's also a duty to review state capital expenditures. We mostly focus on that on the transportation side. We have a duty to appear before the District Environmental Commission to aid in Act 250 review and before the, this is public service work, but I think that was the public utility commission, the PUC, so I didn't update that. That was probably my error. For section 248. Can we go ahead and buy one, sir? No, no, this is state statute. So this is my fault for using an old training presentation. And then also with regard to municipal plans reviewing that they have a good planning process, approve the municipal plan. And then the newest thing is these determinations of energy compliance. So those are RPC duties. Oh, here, here's just a slide on some of the major ones. The regional plan, the 14 goals, 11 elements. The regional plan also includes our Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which for federal law addresses 10 planning factors, which are pretty similar related. We also have embedded in our plan the comprehensive economic development strategy, which GBIC does a kind of another layer of adoption as the Regional Development Corporation to address an EDA. GBIC, does everybody know what that is? You know, the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation. And EDA is the Economic Development Administration, which is a federal agency that has the requirements for what is supposed to be in the comprehensive economic development strategy. If you have a SEDS, you get invited to do a SEDS, it's a SEDS they call it. Then you can petition for federal government funding assistance for your infrastructure programs. If you don't have a SEDS, you don't get the preferred consideration for it. Just basically, apply or a means to compete for federal funds. Yeah, it's all about positioning for federal funds. Certainly the MTP and the SEDS are both have their federal agency requirements that help you compete for federal funds. Or in the case of the MTP, well, I think I'll get more to that when I talk about the MPO strategies. The other piece is... I want to remind this one thing if you don't mind trying. We basically support planning and that's what we do. We sometimes lose sight of that when we get down into the MTP. I mean, we are advocates of good high-quality planning by our partners and municipal organizations. When we get into MPO, I think we're more... We're in both. Our RPC and our MPO functions are support constituency support services for our member municipalities. But I think it's more towards that in the MPO portion than in the RPC part of our work. It's just bigger in the MPO side. Yeah, it is. And some other key components of the ECOS plan and NUIS is the energy plan. It's also where we document our future land use map, which is something that is kind of central to our planning for the orderly development of the region, which is really also built on municipal zoning. So it's also a place where we kind of have a map that we generalize the municipal zoning. So that's not what your zoning looks like, but if you attach all the zoning maps to each other, we look pretty close to that. Municipal plan review. So that's, I think, we have one on tonight. We often... And so here's some of the direct service on the RPC side, we provide to towns is often around their municipal plans, whether it's mapping or data. And so this is probably most of the land use technical assistance is with regard to town plans. And we have done the full range of services there, all the way to writing. I think that's extension. I think we just did quite a bit of help. This is one example in Bolton last year. And then under again under Vermont law requires us to review the planning process of each municipality at least twice during the eight year period. And so that's something that we've kind of described in that there's a guidelines document. There's a much longer name which I'm not even going to try. I don't even know if Regina can come up with that. It's so long, not even Regina. It's the guidelines for reviewing municipal plans and energy determinations and a couple other things. I think we'll go right there. Yeah. And but one part of just to point out what we've done to kind of satisfy this two reviews in eight years is say we'll sit down with your planning commission like 18 to 24 months before you're going to do your plan and kind of give you some front end, give your planning commission or your planner some just front end input particularly if there's a new state statute like we've had certainly years in the past 10 years where the legislature's added a new requirement for an economic development section of town plans that didn't exist before. So we'll be like, hey, there's a new section that's required now. Please don't forget to include that as you're updating your plan. So we do that a couple of years in advance and then we do kind of a more formal one when you have a draft. And hopefully that's more we're trying to build a system of cooperation. So hopefully we're just at that point just affirming like, okay, you did you updated those things you should update did we won't have a problem approving it when it comes to the RPC Board. And then going down one more level from plan down to like permitting stage there's a just a couple sections on Act 250 and section 248 and you see the language here again about this duty to respond to appear before the district environmental commissions about as to the conformance of developments subdivision with and it's talked about the criteria of 10 VSA with Act 250 but it's really criteria 10 which says these Act 250 applications need to be consistent with a regional plan. And so that's what and we've got some more guidance again there's a guideline document that the board's approved at the bottom there that talks about how we do that what are we looking at in our plan to get to that kind of determination. And then pretty similarly we're looking at the same kinds of things for section 248 although that has gotten a little more expanded now with these enhanced energy standards and so you see that third bullet under section 248 where we got a determination of energy compliance last year and so we're supposed to get a higher level of consideration of our recommendations with regards to whether energy project complies with our plan. Questions and so you'll see in this like in this board packet at the end of the packet was all of those letters that the Executive Committee has approved probably the last two months because it's been two months since we've had a board meeting which is why there were so many of those letters attached to this board packet. So again we still think a little bit in terms of RPC responsibilities and MPO responsibilities so these responsibilities come from more federal law as opposed to the RPC comes from state law and what is the Metropolitan Planning Organization which now I'm realizing isn't spelled out here but that's a federal federal law term that says there needs to be a representative group of local stakeholders that leads the transportation planning process metropolitan area that group which is really this board and this was formed in the early 80s by agreement of the Governor and the municipalities formed that group here which is the RPC now and it's the policymaking organization responsible for prioritizing transportation initiatives and it carries out the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process and Cooperation with E-Trans and GMT so it's federal laws very clear it's the DOT the transit agency and the municipalities through the MPO working together aren't there population thresholds and things like that laid out in federal law for an area that can be a Metropolitan Planning Organization we're the only one in Vermont yeah that's probably not a bad thing to talk about and there was some concern that maybe Hartford, Lebanon New Hampshire White River Junction area might be part of that and we have another census coming up that could be possible another thing to think about whether or not there could end up being another MPO in our state and New Hampshire you may know this better than I do but I'm fairly confident they haven't reached that urban population probably they haven't and they could also adjust the thresholds like they did last time when we did a census but we got a census coming up so it's something for us not to be completely oblivious to so Jeff is making reference to to become the federal law defines an MPO as any urbanized area which census definition is 1,000 persons per square mile that's when you hear urban that's what that generally means and if you have more than 50,000 urban population our urban population our urbanized area looks pretty similar to these colors here the pink and purple so that Jeff referred to them as core towns but it's you know Colchester Essex Winooski Zilliston South Burlington Shelburne and that's pretty much our urbanized area there's 110,000 or so people in that urbanized area so we're well above 50 but there's definitely a couple things at the federal level sometimes they talk about raising that threshold for MPO funds to 100,000 I think thankfully we'd be just over that if they did that but there are a lot of small MPOs around the country that would get impacted and then the other impact right now we're the only MPO in Vermont so we get 100% of the MPO funding if there were to be another MPO in Vermont that same pot is the same size so we would probably see a drastic planning responsibilities for both the MPO and as the RPC we have agreements with the state funded through ACCD to do a lot of that stuff plus great funding that we get but we have a planning agreement to execute a lot of our planning responsibilities the non-MPO stuff and then for the MPO we are office operations for our MPO activities are covered through filing a reasonable budget with the AOT that use the support to keep the lights on and support our staff and to execute on the planning the planning dollars for the projects that we do which is why we always like to have good productivity from our consultants so that we're making sure that the AOT understands that for the overhead that they're paying for us to have our operation we actually have product throughput going so I didn't include a slide on our budget would that be helpful or just like introductory to get a sense of those are two major sources of funding and when we talk about whether we're going to do something or not it's always is that within the purview of our agency of Congress and community development budget and is that covered by what we do for MPO or do we have to go get a grant to cover that work so I'm going to add that to the list maybe dig into a little more detail how we operate next month so basic MPO duties you may hear a reference to a 3C planning process that's continuing comprehensive cooperative and then address the 10 FAS Act so FAS Act is the federal transportation law they change the name on it every four or eight years or six or seven or some who knows whenever they pass a new one that's probably a better way to say it you're not holding your breath are you they're working on one again you know right and they don't lie to the public yeah okay and then when you see there will be items on the agenda that are referred to as MPO business items that has specific implications in terms of who gets to vote but those items just to talk about the items for a minute are the work program which gets all around annually in May the transportation improvement program which federal law says you got to do at least every four years but functionally we do it every year we typically do it in July after the legislature