Public Works Commission

Public Works Commission Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM 6:30 pm, Main Conference Room, 645 Pine St OR Remotely via ZOOM: Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83495330508 Or Telephone: Dial US: 301-715-8592 Webinar ID: 834 9533 0508 Channel 17 also often livestreams this on their YouTube channel and airs it over the air at a later date. Note that comments on YouTube are not monitored. 1. Call to Order 2. Agenda - 5 Minutes 3. Public Forum - 3 Minutes per Person Time Limit - 10 Minutes 4. Consent Agenda 4.1. Approval of Draft Minutes 11-19-25 4.2. Barrett St On-Street Parking Removal GMT 4.3. North Champlain St Parking Changes 4.4. North Champlain Vehicle Loading Zone 5. Queen City Park Road Bridge - 15 Minutes Subject 5.1. Communication, C. Manna Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 5. Queen City Park Road Bridge - 15 Minutes Department Public Works Department Type Action Recommended Action Motion to Approve 6. Complete Streets - CY26 Paving - 10 Minutes Subject 6.1. Communication , C. Manna Page 1 of 37  Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 6. Complete Streets - CY26 Paving - 10 Minutes Department Public Works Department Type Action Recommended Action Motion To Approve 7. DPW Public Engagement Plan Update - 40 Minutes Subject 7.1. Information, R. Goulding Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 7. DPW Public Engagement Plan Update - 40 Minutes Department Public Works Department Type Information Recommended Action None 8. Commission Rep for planBTV:2050 - 5 Minutes Subject 8.1. Communication, P. Peterson & Chair Damiani Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 8. Commission Rep for planBTV:2050 - 5 Minutes Department Public Works Department Type Action Recommended Action Motion to Approve 9. Director's Report: Unaccepted Streets Briefing - 5 Minutes Subject 9.1. Communication, C. Spencer Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 9. Director's Report: Unaccepted Streets Briefing - 5 Minutes Department Public Works Department Type Communication 10. Commissioner Items 11. Adjournment & Next Meeting Date -February 18, 2026 Page 2 of 37 Subject 11.1. Motion to adjourn Meeting January 21, 2026 - DPW Commission Meeting - Wednesday, January 21, 2026, 6:30 PM, To Attend in Person - 645 Pine St. Main Conference Room OR REMOTELY via ZOOM Category 11. Adjournment & Next Meeting Date -February 18, 2026 Department Council and Board Type Action Recommended Action Motion to Adjourn Page 3 of 37  DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 645 PINE STREET BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2025 DRAFT MINUTES See video for full meeting – link below https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHlK4da-zRo Commissioners Present: Commissioner Barr, Chair Damiani, Vice Chair Fox, Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Hays, Commissioner Munteanu (Via zoon), Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco (via zoom) Commissioner Absent: Commissioner Munteanu ITEM 1 – CALL TO ORDER Chair Damiani called the meeting to order at p.m. ITEM 2 – AGENDA Commissioner Damiani is asking for a motion to approve the agenda with an amendment to pull the Queen City Bridge item from the agenda and have it as a separate agenda item at Agenda Item 4.1. Commissioner Barr so moved Commissioner Hays seconded Unanimous approval ITEM 3 – PUBLIC FORUM David Wilber – Queen City Park Bridge Ann Vivian – Loading Zone – Buell Street Tom Piper – Queen City Park Bridge Peter Geiring – Queen City Park Bridge Jack Tiano – Recycling and Paving Linda Looney – Pedestrian scoping report bike lane along road Lucy - Queen City Park Bridge Blaine Martine – Green Acres drive pedestrian pilot project Ben Traverse – Queen City Park Road Jeanette Bacevius – Queen City Park Bridge ITEM 4 – CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 – Approval of Draft Minutes 10-15-25 4.2 – Bank St loading zone 4.3 – Queen City Bridge stop signs 4.4 - Buell Street 30 Minute Metered Parking 4.5 - 129-135 North Ave Parking Removal for Emergency Access Motion to approve consent agenda with Removal of Item 4.3 Page 4 of 37  Commissioner Barr motioned for approval Commissioner Fox seconded Commissioner Damiani forwarded an e mail from City Councilor Litwin who spoke in support of Item 4.5. Unanimous approval ITEM 4.3 – QUEEN CITY BRIDGE STOOP SIGNS Philip Peterson Senior Transportation Planner Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco makes a motion to approve staff’s language on this with the addition that staff will collect data on the stop signs and traffic volumes once the parkway opens within five to six months of it opening and traffic patterns. City Engineer Laura Wheelock stated she did feel that five to six months is a reasonable timeframe. Commissioner Fox seconds motion Commissioner Hays Nay Commissioner Munteanu Nay Commissioner Barr Aye Commissioner Fox Aye Commissioner Damiani Aye Commissioner Davis Aye Ayes have it 5 to 2. ITEM 5 – RECYCLING NEXT STEPS Director Spencer Commissioner Barr makes a motion to go with staff’s recommendation Staff doesn’t have a recommendation. Commissioner Barr if they were to consider this Commissioner Damiani the proposal to contract out to Casella? Commissioner Barr yes Commissioner Davis seconds Commissioner Munteanu asks if Commission is accepting this communication Commissioner Damiani no the motion is to make a preference for the contracted out service proposal that the staff outlined