Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Work Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CCRPC opens public hearing and approves draft FY2026 Unified Planning Work Program and budget
Summary
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission opened and closed a public hearing on the draft fiscal year 2026 Unified Planning Work Program and budget, then approved the UPWP as both the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the RPC with unanimous votes.
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission opened a public hearing May 21 on its draft fiscal year 2026 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and related budget and later approved the UPWP in separate votes as both the regional planning commission and the metropolitan planning organization.
The UPWP and budget were presented as part of agenda item 4. Staff described the draft work program’s task color coding and said the budget was “forecast to be $30,000 to the good.” The board first voted to open the public hearing on the draft UPWP; Mike O’Brien moved to open the hearing and Catherine seconded. After no members of the public came forward, Garrett moved to close the hearing and Andy seconded; the motion passed by voice vote.
Why it matters: the UPWP sets the commission’s work priorities and allocates staff time and funding for studies, technical assistance, and federally funded transportation planning duties. Approval by the MPO is required for federal transportation planning funds that flow through the regional TIP and STIP processes.
Details and votes: after the public hearing staff invited questions and noted the PWP (planning work program) committee had reviewed the documents. The board then handled two formal approval motions: for MPO approval of the FY2026 UPWP and budget, Andy moved and Catherine seconded; the motion passed by voice vote. For RPC approval of the same FY2026 UPWP and budget, Garrett moved (noting procedural simplicity discussed earlier) and Andy seconded; that motion also passed by voice vote.
Discussion versus direction: most discussion during the item was clarifying and procedural. Staff noted only minor text updates and color‑coded tasks (yellow = pending, blue = land use, green = new transportation tasks, white = continuing tasks). No additional direction to staff was recorded beyond standard follow‑up to finalize edits. No roll‑call votes or minority positions were recorded in the transcript; vocal approval was unanimous.
What’s next: staff will finalize the UPWP text edits and proceed with implementation in FY2026 per the approved budget and work program.