has gotten done approving the capital program so we kind of align things with V-trans at that time but then there's also amendments that occurred during the year so you can see one of those on tonight's agenda and then the metropolitan transportation plan we have to update every five years we just did that in 2018 again a public participation plan I mentioned earlier we've last did that in 2014 so we'll probably update that or take a look at it see if it needs to be updated pretty soon and just to dig into those a little bit more the UPWPs we're planning for the year we solicit projects around Thanksgiving time and it has to get what the municipality wants by the end of January the UPWP committee meets typically three times we kind of meet February, March, April and recommend it to the board then it goes through other committees the finance committee and executive committee and to the board you see a draft in April to vote on it in May and our fiscal year starts in July so that's just our annual real budget work program and when we talk about work program I think our work program ends up Amy who knows this better than I do probably like 190 specific tasks are on our time sheets not on each person hopefully but between the you know the 16 or 17 of us we're at some point during the year working on 190 different individual tasks that we build time to I'll get into maybe this maybe more next month but operationally we really act we don't have general fund revenue like we don't tax and people just get paid for 40 hours a week we actually operate really more as a billing I think it was as a public sector consulting agency really we have every one of those work program items typically has some sort of performance contract the biggest ones with VTrans almost two thirds of our budget but it's still a performance contract there's all these tasks that we say we're going to do for X amount of money yeah and that's what you said you wanted to do the transportation improvement program is kind of the multi-year list and this aligns quite a bit with the state's capital program but it has a specific designation that we need to approve it here at the RPC it's got to be we update it annually so here you see some of the federal requirements that are you know be updated no less frequently than two years must prioritize them and have clearly identified funding sources and so the next to last bullet is all those things in order for them to get federal funds they must be approved by the board here so you know the power there is I think it was almost a negative power you know if they're and this is really rooted in the history of MPOs why MPOs exist it's really from the 60s interstate highway you know DOT's building interstates through municipalities it didn't really want them to happen and so this is in essence more like a veto power if VTrans and this is not at all happening but if VTrans was proposing to put a road through our region the communities the local leaders did not want this is a way to say okay you can't use federal funds for that back to the 60s right hasn't happened for a while and then you may see the airport's federal funds the FAA funds listed in our tip but they're not subject to our review really so we just kind of list them for informational purposes that would be good for you now I think the other thing that's important for people to understand is that it's a constrained budget and has to fit within a certain resource allocation so that's why you can only see amendments up front because if we have to move funding around changing circumstances you know we have to actually act to make sure that the tip which becomes part of the state's transportation improvement program when we improve it with the vote from VTrans Matthew from VTrans and Christine from the RPC usually do some coordination along with Amy to make sure those things all happen hopefully they'll the MTP isn't that like the salary cap or something like that maybe all right let me get through these last couple the MTP is our long range transportation plan this also the last bullet also has to be financially constrained so even though we're looking out 20 years we'd look at what's realistic in terms of budget in terms of what we can afford here in this region as I mentioned we just updated last last year this also no projects with using federal funds can be done in this region unless they're in or consistent with our MTP this plan is kind of what you might guess it is and it's kind of a resource for how we reach out and engage with community members and there's also kind of a big focus on inclusive community engagement and doing more to reach out to community members that may not normally participate in a Tuesday night meeting and then partners I've mentioned some of these GBIC, the Chamber VHFA ACCD these are mostly like RPC side partners easy to commerce natural resources, emergency management and Department of Health and then transportation partners you'll see some of the top ones where money flows to us or through us VTrans Federal Highway, FTA and then GMT Green Mountain Transit CATMA Transportation Management Association and then Included Local Motion Car Share so some of these are probably familiar to you but we have some sort of relationship with all those organizations and then here's the Board Member Resource Page and so you know there's kind of about us if you go to that heading and go to commission and commissioners you'll see some of these training PowerPoints and handbook the bylaws responsibilities so I got kind of like doing a little bit of a deeper budget operational dive which maybe you know feel a little bit like WPW approval of seeing what we're actually working on this year maybe a little bit of how our budget works any other things, any other last year we did a little bit more deeper on the MPO well the other thing I think that's important for folks is on the back of your agenda what we're trying to do is give you a little bit of a warning about the issues that are coming up in future Board meetings so if anybody has questions I mean could talk to the staff I'm happy to talk to anybody if you don't mind potentially being a little misled not by commission but by omission or rarely happens or I might have a different take than the normal Board member on things but I take my Board Development committee assignment seriously and I believe in these orientation sections very strongly and the dinners actually get better over the course of things to try to keep you from not attending these meetings it's important that you understand the distinction between RPC things and MPO things so that for example you as one of the representatives of one of the industries you should probably understand the MPO stuff but since you don't have to vote maybe you don't have to get as deeply into that as the other plan of things and alternates we encourage beyond committees a good way to learn about what's going on and since we're we tend to be a committee-centric organization that's where all the detail stuff goes on that we don't get to talk about at the Board level and you can be a more effective Board member if you do understand the detail behind other thoughts or questions you can think of at this point that might be helpful for next month you guys are just trying to be nice alright thank you we'll take a couple minute break I have a question for Charlie thank you so next month we're going to have another one and then the month after that I guess we'll see if folks want one like I said time to get to the last one oh there you go that's what we tell you anyway you see when I looked at my pocket yeah because this happened since the packet went out yeah Wayne's going on back there getting to know board development but that was in the 9th grade we don't really need one oh no problem so we're in pretty good shape we got this plank but we don't really need it the vice chair automatically goes on how that works I didn't realize it was before I moved way across the line actually it's the most fun person to give away this I feel like that's their only job so I find it fun that's why I'm at right there thanks for coming Irvin with me I wasn't there for that one yeah I just stole the cards I just stole the cards I just stole the cards I'm glad to see that I'm a machine oh excellent thank you Michael Bryan do you want to just take the lead on the presentation questions you want to come through me Okay, we'll call this meeting to order and the first item is public changes to the agenda. I'm sorry. There are any changes to tonight's agenda. Seeing none, we'll move on to public comment period for items not on tonight's agenda. Anyone from the public want to address the board? Seeing no one, move on. Next is action on consent agenda and we have one item, so I'm looking for a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Just for new members that may not be aware when there's a consent agenda, we have no discussion. If we want it pulled for discussion, we can pull it and make it an action item, but otherwise we do what we just did. Okay, minutes of July 17, 2019 meeting. Looking for a motion to approve? So moved. Catherine, is there a second? Second. Second by Jeff. Any comments? Jeff? The minutes note that the S-extruction is absent on the second alternate for S-extruction and I was here. Okay. There's a recorded vote on the NPO business that also reflected that I was here and I voted in the affirmative. We need to go around the room because it was in there. Right. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Seeing nothing, all in favor of the motion to approve the minutes, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes passed. Next item, Burlington International Airport Draft Noise Compatibility Plan. You have Nick Longo here from the airport. Nick is going to do the presentation and I think Nick you said you'd like to have a conversation type thing. So if you have questions you just have Nick respond. It will be that. Okay. Good. It will be. Everybody huddle around. Over here. There you go. Oh, excellent. Thank you, Charlie. Thank you, Mike. Thank you again. My name is Nick Longo. I'm the Deputy Director of Aviation at the Burlington International Airport. Before I jump right into the noise exposure map and thank you for the invite, Charlie and Michael, at any time if the board wishes to hear updates from the Burlington Airport, Larry Lackey is sitting over there as our Director of Engineering and I would be very happy to present some of our capital improvements and capital plans moving forward. In fact, I can't give too much information because it's not public yet, but we are in preparation to receive one of our largest grants in the history of the airport this week from the federal government, which will help some of the geometry issues that we have out on the airfield. So again, I'd be happy to present that tonight though I was asked to give a brief update on our noise exposure map, more specifically our noise compatibility program. There's a lot of acronyms and a lot of things that I might quickly throw in there, so please stop me if I say those too often or if you're not sure what I'm referring to. And again, I'd love to have a conversation versus a presentation, so if there is a question as I move along, please feel free to stop me if the chair is okay with that. So what I refer to in all of this noise programs that we handle at the airport is what's called Part 150 for short, and that's really just a short name for where it comes from in the federal regulations, 14 CFR Part 150. There's multiple parts to that, and I'm going to get into that in just a second. I just wanted to give you a brief overview