Commissioner Munteanu the Public Works Commission. Commissioner Damiani that the Public Works Commission recommends moving forward with the contracted services option that staff has laid out. Commissioner Munteanu – Nay All other Commissioners approve Final Vote Ayes 1 nay ITEM 6 – CY 26 PAVING PROGRAM UPDATE Engineer Jack Keller overview of program Page 5 of 37 ITEM 7 – SIDEWALK PROGRAM OVERVIEW & FUTURE PLANNING Senior Transportation Planner Philip Peterson – Christina Cangiolosi Associate Engineer ITEM 8 – PARKING PROMOTION UPDATE Division Director Jackie Esperti ITEM 9 – DIRECTOR’S REPORT Director Chapin Spencer ITEM 10 – COMMISSIONER ITEMS Commissioner O’Neill-Vivanco communicate with folks in NNE who came in September for traffic calming Staffing for winter season Crossing guard booklet ITEM 11 – ADJOURNMENT & NEXT MEETINHG DATE – DECEMBER 17, 2025 Commissioner Barr made a motion to adjourn Commissioner Davis seconded Unanimous approval Page 6 of 37  City of Burlington Department of Public Works Technical Services Engineering Division 645 Pine Street, Suite A Burlington, VT 05402 P 802-863-9094 / F 802-863-0466 / TTY 802-863-0450 www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPW Memo Date: January 21st, 2026 To: Public Works Commission From: Christina Cangiolosi, Associate Public Works Engineer CC: Phillip Peterson P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer & Planner Subject: Barrett St On-Street Parking Removal Request (GMT) Staff recommends the DPW Commission relocate (Attachment-1): 7 No-parking areas. No person shall park any vehicle at any time in the following locations: (1)-(4) As written. (5) Reserved. On the north side of Barrett Street, starting at the midblock crosswalk in front of 50 Barrett Street and continuing fifty-five (55) feet east. (6)-(591) As written. Purpose & Need: The Department of Public Works (DPW) received a request from Green Mountain Transit (GMT) to remove two (2) on-street parking spaces near the corner of Barrett Street and Chase Street. GMT operates two routes, Neighborhood Special 334 and Neighborhood Special 344, which make a left hand turn from Chase Street onto Barrett Street. If the two parking spaces in question are occupied, the bus drivers must reverse in the travel lane in order to make the turn. This leads to unsafe driving conditions, especially for those on the road making the same movement as the bus afterwards. Page 7 of 37 For visual reference, please see attachment-2, which includes a site map indicating which two (2) on-street parking spaces we are proposing to remove. Project Checklist: N/A Yes No Reference Aligns with MUTCD X Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) standards and/or established City Policy? Aligns with City plans? X Followed Public X These Traffic Regulation changes are defined as an Engagement Plan? INVOLVE project in the Public Engagement Plan (PEP). Summary and Conclusion: Upon completion of DPW Staff’s thorough evaluation, it is recommended that the Commission approves the removal of two (2) on-street parking spaces to allow for the required space needed for GMT buses to safely make a left hand turn from Chase Street onto Barrett Street. In addition to this, removal of two (2) on-street parking spaces will improve the sightlines to the midblock crosswalk and therefore increase pedestrian safety to those who utilize the midblock crosswalk. The attached traffic regulation amendment (see attachment-1) outlines the specifics of this proposal. Public Engagement: In preparation for the 01/21/2026 DPW Commission Meeting, DPW Staff distributed flyers to residents on Barrett Street and Chase Street regarding the proposal to remove two (2) on-street parking spaces. DPW Staff received no feedback. Attachments: 1. Traffic Regulation Amendment 2. Site Map Page 8 of 37  CITY OF BURLINGTON In the Year Two Thousand Twenty-Five Sponsor(s): Public Works Commission Action: Approval A Regulation in Relation to Date: 01/21/2026 Attestation of Adoption: Rules and Regulations of the Traffic Commission— __________________________________ Section 7; No-parking areas. Phillip Peterson, PE Senior Transportation Engineer & Planner, Technical Services Published: ________________________ Effective: _________________________ It is hereby Ordained by the Public Works Commission of the City of Burlington as follows: That Appendix C, Rule and Regulations of the Traffic Commission, Section 7 No-parking areas and Section 16 Bus stops, designated of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Burlington is hereby amended as follows: Section 7 No-parking areas. No person shall park any vehicle at any time in the following locations: (1)-(4) As written. (5) Reserved. On the north side of Barrett Street, starting at the midblock crosswalk in front of 50 Barrett Street and continuing fifty-five (55) feet east. (6)-(591) As written. ** Material stricken out deleted. *** Material underlined added. CC: BCO Appx.C, Sec 7 01/21/26 Page 9 of 37 Site Map (Attachment-2): Page 10 of 37  City of Burlington Department of Public Works Technical Services Engineering Division 645 Pine Street, Suite A Burlington, VT 05402 P 802-863-9094 / F 802-863-0466 / TTY 802-863-0450 www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPW MEMO Date: January 21, 2026 To: Public Works Commission From: Caleb Manna, Associate Public Works Engineer CC: Phillip Peterson, P.E.; Senior Transportation Engineer & Planner Laura Wheelock, P.E.; Division Director of Technical Services/City Engineer Subject: Public Survey Questionnaire- Traffic Signage at Approaches to Queen City Park Road Bridge DPW Staff recommend the DPW Commission remove the following addition from: Appendix C, 3; Stop sign locations, and add the following to Appendix C, 4; Location of yield-right-of-way signs. The following place(s) is hereby removed from Appendix C, 3; Stop sign locations: • Sixty (60) feet in advance of the east entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road Bridge causing westbound traffic on Queen City Park Road to stop. • Sixty (60) feet in advance of the west entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road Bridge causing eastbound traffic on Queen City Park Road to stop. The following place(s) are hereby added to Appendix C, 4; Locations of yield-right-of-way signs: • Sixty (60) feet in advance of the east entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road Bridge. • Sixty (60) feet in advance of the west entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road Bridge. Final language of the amended ordinance is subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney’s Office. (See Attachment-1.) Page 11 of 37 Purpose & Need: In recent weeks, the Department of Public Works has received several correspondences from businesses and residents near Queen City Park Road, expressing concern over increased traffic delays at the one-lane bridge, specifically during evening commuting hours. These concerns emerged following the conversion of yield signs to stop signs at the approaches to the Queen City Park Road Bridge—a change originally implemented to enhance clarity and safety at this constrained, single-lane crossing. Recognizing the importance of community input in shaping transportation policy, DPW initiated a public survey to solicit feedback from residents and frequent users of the bridge. The intent was to gauge public opinion regarding the operational impacts of this signage change, and to better understand its effectiveness. After reviewing the results of the survey, DPW Staff is recommending the restoring the yield signs at both approaches to Queen City Park Bride. Survey Findings: The survey was distributed through multiple channels, including Front Porch Forum and targeted outreach to local businesses and residents. Responses were collected between January 9 and January 15, 2026. • Total Responses: 79 • Travel Frequency: A significant majority of respondents reported using the bridge daily or weekly, underscoring its critical role in local mobility. • Peak Travel Times: Morning and evening periods were most frequently cited, aligning with observed congestion patterns and commuting hours. • Signage Preference: o Approximately 80% of respondents expressed a preference for the previous yield sign configuration, citing improved traffic flow and reduced delays. o Roughly 15% favored the current stop sign arrangement, primarily for its perceived clarity and uniformity. o A small minority indicated neutrality or mixed views. • Safety Perception: o While some respondents acknowledged that stop signs may offer a heightened sense of predictability, the overwhelming majority reported no discernible improvement in safety outcomes. o Several respondents suggested that the operational inefficiencies introduced by the stop signs—particularly during peak hours—may inadvertently contribute to driver frustration and risky behaviors. Page 12 of 37 Traffic Control Review & Operational Assessment: Following installation of STOP signs at both approaches to the Queen City Park Road Bridge, DPW conducted a post‑implementation review consistent with MUTCD Section 2A.09, which directs agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of traffic control devices after installation. This review included field observations, operational analysis, and structured public input from residents and businesses who use the bridge daily. Under MUTCD Sections 2B.04 and 2B.06, STOP signs should be used only where engineering judgment determines that the normal right‑of‑way rule is insufficient to provide safe and efficient operations. Post‑installation evaluation found that the STOP control did not achieve the intended operational or safety benefits. Specifically: • Excessive delay and queuing developed during peak periods, inconsistent with MUTCD 2B.06 guidance that STOP signs should not be installed where they would cause “excessive delay” or “unnecessary stopping.” • Driver compliance was inconsistent, with many users treating the STOP control as a yield. MUTCD 2B.04 emphasizes that right‑of‑way control should align with driver expectancy; observed behavior indicated a mismatch between the device and typical user understanding. • No measurable safety improvement was observed, and crash history does not indicate a need for STOP control, consistent with MUTCD guidance that STOP signs should not be used solely for speed control or in the absence of a demonstrated safety problem. • Sight distance and conflict levels remain appropriate for YIELD control, consistent with MUTCD 2B.04 allowances for yield control where conflicts are limited and visibility is adequate. As part of this evaluation, DPW staff notified residents and area stakeholders of the option to participate in an online public survey regarding usage and functionality of the bridge on January 9, 2026, with the survey concluding on January 15. This outreach was conducted as a component of the MUTCD‑directed post‑installation review process, which recognizes public input as relevant to engineering