CCRPC reviews draft FY2026 UPWP and budget; public hearing set for May 21

The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission board of directors on April 16 reviewed a draft Unified Planning Work Program for fiscal year 2026 and a companion draft budget and set a public hearing for 5:30 p.m. on May 21 to solicit public comment before formal adoption.

Charlie (RPC staff) told the board the UPWP packet includes two documents: a detailed, small‑print work program that lists tasks, deliverables and staff‑time translated to dollars, and a two‑page budget summary. He described a color code in the packet showing ongoing tasks, pending projects and transportation‑funded tasks, and explained how consultant matches are shown when municipal dues provide regional match.

Why this matters: the UPWP and budget house the RPC’s work plan and the funding that supports regional planning, transportation planning and related technical assistance. About two‑thirds of the RPC’s operating budget comes from federal MPO funding; the draft shows how those formula funds and other grants would be used in the coming year.

Key points and figures presented - Revenue and scale: the document shows an operating budget area described in the packet as roughly $3.8 million in MPO and related funding for the RPC planning program; the overall budget presented exceeded $11 million due to large, pass‑through grants. - Broadband grant: staff flagged a large broadband grant being routed through the RPC’s budget. Staff described the project as funding broadband buildout in unserved areas through an agreement between the Chittenden County Communications Union District and Consolidated Communications; the discussion referenced a broadband grant in the low millions (figures in the presentation were discussed but not uniformly stated). - Grants and pending items: multiple discretionary grants were noted as pending, including a Lake Champlain Byway grant and a Brownfields revolving loan fund grant from EPA; staff said those discretionary items were not being counted on as guaranteed revenues. - Local projects and matches: the UPWP spreadsheet shows which consultant tasks are regionally matched (using municipal dues) and which are locally funded. Staff explained that some small non‑transportation or state‑agency tasks appear in a separate color and that the Transportation Planning Initiative (a statewide scope of work) may add tasks once finalized. - Shared services and pilot programs: staff described a pending shared zoning administrator arrangement between Underhill and St. George (the first RPC‑assisted shared hire for two towns) and a pooled policy‑advisor pilot funded so far by three municipalities contributing roughly $25,000 each (Winooski, Essex Junction and a third town identified in the presentation). - Staffing and reserves: the draft shows a roughly 9% increase in expenses driven by full‑year salaries for staff hired mid‑year and a planned cost‑of‑living increase; the RPC reported cash balances around $1.1 million and a money‑market reserve of a little over $500,000 to protect municipalities if federal funding changed. Staff also noted an indirect rate increase in the current year to about 92.5 percent that they expect to revisit in the audit process.

Board comments and clarifications Board members asked whether towns’ requests for local projects were satisfied; staff said about $2.5 million of town requests matched available new MPO transportation planning funding and that this year the requests fit the available funding without difficult choices. Abel and other members asked about federal discretionary programs; staff said MPO formula funds are congressionally authorized and therefore more stable than discretionary grants but the RPC is monitoring federal developments.

Next steps and public process Staff reminded the board that the RPC had already warned the public hearing at the executive committee meeting and that the board will hold the public hearing on May 21. Staff said they will compile public comments after the May 19 comment deadline, circulate a summary by May 23, and bring revised materials back to the board for final action after the public hearing.

Ending The board did not take a formal vote on the UPWP or budget at the April 16 meeting; staff will return with revisions after the public comment period and public hearing on May 21.