of where the history has been over the last decade or so and where of course we're going to go. This is actually a very appropriate week to have this conversation. Tomorrow the F-35A aircraft are going to be landing at the Burlington Airport, which is one of the reasons, one of the primary reasons that the new noise exposure map was produced very recently. You can see there, I won't go through the list there, but we've actually been doing our Part 150 program for a few decades, but over the last 10 years we've updated what we call our Noise Compatibility Program, or NCP for short, and most recently this year we published our latest noise exposure map. Yes, absolutely. What is a Part 150 noise study? I just wanted to start with that history, because great question, because right away it kind of breaks down to those different aspects of the Part 150 process. In this context I'm going to break it down into two parts. One is that noise compatibility part, excuse me, one, and the first thing that is completed is our noise exposure map, which is just an actual map depicting contour lines of average decibel levels around the airport. Followed by that map is what's called a noise compatibility program, or what to do within those contour lines on that map. That Part 150 is broken down into those two aspects. What is a noise exposure map? I briefly went through that, so that is what you see in the picture there, and it is a land use map that has contour lines broken down, required by FAA, broken down into certain decibel levels or average decibel levels. The picture shows a little bit more than that, and I do have very large pictures as we go forward in the presentation, so you can see the latest noise exposure map that we published recently, which includes all aircraft at the airport, but I think for most people the F35A aircraft is included in that latest addition of the noise exposure map. Yes, sir? Could you define what an average sound level might be? Does that average, for example, a condition where no planes are landing or taking off with time when a plane is landing or taking off, or how is that computed? Yeah, absolutely. So great question. So the average noise is a weighted average over a 24-hour period, and there are some penalties, if you will, after a certain time and before a certain time in the morning. For example, that 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., there's a penalty on that average 24-hour weighted definition. I actually have it somewhere in here, and there it is. So you can see here, kind of in a graphical depiction, taking all of those single events of noise over that 24-hour period on the right-hand side there. Anything occurring beyond 10 p.m. before 7 a.m. gets that 10-decibel penalty and then is averaged over that 24-hour period to come up with. What you generally read about is the 65, 70, or 75 dB DNL, which DNL stands for that day-night level average. And 10 decibels is a doubling of the sound, right? Yeah, it's generally a two-fold or doubling of that sound. Yeah, your slide before is a 10-fold. What did I just say, two-fold? Well, in the line item bullet point, it's a 10-fold. Yeah, the opposite. Double the decibels is 10 times the sound. Right, the 10-fold. What did I say, two-fold? Well, is it 10 times, or is it two times? That's the penalty, I think. Well, we understand the penalty. 10 decibel increase is generally a significant increase. So I don't know exactly what the times is, but it's a significant increase in the decibel levels. But it's not 10-fold. That's 10 decibels. Yes, that's what I'm pointing out. It should read 10 decibel penalty. Thank you. All right, and there you go. This actually answered your question a little bit better on what that day-night sound level is and what those contour levels, which I think we've already discussed a little bit. This is a requirement of the FAA, so FAA requires those three contour lines to be displayed on the land use map, the 65, 70, and the 75. And I'll show that in more detail in just one sec. And as long as we're talking on the FAA requirements, Nick, what triggers an NEM and or an NCP? Great question, yeah. How often do they need to be renewed? I mean, we're under, you know, for our ECOS plan, you know, we update it on set schedules. So how does this happen? Yeah, very similar. We generally plan for it, of course, financially in a set schedule, typically around every five years. The FAA likes to at least confirm every five years that the operations of the airport are accurate to what our noise exposure map depicts. So generally every five years. Now when there's a significant change in the operation at the airport, whether that's a commercial operation, a new tenant maybe that comes in and is starting operating more commercial or private aircraft, or in our case, when a new military aircraft arrives and is flying out of the airport, then it justifies a new noise exposure map to be updated. And again, this is the requirement of the FAA to confirm the actual operations of this airport. So there isn't a set time, but the practice has been five years other than change of operations. The FAA likes to see typically every five years. And then does that, by its nature, the NEM trigger an NCP following on? Not necessarily. So typically the NCP might follow multiple noise exposure map additions or changes. No time frame for when that has to change or be updated. Right, right. However, in our particular case, we, meaning the city of Burlington and the Burlington International Airport, as well as the community members and the leadership around the airport, logically removing all of the incompatible land uses, which in other words, removing the residential land uses, is not really a viable option, nor do we want to see that happen. So in our existing noise exposure map, which we got approval, received approval in 2008 from the FAA, most of the removal of incompatible land uses was actual demolition of the house. So this is why we also, this year into next, want to revise our noise compatibility program for the other programs that I'm going to outline in just a few minutes. Did that answer your question? I think so. So just a recap of where we are on our noise exposure map. Most of this is already completed. You can see most of this calendar is from 2018 into the back half of 2019. We're generally just past that orange bar there into the lower final column and finishing our noise exposure map. We had multiple public hearings, one at the airport, one actually right down the road at the O'Brien Community Center a few months ago. We compiled some comments from those public hearings as well as received about a 30-day comment period. Now what we're doing is completing the noise exposure map, which is not just the maps itself. As with many planning documents, there's a significant amount of effort behind those maps and the document itself is quite extensive going into the details of how the map is produced and why it was changed. We're actually within days now of submitting this final noise exposure map to the FAA. The FAA reviews some of the technicalities of it and accepts that as our new noise exposure map. Once that's published in the Federal Register and the FAA accepts it, that becomes the official noise exposure map of the airport and then the noise compatibility program follows on what to do with those contour lines. Now currently is the map based upon modeling or actual measurements and is that going to change over time? Great question. All of our noise exposure maps are produced with modeling, computer modules as required by FAA. For example, we don't have the F35A aircraft here. So we have to model that in a computer software system which is the only way the FAA accepts these noise exposure maps. We produce multiple maps. We produce an existing condition map which of course is not going to have many military aircraft. Our map was as of the end of 2018 and was during the drawdown of the F16s and then we produce a five-year future forecast and that one of course is going to show the full compilation of the F35A aircraft operating per the Air National Guard in the Department of Defense. And then at some point is it going to convert from assumed values for the F35A to actual measured values? No, it's always going to be a computer model which is the way that the FAA accepts these maps. However, one year after full deployment of the F35s as we had the conversation earlier we typically redo our maps every five years but one year after the F35s arrive so full F35s arrive by the end of next year, so 2020. First arrival tomorrow, all 20 of them are going to be arrived by the end of 2020. One year after that, so 2021, we're going to update this noise exposure map with actual operational data, actual radar data to confirm or edit if we need to these noise exposure and we'll do the same thing. We'll have an existing conditions map and then a future forecast for that time period. When it goes to the updating, I think there's been conversations with South Burlington about 24-hour noise monitoring in the airport. Is that something that is going to be accelerated or is still out of option? Well, that's a hard one to fund from the FAA, the actual 24-hour monitoring because these are the only regulated maps that they'll accept so that we can apply for federal funding to mitigate. Right, and I'm just wondering if under the umbrella of the FAA funding with 150 whether that, yes, we understand they accept only computer modeling but for the purposes of your NCP can that money be crept in under the NCP? Of actual sound monitoring. Which I think an issue and would be valuable beyond the computer modeling. To confirm, you know, geographically. As far as going measure, it just seems like it's been completely missed and it's needed and it's been identified as being needed for the last five years. It's just a question of who's going to pay for it and how it can be implemented. You certainly have done studies with these consultants in which you've paid them to go around and put plant listing measures for them and you've got metadata out there for actual readings. But to have that in a more digestible format would be very helpful. It seems like whatever we had before was out there but it wasn't presented in a way that you could easily pull the data together and see what it represented. And that just probably was a measure of the fact that you didn't have the dollars to have people pull together that data and do it. Or maybe they didn't want that data out there. I don't know. But it would be helpful if it was a little more transparent and we had some real numbers to look at rather than the computer modeling. Although the computer modeling has been good for weather I think people would just like to kick the tires. And that would be an extensive study because relative to your geographic location it would take an extensive amount of resources, time and effort to put those documents together. There was a test done a few years ago which the data wasn't really used for the FAA it was used for their studying for my knowledge to incorporate into these computer modules and again it's difficult for my understanding also to receive federal grants to actually monitor that noise because again the FAA is looking for these planning these land use maps and these computer modeled contour maps so that we can apply for federal grant funding to mitigate or to do whatever the noise compatibility program outlines. So it would be extensive, we have heard that in the past we have played around with it in our noise compatibility program in the past and potentially in the future but we're also trying to give the most tools and the most