judgment when assessing device effectiveness. Survey results showed that approximately 80% of respondents preferred the previous YIELD condition and reported that the STOP signs introduced operational inefficiencies without improving safety. Responses from the optional public comment are included in Attachment‑4. Attachments: 1. Regulation Change Form 2. QCPR Bridge - Public Survey Questionnaire 3. Survey Results 4. Optional Public Comments Received Page 13 of 37 Attachment 1: CITY OF BURLINGTON In the Year Two Thousand Twenty-Six Sponsor(s): Public Works Commission Action: Approval A Regulation in Relation to Date: ______ Attestation of Adoption: Rules and Regulations of the Traffic Commission— __________________________________ § 3; Stop sign locations and, Phillip Peterson, PE § 4; Location of yield-right-of-way signs. Senior Transportation Planner, Technical Services Published: ________________________ Effective: ________________________ __________________________________ It is hereby Ordained by the Public Works Commission of the City of Burlington as follows: That Appendix C, Rule and Regulations of the Traffic Commission, § 3; Stop sign locations, and §4; Locations of yield right-of-way-signs of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Burlington is hereby amended as follows: § 3 Stop sign locations (a) The following locations are hereby designated as stop sign locations: (1)-(324) As written. (325) Sixty (60) feet in advance of the east entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road Bridge causing westbound traffic on Queen City Park Road to stop. (326) Sixty (60) feet in advance of the west entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road Bridge causing eastbound traffic on Queen City Park Road to stop. § 4 Location of yield-right-of-way signs. Yield-right-of-way signs are authorized at the following locations: (1) Sixty (60) feet in advance of the east entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road Bridge. (2) Sixty (60) feet in advance of the west entrance to the one (1) lane Queen City Park Road Bridge. (3)-(19) As written. Page 14 of 37 ** Material stricken out deleted. *** Material underlined added. /CEM: BCO Appx.C, Section 3,4 1/21/26 Page 15 of 37 Attachment 2: Queen City Park Road Bridge – Public Survey The City of Burlington Department of Public Works recently replaced the yield signs at both approaches to the Queen City Park Road Bridge with stop signs. This change was made to improve safety and reduce confusion at the single-lane bridge. We are seeking feedback from residents on whether you prefer the new stop signs or the previous yield signs. Your input will help us evaluate the effectiveness of this change. Please answer the following questions: 1. How often do you travel across Queen City Park Road Bridge? ☐ Daily ☐ Weekly ☐ Occasionally ☐ Rarely/Never 2. What time of day do you most often travel across Queen City Park Road Bridge? ☐ Morning ☐ Noon ☐ Afternoon ☐ Night 3. Which option do you prefer for the approaches to Queen City Park Road Bridge? ☐ Yield signs (previous system) ☐ Stop signs (current system) 4. Please explain why you prefer yield signs or stop signs (open-ended): ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 5. Do you believe the stop signs have improved safety compared to the yield signs? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure 6. Additional Comments: (optional): Contact Information (optional): Name: __________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ Email: __________________________________________ Page 16 of 37 Attachment 3: Page 17 of 37 Page 18 of 37 Page 19 of 37 Page 20 of 37 Page 21 of 37 Attachment 4: Additional Public Comments in Survey This bridge really needs to be made into two lanes to accommodate the heavy traffic and large 1 trucks. 2 Appreciate the change and this survey 3 Please bring back the yield signs!!! 4 Please replace the bridge soon. 5 Stop sign is a waste of energy & brake power I think the folks that wanted something different just didn’t realize that 2-3 car’s going over the 6 bridge at a time each way was actually more efficient and saved time, now, they have to sit and wait! 7 A lot of times I stop when there is no traffic coming There has never been a significant safety problem - only two camps of drivers 1. Those who alternate turns one by one and 2. Those who appreciate the efficiency of small groups of several 8 cars going together and self-alternating in groups. Frankly I wouldn’t recommend either yield or stop signs (or traffic light.). How about a flashing yellow light? I’d also like DPW to replace the grated pedestrian walkways with solid ones to provide a safe passageway for dog walkers - many dogs won’t walk on the grates so the people/dogs are forced to 9 walk in the street, further complicating this already compromised situation. Thank you for all you do! 10 Still seeing some confusion. It is more dangerous now because of long lines of cars partially blocking the intersection and sight 11 lines. 12 It seems like a great deal of people disregard the stop signs and just cruise through I'm not sure which is better STOP or YIELD; both have issues. The problem is that the distance of 13 the bridge makes the STOP signs difficult to interpret who has arrived 1st. How about a LIGHT? Just a thought. 14 Much ado about nothing! Spend money and time on real isdues Page 22 of 37  We need a two-way/two lane bridge. And when the Champlain Parkway actually connects to I-89, 15 maybe this becomes a non-issue? 