South Burlington staff outline $850,000 in climate-focused CIP spending, council asks for clearer net-cost accounting

South Burlington City staff presented an update on climate-related items in the fiscal year 2025 and 2026 capital improvement plans, saying the municipal government portion of the effort includes building weatherization, fleet electrification and installation of electric vehicle charging equipment.

“We have $505,000 allocated in FY25 and then another 345 for FY26,” Climate Action Manager Bettina Migas said during the council meeting, summarizing the line items staff included in the CIP for government operations.

The presentation split investments into two categories: government operations (municipal buildings, municipal fleet, small equipment and studies, and EV infrastructure) and transportation (active-transportation projects and public transit funding). Staff listed specific projects and estimates: rooftop-unit replacements and boiler work for municipal buildings; purchase of four electric administrative vehicles (Hyundai Konas) and fit-out costs; and EV chargers at Public Works and Fire Station 1. Bettina told the council staff also plan to pursue solar at Public Works and to use revolving-fund dollars where available.

Staff gave several budget figures during the presentation: a comparability number for four electric administrative cars (including fit-up) of about $140,000 versus about $128,000 for the equivalent gasoline vehicles (an incremental “climate” cost of roughly $12,000) and an expected rebate package from state and utility programs that staff estimated at $16,800 for those vehicles. For boilers at one municipal building, staff said a high-efficiency unit would cost about $58,000 compared with $43,000 for a baseline unit (a $15,000 difference), with an estimated simple payback of about 4.6 years before rebates. Migas said the FY25/26 package would increase the city-operations greenhouse-gas mitigation from roughly 12 to about 60 metric tons CO2e over the baseline period shown in the presentation.

On transportation, staff noted $1.0 million in bike-and-ped investment in FY25 (about 56% external funding) and $2.0 million in FY26 (about 55% expected external funding). A larger city-center package in the CIP totals roughly $13.0 million, staff said, and staff credited grant work that brings matching funds.

Councilors repeatedly pressed staff to present these numbers on a net basis — that is, to show the incremental cost after expected rebates and to separate revenue sources (general fund, Energy Project Revolving Fund, federal/state grants, utility incentives). “It seems to me we should present it net so we know the true difference,” one councilor said. Bettina Migas and other staff agreed to revise future material to show net costs, how rebates and revolving-fund dollars affect the net burden on taxpayers, and clearer funding-source detail.

Council members also asked for more precise operational estimates (e.g., actual annual mileage for vehicles used by specific departments) and for a clearer accounting of EV infrastructure installation costs that are required to realize fleet savings. Members of the public who spoke during the meeting asked for itemized rebate assumptions and cautioned staff not to overstate federal or state incentives.

The council did not take a formal vote on the CIP presentation. Staff said they will return with a revised packet that shows net costs after rebates, a clear breakdown of funding sources, and sensitivity scenarios for differing rebate outcomes.

The presentation and follow-up questions highlighted two lines of uncertainty staff said they will clarify: the timing and eligibility of some federal and utility incentives, and the precise expected mileage and duty cycles for the new electric administrative vehicles and patrol/admin replacements, which materially affect payback and GHG calculations.

For now the council’s direction was procedural: staff should repackage the CIP climate material to show net incremental costs, funding-source impacts, and clearer lifecycle-cost comparisons before the FY26 budget is finalized.

Ending: Staff said they will return with updated, netted numbers and clearer funding-source tables ahead of final budget decisions so councilors and the public can judge the fiscal and climate trade-offs with the full offsets shown.