financial means of applying for federal grants to mitigate the noise within those contour lines. Do you have some sense of definition of extensive resources? I don't, both financially and staff wise and consultant wise as well as it would be difficult to actually receive the federal funding if that's even eligible. Yeah I was really going when you say it's going to be extensive which means expensive, I'm after like what's expensive mean. Yeah I don't know that right now but we can look into it a little bit more. Our goal though is to access federal funding to help mitigate the residents within that area. In this contour line. I don't live in South Burlington but the one time I heard in F-35 I didn't know what it was, I live in Richmond which is pretty far away and I heard a really loud unusual noise and walked outside my house to figure out what it was and as it turned out it was in F-35. So I'm thinking the residents who are close by might be interested in actual experience and not only average but maybe peak decibel values. As opposed to average computer models. I mean if I live near the airport that's probably how I do it. Again it's all relative to where you live right and both terrain wise geographically and proximity to the airport. I think that's where I was getting at the extensive part of actually studying peak noise at a particular residence because your neighbor or the one behind you is going to experience something different. And yeah. I have a question about the schedule here. You had public comment over the summer on the noise exposure map and I got asked by one of the city managers like how do they know if the comments were accepted or part of the map? Is there anything that they could review before you send it into the FAA? We're going to publish that on our website and every original comment is part of our actual document. Every email comment is part of our document too. And then if there was edits that would need to be based on comments or what not those are incorporated and or answered. We're also going to have a table format answering any questions or similar questions grouped together which will also be available on our website. And this is mostly just about what's on the map of making sure the public facilities and things. So if they commented like oh you're missing a school that got added to the map. Absolutely yeah because we want to make sure whether there's an in-house daycare or a new use of a building whether it's municipal owned or privately owned is incorporated in the map because that will eventually determine the eligibility of it. Before I move on to NEM excuse me the NCP noise compatibility program any more questions on the noise exposure map? All right so the next step for this part 150 is to complete a noise compatibility program. We've been working with what we've classified as a technical advisory committee for approximately one year. This committee is made up of RPC as well as local leadership from the municipality surrounding the airport school districts and it really outlines again what the NCP is going to detail or what we want to do within those contour lines. What federal effort and federal eligibility is there to access funding to mitigate the noise within those contour lines. We've determined a few items as part of that NCP process which I'll get to in just a few slides and that technical advisory committee has helped out tremendously on kind of formulating those ideas. The NCP will also be published another public hearing will occur later this year and another public comment period will be opened up for residents. One of the things we've heard time and time again from the FAA is while it's extremely important that we hear from the municipalities and the planning, the RPC, it is just as if not even more important to hear from the actual residents or incompatible land uses within the area. So we're going to have an extensive outreach to make sure that the residents within this contour are aware of what the next steps are or aware of what we're proposing as mitigation efforts and we continue to propose additional items so that residents don't have to choose just a single mitigation effort but there's multiple items that they may be able to choose from. Again Nick, if the residents in their comments suggested as Bard just pointed out that they'd like to know what's the incidence of peak noise and the impact of peak noise and that's not available in the computer modeling or maybe it is. How is that going to be made available or can $300,000 for a setup of that kind of monitoring we talked about be implemented as part of the noise compatibility program? I believe it can. Yeah, I believe it can. It can be a recommendation in the NCP. It may delay things based on federal funding first being used for a sound monitoring system versus being put into let's say a sound insulation program for residential houses but it absolutely could be a recommendation within our noise compatibility program and if those are the comments that we receive then we'll absolutely address them and put those into the plan if necessary. Here's our NCP as of the beginning of this year. Again, we've been working with our advisory committee for quite some time. We are just in the October 2019 timeframe which is this diamond right here which is just about ready to publish and distribute a draft noise compatibility program. Tomorrow night is one of our technical advisory committees and potentially our last advisory committee to wrap up those proposed mitigation efforts. Like I said, after that we'll publish the actual document itself and the recommendations within that document and open up a public comment period with a public hearing. Respond to those comments and submit those final NCP comments to the FAA. The FAA by regulation is this big green bar at the bottom has 180 days to review and approve each individual mitigation effort whether it's physical sound monitoring or sound insulation measures or the other ones that I'm going to go through in a second. So our hope is by summer of next year we'll have a fully approved noise compatibility program so we can immediately access federal funds. And here's the proposed mitigation efforts that we've outlined not only with the FAA as we continue our planning efforts with them but also with our advisory committee and with the leadership of the municipality surrounding the airport. Sound insulation has been a very positive measure to move forward. Many of the local municipalities have agreed that they definitely want to offer this program. Sound insulation encompasses a acoustical testing of that property. If they are within the federal threshold which is an interior noise level of 45 decibels then they are average decibels then they would qualify for sound insulation package which generally consists of new windows, new doors. If you think of sound as also a efficiency or energy efficiency item your first weak points in the house could be the windows and the doors and that's where we would start with this so that it would be reduced to that federal threshold which the FAA outlines and regulates down to the 45 dB DNL. Nick, how would I know if I qualify for the interior noise level? Again, do I have to have direct noise measurements or if I'm within the 65 dBA line contour am I automatically eligible or does somebody actually have to come and take a measurement in my home? A little bit of both. I'll use the Chamberlain Elementary School as an example. They are within the 65 dBDNL line of this new map and also the previous version of the map which was approved in 2015. That doesn't automatically make them eligible for sound insulation but it brings it to the next step which is that acoustical testing. We performed an acoustical test of the school. Their interior noise levels were above that threshold and therefore they did not qualify for a sound insulation package. A little bit different and we can get into the school a little bit later with a residential house we generally do a sample size based on where you are in the actual contour line and what type of construction your house is. From that sample size the FAA is going to have to approve what that sample size is. We would determine which houses would be part of that pilot program to do the surveys and if those surveys are completed in the houses that we survey do meet this threshold and are eligible for sound insulation then all of the houses within that contour band would be eligible. Like our property appraisals. You said the noise in the school was above but you meant below, right? It was quieter than the 45? It was direct. It was quieter than the 45. It was not over the 45. So if I live in a house and I'm eligible for acoustical windows and doors am I also eligible for air conditioning? Not necessarily, no. I mean in the summertime you need to open your windows. Right, because this is an interior noise level reduction. The FAA has kind of shifted away from the air conditioning and I'm going to look at Diane Carter now because she's more of a, and you can come up here too, Diane. Diane Carter is from the Jones Payne Group hired by the airport. They're one of the teams that are with the airport and have done these programs all over the country and Diane would be able to answer that question much better than I. Thanks. Hi. Yes, so if a home qualifies for sound insulation then there would be some type of ventilation package if there is not currently central air conditioning. We've been doing that in the region to provide that because the expectation is you're keeping your windows and doors closed to block the noise out. One other question. If it's a renter in a home but the owner of the house would have to participate. Correct. Correct. And that's very similar to the school as well so like I said they did not qualify for the sound insulation however to keep your windows and doors closed they did qualify for a positive ventilation system which is that HVAC air conditioning system and that's one of the programs that we're working with the school district on now. I was going to ask how do you handle maintenance of that? I mean this package is great but 10 years down the road 15 years down the road the air conditioning may not be working so well. The windows are starting to get a little loose and rattly. Do you have anything set up to help there or? We don't. The FAA does not pay for maintenance or upkeep of those items. There's a very large discussion nationally about aging product. When the work is done you get a one year warranty contractors warranty and the products themselves are warranted. The windows and doors 10, 20 year warranties if there's some failures. But routine maintenance on an air conditioning system would be the responsibility of the homeowner. And as we did with the school and it might not be as comprehensive with residential properties we performed an analysis of what could potentially be installed and what the ongoing energy costs of that system could be as well as the life of the system and some of those maintenance costs so that the owner of the property or in this case the school district can make those decisions on what they want to move forward with because the maintenance costs would not be eligible. Could you define or describe an aviation easement? It's a term which I am unfamiliar. So an aviation easement there are a variety of them but it's basically and the airport for sound insulation is not recommending an aviation easement so there will be no easement for sound insulation but it is an agreement that the homeowner will give up their rights for the air space over their home. It can be for noise only or you will see them for light, emissions, dust. We