16 Barely a difference in wait times A longer term solution, like a wider two lane bridge with a better pedestrian/bike lane, is needed. 17 There’s a lot of large vehicle traffic on there - GMT busses and Barrett’s Trucking rigs and tractor trailers for Rhino and Edlund that would also be better served by a wider bridge. 18 Stop and start is not an effective traffic control pattern. 19 Whether stop or yield, you should add an “Alternate”Sign 20 Technically, it may be safer, but in terms of time and energy, the former system was better 21 Traffic lights at both ends of the bridge is a common method for dealing with this situation. 22 Unnecessary interference We are adults 23 Everyone knows what Stop means, but not what yield means. Safety should not be the only consideration - if it were, driving at all would be illegal. Common 24 sense would say that if you have three cars on each side, the fastest thing to do is for one side to go completely and then the other. 25 Traffic would be smoother if there was a sign saying “three cars at a time, please” I say "maybe" in #5 only because drivers have become more reckless, lawless and/or impaired in 26 the past 5 years - probably none of whom would obey a yield sign (but might obey a stop sign?). 27 Opening the bypass will help traffic flow. Please open asap. I’m SO happy that this survey has been sent out, me and my neighbors and my friends who work at 28 at burton are so frustrated! This was a completely unnecessary change that has significantly disturbed the flow of traffic. 29 Please rectify! While I understand the safety precautions of stop signs I don’t believe it has helped with traffic 30 patterns on this bridge and if anything blocks people from safely getting into the red rocks parking lot and neighborhood. 31 Bring back the yield sign! I would suggest that adding a large sign under the stop SIGN in yellow "VERY NARROW ONE 32 LANE BRIDGE" to alert straingers to the area that it is just one lane. Page 23 of 37  the change wasn't needed. system worked fine as it was. you have just slowed down traffic and 33 frustrated the community. 34 Thanks for asking us our opinion. 35 This bridge needs to be two lane! 36 Please bring back the yield signs! It is unclear what meaningful safety benefit the stop signs provide and, in my opinion, any marginal safety improvements are not worth the additional congestion the stop signs cause.. 37 Visibility of the bridge is good, there is a separated pedestrian walkway on the bridge, and speeds are low for almost all drivers on the bridge. Traffic is being backed up. And it’s not just the bridge that is one lane. Two cars don’t fit on the 38 road in the Burlington section in what is supposed to be the driving lane 39 But only because the lack of understanding of the previous system could result in mild road rage Page 24 of 37  City of Burlington Department of Public Works Technical Services Engineering Division 645 Pine Street, Suite A Burlington, VT 05402 P 802-863-9094 / F 802-863-0466 / TTY 802-863-0450 www.burlingtonvt.gov/DPW MEMORANDUM th Date: January 21 , 2026 To: Public Works Commission From: Caleb Manna, Associate Public Works Engineer CC: Corey Mims P.E., Senior Public Works Engineer Jack Keller P.E., Public Works Engineer Subject: CY26 Street Reconstruction Program - Complete Streets DPW Staff recommend the DPW Commission approve the following exemption request for Municipal Complete Streets Compliance Forms as part of the CY26 Paving Contract: Depot Street. Background: The City of Burlington is committed to providing a range of interconnected, safe, affordable, efficient, and convenient transportation choices for residents, visitors, and employees alike. Recently, this commitment has been formalized through state and local policies, but the real challenge is still ahead of us as we implement these policies -- making every Burlington Street "complete." In June 2012, the DPW convened local stakeholders, decision-makers, advocates, and municipal staff for a full- day workshop sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency through their Sustainable Communities Building Blocks Program. Through collaboration at the workshop, an overarching vision was drafted to be a unifying guide for future planning studies that evaluate complete streets: Burlington streets will evolve into complete streets corridors that provide safe, inviting, and convenient travel for all users of all ages and abilities —including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation riders. Within each neighborhood, the need to move people through the corridor will be balanced with the need to provide access to homes, businesses, and local institutions within the corridor. The most effective use of finite public space will be determined through interdisciplinary collaboration with a wide range of community members considering economic, environmental, and equity concerns. An Equal Opportunity Employer This material is available in alternative formats for persons with disabilities. To request an accommodation, please call 802.863.9094 (voice) or 802.863.0450 (TTY). Page 25 of 37 The corridor will develop into an attractive public space through creative streetscape, signage, and other site design features. Promoting social interaction and public health will make the corridor more livable and desirable. DPW executes this vision through various construction projects throughout the City, with the annual Street Reconstruction contract contributing significantly. As part of this goal, each