can have easements for obstructions but again for the sound insulation there is going to be no easement required. So that first bullet has not changed? Correct, yeah. And will the school be looked at again at the end of 2020 when you have your F-35s and more fuller operation I suspect the study, the acoustical study was done last year? It was done modeling F-35 as the noise source. Yeah. Which is the only way the FAA really likes it. Is there more to the potential land use measures in this slide? Yes. There is another slide? Yes. Good, okay. But I guess from having been on that TAC committee the last time I was there which I probably have missed a meeting I did not think that the airport was interested in doing more purchase and demolition but I am seeing it here now. Is that a recent change that has got added back in? That is a difficult one. So what we will be recommending in our NCP is any property within or greater than the 75 DMO? Okay. So still within those 75? Right. Because the sound insulation packages they are not eligible for those higher than they are not effective, right? And the more important bullet point may be the last one that you talk about building the hotels there in the south end of the airport parking terminal. There you have both land reuse and sound buffer in one package. It would seem to be the best value at the north end of the parking garage not necessarily the south end. And you are right. So I guess I missed the context of that. So building new buildings is a natural way of There has been suggestions that the land has been zoned residential and the homes were bought and demolished. And they cannot be used for residential again. And yet the best buffer for sound is walls oftentimes which doesn't seem to be very attractive for the noise issue or for the people driving around the airport. It is a very lovely view and all the folks in the neighborhood have asked for just make our streets skirt our neighborhoods so we can have an intact neighborhood. I don't think they have been asking for walls because they probably enjoy walking out there when the planes aren't flying and enjoying the view and everything that goes with it. But the nature of a hotel can provide jobs within walking distance. It can provide a sound buffer. Yes it might also block the view as much as a wall would but it seems like it would be more economically attractive to create a commercial district along the airport perimeter that would buffer the neighborhood. It would pull the street and traffic away out of the neighborhood and then also do the sound barrier thing and reuse the land. I love the way you're thinking. We have that conversation with your colleagues in South Burlington as well. One of the third part of a Part 150 study which I haven't gone into. I talk about it a little bit in that last bullpoint there is a land reuse study. We do that occasionally because we need to show the FAA what we're doing with the land that we purchased with federal funds. In our latest land reuse study it was a transportation network adjustment to those roads, realigning the roads, creating more opportunity to build buildings which would be that sound buffer and also creating green space that would remain a noise buffer between those two land uses, airport land use and residential land use. So that's something we continue to advocate for and we do want to move forward with money. This is always a difficult part of this for any part of it because we're not the jurisdiction that controls the transportation network there. Do you say federal funds you're talking about? You got it. Absolutely. The super fund which as you fly you'll get taxed and those going to the FAA funds. We talked a little about a land acquisition, sound buffers and barriers. We've heard from the neighbors or rather the communities that this may be a potential but I kept it in here because I wanted to talk about how it's not necessarily as impactful and effective to the residents behind there. You're talking about the sound buffer? The sound buffer or a barrier or a wall. Obviously anything in height next to an airport is not necessarily compatible to what our mission is and it doesn't effectively remove that or mitigate that noise. It may help with ground level noise but as you know aircraft don't always stay on the ground so it's not going to be the most impactful mitigation effort as part of this program. Further if we were to move forward with a barrier of some sort the folks on the other side of the barrier potentially won't be eligible for any other option that we're proposing here and we want to make sure the FAA has told us time and time again that this really is the homeowners decision on what they choose so we don't want to create something that eliminates a homeowner or multiple homeowners from being eligible for other scenarios. These are going to be our new ones that you may have heard of but yet somewhat more complicated. Sales assistance we're going to keep into the recommendations. However we've heard from leadership from the municipalities that it's not as favorable versus the purchase assurance. Real quick sales assistance is just that the homeowner or the property owner would put their house or property on the open market. The airport would do a fair market value appraisal and the homeowner is guaranteed that fair market of fair market value of the house. There's no sound insulation package put into the house it's just a guarantee that the homeowner walks away with that fair market value. This one does require navigation easement as well in exchange for the difference in fair market value and the sale of the house. Purchase assurance is a little bit different so again we do a fair market value appraisal of the house. The property owner sells that house directly to the airport. We buy the house we sound to insulate the house and then we put the house back on the open market. Navigation. This one also requires a navigation easement in exchange for that process. Again similar in the way that the homeowner will walk away with a fair market value sale of the house. The difference is there's some investment into the housing stock with the purchase assurance with sound insulation for that property. For the next buyer. Any questions on those two? Those are definitely unique to us. This is the first time we've ever proposed these two particular noise measures. Pretty unique in the New England region as well. So it's again we've been working with the FAA for many many years now on starting to offer these programs and we're going to continue to propose these and look for feedback as we go to public comment and we look at these very favorably to be offered. Again just more tools in the tool bag so to speak for a homeowner to choose something that best fits their situation. Easement acquisition is also on the chart there. That's a simple exchange for an easement in exchange for cash. That's something we're not going to be recommending. It's of course a very simple transaction but again it doesn't invest into the community or the housing stock. So we've heard from leadership around the area that that's something that just doesn't fit into what we're trying to produce but I wanted to present that to you just as one of the measures that we've talked about in our presentation. I'm going to start with Regine. Do you have a question? Essentially the new homeowner understands that these noise levels are high and they're choosing to buy the house anyway so there's no actual abatement of the noise in the homeowner. Correct. Which is why we're not in favor of that as well as the other municipalities. There's no sound insulation that goes into the house at all. There's been a relocation or something and the house has been acoustically tested and it wouldn't be eligible for sound insulation. So we wouldn't be able to put any treatments in it. We know it's already considered compatible from an interior noise level. And the final one there on the list is a real estate disclosure. We'll continue to work with the community. They do have a real estate disclosure now within the entire environmental impact statement which was produced by the Air National Guard a few years ago and we'll continue to work with them on making sure that that still is disclosed through the area. Which I can give any of you a copy if you're interested. Did I say it right? So that's really it. This is our noise exposure map. Let me start with a simpler one. This is our future forecast of our noise exposure map or what we call the 2023 future conditions. There's three contour bands on that map. You have your inner contour band right here which is the 75 average decibel level. Your 70 contour. And then the outer band is the 65. We are somewhere over here right now for context. Actually, here we go. We've seen it but yeah somewhere over here. West Canal. So this is obviously a zoomed in picture of the Winooski area. This is all on our website too. We dive into it. There's also an interactive map on our website btvsound.com that you can enter individual addresses in and it'll pop a little pin on the address so you can see exactly where you are on the contour within the contour area. This is a few contour lines on there. I just wanted to show you some historical perspective as well as a few different noise maps that were produced over the years. I'll start with this outside black line. This is the 2013 published map that the Air National Guard produced as part of their environmental impact statement. This red line is what we just looked at which is our 2023 future forecast which does have the full F-35 deployment in here as well as of course all aircraft at the airport. This blue contour line is what we call our existing conditions map. Again this was produced during in fact the latter half of the drawdown of the F-16 operations so this was not all F-16s operating at the airport. However this orange map which was published in 2015 was our existing condition map at the time in 2015 and that does show all 18 F-16s operating at the airport. That was a 65 decibel level? All of those are the 65 decibel and sorry I'm going real fast here. Here's the same map just zoomed in on South Burlington side. This is the west side of the airport. This blue square is the Chamberlain Elementary School with Wilson Road coming in here. Airport Drive, White Street Parkway. All 65 DNL lines. Orange line is all F-16s operating. This red line is with all F-35s operating. And the blue line is the old one and I see a lot of those gray little parcels. Those are all properties that you acquire that are now owned by the airport. Yep the blue line is actually our existing condition line and yes anything colored in this large gray color in here is property owned by the Burlington airport. And those were acquired as part of the old programs over the last few decades. The less of an impact into South Burlington correct with all the F-16s and it will be with the F-35s? Correct so this red line is the 2023 F-35 if you will contour line. The F-16 line so it did decrease in the city of South Burlington on both sides. Again how much of the data reflects their normal military power versus the afterburner power when the facts are that it's going to change. It changed for the F-16 the historical data we have already for the F-35 says it's going to be taking off at a louder rate than it is being promised to us at the moment and I'm sure all the data that's reflected in there goes oh 5% afterburner 95% military power that's exactly what it does and that's not going to be the case. We've received confirmation from the DOD as well as the Air National Guard that that is the case of course if it changes I completely understand where you're coming from obviously the F-16 map has changed over time and the map will change over time based on certain type of aircraft coming into the airport if that happens a new noise exposure map will be produced. To be fair and honest the community and everybody involved I think the monitoring might describe before in South Burlington is asked for and I'm sure Winniski and Williston if they haven't asked for it before will be asking for it soon because they're going to be more directly affected with the over flying on their territory ours is lateral it's going to be a way to make sure that things stay current we don't have to wait until 2021 to find out oh my god I must have missed something because it's to my experience it's kind of common knowledge that the F-35s are louder than the F-16s can you explain why when you shift from F-16s to F-35s the envelope that decibel level shrinks I don't understand again just on the east and west side note that it really extends you know lengthwise significantly so this orange line is all F-16 operating this red line is all F-35s operating they must be so fast aren't they staying on the ground and if you think of this think of this as a 3D model if you will when an aircraft departs using an F-16 for example using significant afterburner use they were departing fast and departing at a much higher elevation at this point at the airfield then where the F-35 is not going to be using the afterburners as much and departing elongated in the airport so at the same point over in this area F-16 was much higher F-35 will be more like a commercial Harley-Davidson versus Kawasaki right and as seeing this map and seeing the really new contours and impacts in Willison in particular it makes me wonder now about the noise capability program not including anything for new developments in those areas in terms of I guess maybe just seller disclosure but nothing for them to mitigate when they're developing yeah and that's something we've discussed with the municipalities on putting into their zoning or building codes if they have any and that's something we'll continue to do as well we'd like to see the jurisdictions put in something into their development codes that require some type of acoustical package when they're building new structures to make sure that those homes are as quiet as they can be the FAA has a policy that it will not fund the mitigation of homes that were built if the home was built inside of a noise contour so if there was an apartment complex built and when it was built it was in the contour it's yeah but can you go back to how you characterize that real estate piece and the NCP the real estate disclosure the ease of acquisition for new development so you said you're not going to get there you're not going to get an easement on new development but you are asking the local jurisdictions to put in some requirements property owner needs to have eyes wide open I mean and I'm not so worried about single family homes but I mean we're certainly getting a lot of apartment buildings and condo development particularly in Winooski I don't know in Wilson there's there is some single family neighborhoods but it's not I don't know that there's much redevelopment happening there I have a question go ahead I mean this goes to energy efficiency I was just curious since for new development we're asking for higher levels of energy efficiency is that going to help those buildings as well for the sound as well as yeah absolutely including the sound insulation program as well so not only on new development that is built after the maps here being eligible for any one of the energy efficiency programs but as we move forward with sound insulation or the combination of the other programs that we talked about we're also discussing that with Vermont Gas and efficiency Vermont making sure we kind of package things together or work with them so as we perform some work in these residential houses potentially there's some programs that they could start offering at the same time because you're right this is while the intent and the FAA's intent is of course not to create an energy efficient house but rather reduce the interior noise levels it's very very close together that we really can combine those efforts because with the modern heat pump you get heating and cooling exactly no great thought anything else for Nick Mike can I ask Nick came to the transportation advisory committee a couple weeks ago and essentially did the same presentation one of the things that you talked about you haven't got to hear but I think it was an interesting then was how are you going to prioritize the homes that will get the sound mitigation there's lots of homes in that zone there's only so much money how are you going to go about deciding yeah great question Peter again it's not going to be this is a small fine print it's not going to be entirely up to us on how we prioritize as it is regulated by the FAA however there's been discussion that many of the low income or multifamily houses potentially in the Winooski area or other areas may potentially have a higher priority the reason I started with the small fine print in there is because generally the FAA wants to see us the airport working as close to the airport in proximity and then slowly working our way out especially if noise contours change in the future which they will and they do and we've all seen them change so it in our next step is really to produce an implementation plan which is really going to define and bring at the FAA more into the conversation on how we can prioritize higher density areas which may include the lower income as well into a higher prioritization again it's something that we still need to plan for and write the documentation for and of course receive federal approval before we can move that forward crafts a couple of money questions when in the last cycle as you were doing property acquisition and the demolitions I assume you had applied FAA for grant money I assume there's probably a local match how much, what's a percent match 10% was that entirely funded by the airport in the city of Wellington previously it was so as we as we invested in these acquisitions of this area we did support that with a 10% match we still again in the implementation plan but we don't have these programs approved yet so as we have the further discussions we will have to discuss the municipalities on where that 10% local match will come from so it's not characterized in noise and then help me with sequencing for applying for FAA grant money if you approve this plan you send it to the FAA at the end of the calendar year let's say they approve it in January can you apply for funds right after that we can the fiscal year but I guess I was really asking you kind of mentioned doing an implementation plan do you submit your implementation plan is the funding request almost we don't technically have to have an approved implementation plan this is something that we really need because this is a big project so we've asked the FAA to help us move that forward to really define how to implement this and how prioritization is and how homeowners can get involved and where they can communicate to us and our consultants we're really hoping that concurrently with the FAA's review that 180-day time frame that will also have an implementation plan to publish and then start applying for funding immediately after we get that approval I'm anticipating the conversation with the neighbor municipalities and I'm inviting Mash to be I don't know how productive that will be but interesting anyway interesting challenging maybe yeah because I think yeah that's a hard one for municipalities to feel like they contribute to something that isn't they didn't make the impact right so that's going to be a hard challenge I agree it's going to be a difficult conversation across the board and for us as well because we want to do everything that we financially can help with as well this is a very big program and it's going to take many years to fully implement and I think that's really where those planning efforts and those conversations need to be had not only on the physical implementation but also the financial part of it as well so we can continue to be successful anything else thank you Nick thank you very much I'm with Diane please feel free to follow up with Diane or myself if you have any questions thank you for the invite thank you thanks for coming okay let's move on to nothing to see here nothing to see here how are you doing you want to join us at the table did I ask too many questions no I was watching the news before I was coming over okay we're going to move on to the next agenda item green mountain transit asset management plan and targets John good evening thank you so want to talk a little bit tonight about our transit asset management plan this is a federal transit administration requirement for all transit properties to produce our board adopted this back November of 18 there's also a requirement for the MPO to adopt our measures or create their own so this is an action item that we'll speak about after or Peter will so just want to give a quick overview of what the plan is and some of the requirements so essentially a transit asset management plan is a plan and really a program to maximize the utilization out of public transit assets so it's a strategic and systematic practice of buying operating maintaining and replacing capital assets so it looks at the complete life cycle of our assets and then it really supports the managing of the performance of those assets minimizing the risks and then trying to be as cost efficient over the life cycle of that asset what the overall goal of providing safe cost effective and reliable public transit services in our area so there's a lot of benefits that an asset management plan can create it's essentially working smarter and trying to like I said maximize investment in our capital assets can reduce risk and improve safety by reducing injuries support more effective operations in a couple different ways but from a funding standpoint and a spending standpoint it's always cheaper to be proactive and try to predict issues opposed to being reactive and having downtime on buses and other vehicles improve reliability and customer service so we can minimize our on-road maintenance issues much higher on-time performance and reliability standard can also improve the passenger experience by having cleaner more presentable vehicles and bus stations and bus stops and then also can save time money and resources optimizing return on investment and then again reducing the cost over the life cycle of the asset with some proactive management measures so there's a list of requirements in the plan these are all fairly new requirements so we're continually looking at our plan and program this is the first year that we're kind of reporting the FTA on the progress of our plan and then we will also look at redeveloping goals and measures as we move along so the first requirement obviously was to create the plan and then going forward we'll have to maintain and update it the FTA wants to see an update generally speaking every four years but it certainly can be done sooner than that depending on the situation knowing that this is a new plan for us we'll look this fiscal year at updating it with some of the goals and the measures there's a coordination requirement with VTRANS and then the regional planning agencies so we've worked with VTRANS on this and then of course we're here tonight for the MPO discussion there's a self-certification requirement during our grant making process which we've done and