street paving is required to have an associated Complete Streets Form (Attachment A) to ensure project compliance. Paving: Attached are the Complete Streets forms for the streets anticipated to be completed under the CY26 Street Paving contract. These forms will be placed on record with the Clerk/Treasurer’s Office and submitted to the Vermont Agency of Transportation for complete streets reporting. These streets may be modified in the event of unexpected deterioration during the winter season. Street Limits Length (miles) Colchester Avenue S. Prospect-Latham Ct ~0.46 Cumberland Road Entire Street ~0.30 Greene Street Loomis St-Hickok Pl ~0.11 Park Street North St-Sherman St ~0.17 Summer Street Entire Street ~0.05 Saratoga Avenue Entire Street ~0.35 Rivermount Terrace Entire Street ~0.30 Bennington Court Entire Street ~0.05 Scarff Avenue Shelburne St-Wells St ~0.10 Depot Street (exemption) Entire Street ~0.21 Total ~2.10 Please note, Depot Street is the one exemption being requested for this work under complete streets. Depot Street is closed to through traffic, and is primarily used as a pedestrian way. Only authorized vehicles, meaning emergency/municipal vehicles, and local resident vehicles accessing the driveway behind 83 North Ave are allowed. There are no existing dedicated pedestrian sidewalks or established bike lanes on Depot Street, as the roadway allows for unrestricted use of non-motorized transportation. The cost of installing new bike/ped facilities is disproportionate for the current use of the road. In addition to the CY26 street paving list, there will be further paving activities performed this construction season that carried over from the CY25 Paving Contract. Streets to be completed in 2026 under the CY25 contract are: Pearl Street (Battery-S. Winooski), College Street (S. Union-S. Williams), and Cliff Street (S. Willard-S. Prospect). Pavement patching work will occur under the CY26 Street Paving Contract on Lake Street, Archibald Street (between N. Willard and N. Prospect), North Avenue (northern end by wastewater plant), and Intervale Road. This process includes milling the deteriorated surface and keying in the new pavement to ensure a longer life for the patched section. After assessing the extent of the damage, the affected area is removed and prepared for new asphalt or other paving material. Finally, the patched area is carefully applied and compacted to ensure a smooth and durable surface, restoring the road's integrity and safety. The pavement patching procedure is not subject to complete street reporting. Page 26 of 37 Traffic calming features will be reinstalled on Park Street following pavement resurfacing. No other traffic calming features are proposed under this contract. If you have questions, please contact me at (802)-503-2358 or at cmanna@burlingtonvt.gov. Attachments: 1. CY25 Paving Contract Complete Street Forms Page 27 of 37  MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM Town: City of Burlington Road: Colchester Ave (North Prospect Street - Latham Court) Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna Position: Associate Public Works Engineer Date: 01/19/2026 Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission. Please complete only one of the three sections. 1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project. ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc. ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement. Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. ✔ Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc. Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc. Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe): 2) Exemption – Please select one. A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law. B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature. Indicate project scope below. Crack sealing Culvert replacement Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.) C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use. If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below: 3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project. Page 28 of 37  MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM Town: City of Burlington Road: Cumberland Road Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna Position: Associate Public Works Engineer Date: 01/19/2026 Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission. Please complete only one of the three sections. 1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project. ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc. ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement. Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc. Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc. Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe): 2) Exemption – Please select one. A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law. B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature. Indicate project scope below. Crack sealing Culvert replacement Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.) C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use. If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below: 3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project. Page 29 of 37  MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM Town: City of Burlington Road: Greene Street (Loomis Street - Hickok Pl) Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL&FILL,STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna Position: Associate Public Works Engineer Date: 01/19/2026 Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission. Please complete only one of the three sections. 1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project. ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc. ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement. ✔ Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc. Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc. Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe): 2) Exemption – Please select one. A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law. B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature. Indicate project scope below. Crack sealing Culvert replacement Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.) C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use. If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below: 3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project. Page 30 of 37  MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM Town: City of Burlington Road: Park Street (North Street - Sherman Street) Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna Position: Associate Public Works Engineer Date: 01/19/2026 Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission. Please complete only one of the three sections. 1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project. ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc. ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement. Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. ✔ Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc. Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc. Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. ✔ Other (please describe): Traffic calming - Speed Humps 2) Exemption – Please select one. A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law. B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature. Indicate project scope below. Crack sealing Culvert replacement Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.) C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use. If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below: 3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project. Page 31 of 37  MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM Town: City of Burlington Road: Summer Street Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna Position: Associate Public Works Engineer Date: 01/19/2026 Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission. Please complete only one of the three sections. 1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project. ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc. ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement. Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc. Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc. Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe): 2) Exemption – Please select one. A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law. B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature. Indicate project scope below. Crack sealing Culvert replacement Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.) C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use. If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below: 3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project. Page 32 of 37  MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM Town: City of Burlington Road: Saratoga Avenue Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna Position: Associate Public Works Engineer Date: 01/19/2026 Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission. Please complete only one of the three sections. 1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project. ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc. ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement. Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc. Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc. Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe): 2) Exemption – Please select one. A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law. B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature. Indicate project scope below. Crack sealing Culvert replacement Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.) C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use. If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below: 3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project. Page 33 of 37  MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM Town: City of Burlington Road: Summer Street Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna Position: Associate Public Works Engineer Date: 01/19/2026 Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission. Please complete only one of the three sections. 1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project. ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc. ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement. Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc. Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc. Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe): 2) Exemption – Please select one. A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law. B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature. Indicate project scope below. Crack sealing Culvert replacement Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.) C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use. If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below: 3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project. Page 34 of 37  MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM Town: City of Burlington Road: Bennington Court Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna Position: Associate Public Works Engineer Date: 01/19/2026 Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission. Please complete only one of the three sections. 1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project. ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc. ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement. Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc. Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc. Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe): 2) Exemption – Please select one. A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law. B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature. Indicate project scope below. Crack sealing Culvert replacement Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.) C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use. If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below: 3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project. Page 35 of 37  MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM Town: City of Burlington Road: Scarff Avenue Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, STRUCTURE ADJUSTMENT Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna Position: Associate Public Works Engineer Date: 01/19/2026 Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission. Please complete only one of the three sections. 1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project. ✔ Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. ✔ Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc. ✔ Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement. Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc. Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc. Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe): 2) Exemption – Please select one. A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law. B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature. Indicate project scope below. Crack sealing Culvert replacement Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.) ✔ C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use. If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below: 3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project. Page 36 of 37  MUNICIPAL COMPLETE STREETS COMPLIANCE FORM Town: City of Burlington Road: Depot Street Project Description: ASPHALT GRINDING, MILL & FILL, Name of Municipal Official: Caleb Manna Position: Associate Public Works Engineer Date: 01/19/2026 Act 34 became effective July 1, 2011 and requires that the needs of all transportation users, regardless of their age, ability, or preferred mode of transportation be considered in state and municipal transportation projects and project phases. This project compliance form serves to document that Complete Streets practices and principles were considered and implemented where applicable for the project listed above. This project compliance form should be submitted when the project has been finalized. It should be retained in the Town’s files and a copy provided to VTrans via the Regional Planning Commission. Please complete only one of the three sections. 1) Compliance – Please select all Complete Streets principles and practices that have been incorporated into the project. Sidewalks: installation, repair, ramps, railing, etc. Pavement Improvements: replacement, repair, etc. Crosswalks: installation, repair, markings, etc. Shoulder Improvements: widen with new pavement. Lighting: street or pedestrian scale. Bike/Shared Use: paths, lanes, etc. Signals: pedestrian features. Public Transit: bus stops, bus pullouts, kiosks, etc. Streetscaping: benches, bulbouts, landscaping, etc. Other (please describe): 2) Exemption – Please select one. A. The use of the transportation facility by pedestrians, bicyclists or other users is prohibited by law. B. Incorporating complete streets principles is outside the scope of the subject project due to its very nature. Indicate project scope below. Crack sealing Culvert replacement Emergency repairs Guardrail replacement High risk rural road (HRRR) projects Ledge/slope projects Pothole repair Preventative maintenance, bridge maintenance Roadside mowing Road/shoulder sweeping Shim/leveling projects Sign replacement Traffic signal equipment upgrades Other miscellaneous maintenance activities Projects with pre-approved scopes of work (Often funded through grant programs such as Transportation Alternatives, Scenic Byways, Public Lands Highways or earmarks with a specific purpose.) ✔ C. The cost of incorporating complete streets principles is disproportionate to the need or probable use. If 2)C is selected, please provide a short justification below: Depot Street is closed to vehicular traffic, with the exception of authorized vehicles. The entirety of the roadway is primary used as a pedestrian and bicyclist facility. The cost of installing dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facility is disproportionate to the current use of the road, which allows unimpeded walk/bike access. 3) Non-Compliance – If none of the boxes under “Compliance” and “Exemption” are checked please draft and attach justification for not incorporating Complete Streets principles and practices into the project. Page 37 of 37