then there's some annual reporting through the national transit database which is the FTA program so we submit the annual data report including our targets how we kind of measured up to those targets and then also an ongoing update of our inventories our fleet inventories and equipment inventories and the the condition assessments at the time of the report we also have to submit an annual narrative report in addition to some of those measurements to the NTD and then also participate in oversight during the triennial review which GMT is subject to every three years from the FTA and then a state management review for our rural properties which is conducted through VTRANS so that's kind of the auditing aspect of the plan in the program so in terms of the targets the FTA kind of defines what the targets are and then we develop the measurements to see how we're doing so for rolling stock at GMT just buses the target is the age of the vehicle same for the equipment which is maintenance and non-revenue vehicles and then for the facilities there's a condition rating it's called the term scale and that's both for support facilities for maintenance and administration and then passenger facilities like our downtown transit center those are all applicable to these scoring measures so in terms of the performance measures the targets are kind of identified we have to create the measures so that top graphic hard to read but kind of shows that process so essentially for our rolling stock revenue vehicles our buses and for our non-revenue vehicles and our maintenance equipment we've selected the measure of being the percentage of vehicles that have reached their ULB which is their useful life benchmark essentially their useful life cycle we've selected years as the kind of indicator of that for our revenue vehicles there is some leeway that the FTA grants of the local jurisdiction kind of selects what the useful life benchmark is we've initially used 12 and the reason for that is the FTA if you're using federal dollars to purchase a full size transit bus for 12 years part of the goal with this is that we can extend that useful life benchmark to 13 or 14 years to try to again do more with less funding the biggest consideration in terms of extending that in our climate is the body of the vehicles we typically do a midlife overhaul in the engines to extend the mechanical side of it but once the body starts to corrode it's cost prohibitive in a lot of times to extend so using 12 to start but that may be extended hopefully in the future partially based on the efficiency of this plan and then in terms of how we're doing so for our rolling stock thankfully we had a fairly large influx of new buses in the last 18 months so only 7% of our 66 Burlington based bus fleet is over that 12 year mark which is well under our goal of 20% out of our non-revenue vehicles and our maintenance equipment 77% are actually over that useful life benchmark again we are looking at adjusting some of those life cycle time frames so that would bring that number down but again the purpose of this plan is to also prioritize investments so this certainly speaks that we need to prioritize investment in some of our non-revenue vehicles the other piece of it is rating our facilities so we have three main facilities in Chittenden County our main admin and maintenance facility on Queen City Park Road in Burlington a storage facility right next door and then our downtown transit center our goal is to have all facilities at a 3.0 condition or better as you can see from the three existing facilities our storage building is under that so again that is an area that we have already programmed into our capital budget to prioritize some investment in getting that building up to scale I guess in terms of where we want it question so you are going to put these benchmarks together and the FTA you are going to submit it to the FTA is there some sort of audit process from them to sort of hold you to your benchmarks and the reason I bring that up is typical management what you are looking at here is you have got a public facing end which is the buses people ride on you have got a back facing end which is your own vehicles for maintenance and whatever and it is very typical that the people in charge you are going to want to put the money on the out facing not the in facing and the in facing always lags behind I mean it is kind of universal how that works is this an effort on the part of the FTA to sort of evolve that so more money gets spent outside of that how you do business so that is a great question we had a triennial review last year so we will not have another one for two years so the auditing will be through that triennial review what the ramifications will be of not meeting our own set internal goals I guess is unknown at this point but we are certainly going to want to use this as a management tool to try to even maintenance equipment and support vehicles if they are not up to the proper condition it is going to cost you more over the life cycle I understand that the other part is that I know some of the new rules and regs in the transportation bills in general they are wanting all of these new measurements and the thought is they are going to put hammers behind it so I am wondering if you are hearing that with this too or if that is sort of not creeped into your business yet I guess we have not heard what those hammers are yet I am sure there will be some of those involved again this is a fairly new program through the FTA so I think it is still evolving but I am sure at some point and some of that may be a lack of funding they may say you are not eligible for certain grant programs if you are not keeping your existing fleet up to standards there is still some unknown I guess an RN from the FTA but I am sure that will be hashed out especially in our next triennial review maybe you are being too hard on yourself putting the other back room equipment on the same 20% standard that you are putting your revenue generating fleet on so maybe it is a problem with how you establish the standard rather than anything because I am not going I really want you to come to my town select board and say you have all this additional requirements to get back in machinery replace it all at once and then just have a problem 10 to 12 years down the road where you have to replace it again so I much rather have you take it out consistently and maybe set up a sinking fund where a certain number of pieces of equipment are replaced every year for your back end stuff rather than your revenue generating thing because I think you are putting the emphasis on the right thing which is the revenue generating thing it goes hand to hand not necessarily coming to the communities and saying not all this extra cost so we have to come for more support just for the back end part of your operation not that the back end part of the operation is important it is just that I would advocate you if it is truly that doing it more systematically being honest with yourself and taking those vehicles out occasionally and have a levelized system for it rather than having to replace 80% of it at some point in time 2 or 3 years out and you create another lump especially if you get to choose what your benchmarks are obviously these plans are elastic in the fact that you update them from time to time you can always move the benchmarks but understanding that the feds tend to want to have hammers now all you want to don't put yourself in a place where you are going to get yeah that is 77% of the non-revenue and support equipment is artificially out of whack for example the FTA says any non-revenue vehicle pickup truck or a Prius for non-revenue has a 4-year useful life benchmark that is what we are using what we will do is switch that to a mileage so it has to be 90% well so we have some for example our service trucks might be a 2011 2012 they might have 14,000 they are driving around our yard so to use a 4-year useful life benchmark is not accurate yeah, exactly so that is unless there is other questions that is what I have for tonight I will turn it over to Peter or Charlie yeah a challenge in earlier there is 70 year old action required related to this so I want to give a little bit more background on that and before I start by the way the transit asset management plan that you approved a year ago you gave a synopsis of it there is a lot of information there as well as priority investment as you are going forward and what that investment went so you just kind of gave a to-be-rights-for-view if recall about a year ago this board considered a bunch of transportation performance targets that came to B-Trans related to safety and congestion and according to the federal regulations the state agency created these targets in consultation with other parties the MPO could develop their own or agree to B-Trans and this board decided to agree with B-Trans for probably very good reasons now we are in a similar position with public transportation they have developed a transit asset management plan and they have developed targets they have a very actually a very broad statement it is in the memo by the way it is highlighted related to the useful life benchmark of their facilities and the term the rolling stock and other assets if you look at this the memo in your packet it gives a lot of that background it also gives definitions of those acronyms that John talked about state of good repair, useful life bench and things like that lots of acronyms used here but what we are looking for you tonight is to agree with the performance targets that they set in their asset management plan to make action on that and to move on that is the only one step in this process that I want to point out you have to come back with it a year with a transit safety plan July 1st and you will be asked as well to agree to targets related to other safety we approve the targets that are presented by GMP set forth in December 2019 second motion by Jeff, second by Andy any discussion, comments for the board hearing none, all those in favor of the motion please say aye opposed motion carries thank you that wasn't a way to vote for that that's an accident that's an accident I heard 4 from Andy if you were going to vote for the S6 alternate you'd have to go aye alright just for the couple new members it may not be for them when we have an MPO vote those are weighted votes Andy gets 4 votes Colchester South Burlington gets 2 and the S6 gets 2 you normally do a roll call unless it's unanimous and if it's not unanimous we would do a roll call it's on something like the SERP for a long time and no no's no no's okay next we'll move on to the 2000 to continue I was trying to get to your S6 junction plan and you're interrupting them for a better fit of the new members who didn't attend the board orientation and the old members did so the next item is a 2019 village of S6 junction comprehensive plan and S6 community enhanced energy plan approval who's doing that Emily let's let Emily go ahead and talk first I have questions sorry okay that's alright let's let Emily give her spiel we'll give a very brief summary of the two documents that we're looking at here one of them is the 2019 village of S6 junction comprehensive plan this is an update that was recently completed by Melanie Needle in our office in collaboration with planning staff and planning commission in S6 junction and it has as a companion document the S6 community enhanced energy plan because S6 and S6 junction have a shared energy committee a shared energy plan together it was adopted as part of the comprehensive plan by the village when they adopted their S6 junction plan but S6 town has not been interested in amending their plan at this point so the select board has simply approved the plan as the gesture to show that it's an inappropriate work plan for their shared energy committee that they amend their plan and adopt it as part of that document you can see the memo that I've included in this that shows that we don't have any concerns about any part of the plan and the 20 advisory committee has recommended approval, conservation and energy compliance that's also the staff recommendation okay thank you Dan would you like to make a motion I need the approval of the plan take it by Jeff is there any discussion hearing none all those in favor please say aye aye opposed? just because I'm here in our chair I can't resist for a long time I've always been hopeful that when the village which is a part of the town's plan is approved that it would be automatically joined to the town outside the village plan so that we would have a unified community plan kind of similar to the way that we approve the TIP it becomes part of the state transportation when we approve our TIP it automatically becomes part of the state transportation and so I've said this many times before I don't know why our staff doesn't do it in our happy community but I'm hopeful that in the interest of coordinated good that at some point in time we will have a unified town of Essex plan with a village district that gets automatically incorporated into the town and you can join the plan okay thank you we'll leave that one right where it is I was talking to an audience of one there they were well on their way to get next item is the FY 2020 committee appointments there are a couple of changes from what you had in your packet UPWP committee Jackie Murphy is going to take the seat that was I think it was Jeff it was Jeff so Jackie's agreed to that TAC interest group reps we have Seth Bowden who's going to do the business side the PAT committee planning advisory committee Wayne Howe the alternate from Jericho has agreed to take that position Joss Bessie is stepping down and he'll remain on the committee because he's Bowden's rep to the PAT kind of fulfilling a little dual role but happy to have Wayne add to the group let me see so that leaves us Board Development Committee has an open spot it doesn't need it up to four members we have three members on there so if anyone's interested in that let me know I'll volunteer for the back double okay you're already on it no, no no, no, back then alternate for Andy no, I thought I heard down at the bottom okay, so that takes care of that one so with those what did you want to volunteer for clean water is that the same committee or is that the slide it's a committee in our bylaws where we have one board member but maybe we could have an alternate where if you can show Tom could let's do that it also makes sense that agriculture would be part of clean water anyway you know, just as a as a thing so we'll make that new alternate okay I'll tell you so those are the appointments we need just consensus from this board, is that right? I think you sense of the board sense of the board, anyone have a problem with it? alright, we'll move on then okay next is chair executive directors updates chair has nothing I can only stand here for you just as the previous chair never had anything, I have nothing so I'm between you and leaving so I'll try to go pretty quickly you may have seen a little bit of press on the building homes together update, you were basically on target in terms of housing production of building 700 units a year the last three years in Ginny County however, we're below target for the affordable units we're trying to get to 20% of them being affordable and I think we're a little bit more than halfway sorry, I'm looking at Regina yeah, okay two thirds so quick update and I think just looking forward there are a lot of big projects that are in construction we'll be hitting 19 and 20 so we'll see how close we get to building 3,500 new homes in five years transportation climate initiative, you may have seen a little bit about this there's a regional northeast conversation going on, I think with states from Virginia to Maine a little bit similar to the regional greenhouse gas initiative the cap and trading system they put into place there, they're looking to see if they can develop a system similar focused on transportation if they can get together and develop a market at least the this is kind of a combined effort of A&R and VTRANS participating in that effort with the other states they're saying maybe 5 to 50 million dollars maybe raised through that to invest in shifting transportation fuel usage and maybe even mode usage so that could be very interesting and we're facilitating a little workshop in the next week or two to try to get some input to VTRANS and A&R to help with that so that's just a little FYI for you Amtrak storage study we completed a report over the summer has been very popular people to read and I just left the rail council this afternoon which I have a seat on the state rail council at which this was the entire two hour topic of discussion and just for you all as board members of CCRPC because you're going, if you haven't already seen our name bandied about in various different ways with various characterizations to CCRPC and our work so a couple of things I'll give you one is there's frustration with what's scored highest and if you look at the report and I think we were careful working with VHB to try to say we were just trying to give some relative assessments of different criteria but the criteria are not weighted in the report so they're all basically equalized everything was scored on a three point scale so if it was a high impact on noise it got three, if it was a low impact on noise maybe it got one and every criteria was kind of just zero, one, two, three and so at the end of it things kind of evened out but and the way I've been talking about is we're providing technical analysis for use by the decision makers the decision makers need to put values to those different criteria they decide air pollution or noise is way more important than visual or cost or something else that's how they make decisions so I just want you to know we did not make a decision about what was the best site we just produced a report with criteria with scoring to help the decision making process so to my understanding is there a way to get that information out what you're saying to us get it out so people understand that better try to push that at the appropriate time there's still some more flak coming and then when I feel like all the flak is bundled up we're kind of correcting clarifying picture out there I think that's going to as you're alluding to I think I think that's going to be really important to do because I think one of the biggest concerns that I've seen out there about this is a lot of people who are really supportive of Amtrak coming are looking at well if that's what it takes then maybe I'm not so interested and that would be a real shame the sooner we could get you know ahead of that and let people know just what you're saying this is just looking at each of the different things on an unweighted and the next level is to do the weighted and to really come up with I think that's going to be really important because it's not pretty out there from this report what I've heard from many people welcome the water's warm come on in I guess I'll go another layer deeper we've been getting a lot of FOIA requests from one particular party really around main street landing and what happens around Union Station and this morning or this afternoon at the rail council I also got a statement from that party that includes their analysis of what they saw in reading all the records so they got emails and drafts iterations of drafts and there's some allegations that they're making that we will have to stand up to correct at some point so I'm not sure I'll be working on that over the next month or two at this point the rail council was asked by Secretary Flynn to make a recommendation at their we're going to have a meeting December the first week of December I can't remember the date right now and so Secretary Flynn that will be a recommendation from the rail council to Secretary Flynn then presumably he'll make a decision that will be included in V-Trans's budget because I think they're going to have to start making investments in FY21 to get ready for the storage of the train so anyway just please let me know if you're getting hoped I'll just say I suspect that if the recommendation ends up being Main Street Landing the Waterfront Park we will see similar challenges with that as we've seen with some other projects and the likelihood of it actually happening goes way, way down and that would be a real shame it would be unfortunate yeah it's been a long time incoming and a lot of work has been going into getting the Amtrak back to Burlington thanks for that work do you know how the rail council is going to make this decision or are they just putting their finger up in the air or they actually have criteria they have to use in order to come to a conclusion it's the first time in my couple years on there that they've been asked to make a recommendation to the Secretary so it will be interesting you don't know the answer to that question there is no answer to that question thank you there was no direction from the agency about criteria I'll say that and there was no self-generated criteria either the D clean water service provider this is just we talked some last year about the water quality change in law and these clean water service providers in the next year or so ANR is going to be working on the rulemaking and we'll participate in that process you may get some updates you may be asking for some feedback from the clean water advisory committee and the Board in terms of taking positions on any draft rulemaking so that's another heads up audit update the auditors were here the end of August thanks completed you may remember FY19 year with looking at close to a negative $100,000 budget because of the indirect rate fund we did better than that I think we ended up with about minus $58,000 so probably $30,000 to $40,000 better than budget sounds much more positive when I say it that way still negative it was better and in all of the scheme of things we've seen some negative numbers in the past several years exactly and then finally every five years we do a compensation study with staff we just started that process that will be something in front of the executive committee at the end of the calendar year we just kind of make sure we're in a good place with regard to staff compensation any questions on that or anything else Regina something else I was going to do that so Peter come back in here so as I think everyone knows Peter is retiring in a couple weeks right end of September will be his last day here and Peter has been on this MPO RPC staff for what 25, 30, 40, 50 years 31 years 31 years so Peter I think it's appropriate that we thank you for all your hard work you were involved in so much here and did so much for not only RPC and the MPO but the county just a big thank you and good luck to you and your future endeavors thank you very much now the floor is yours it's been a great ride I'm upset Regina did you want to add something to my son that's alright I don't think that's indicative of how we feel that we're collaborating with him thank you Peter let's see so then we've got the committee and liaison activities reports those are in your packet any other business new business second so we got Jeff and we'll give it to Chris all in favor opposed thanks everyone