Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Upwp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CCRPC reviews consultant‑only FY2026 UPWP, notes $2.5M consultant budget and growing bike/ped work
Summary
Marshall Distel presented a consultant-only FY26 UPWP funding review showing an approximately $2.5 million consultant budget, steady TDM funding, growing bike/ped consultant allocations, and increased consultant work supporting Green Mountain Transit; the draft UPWP will advance to the Board in May for action.
Marshall Distel, senior transportation planner at the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, presented the draft FY2026 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) consultant funding review on April 1, saying “the information being presented only includes consultant transportation projects” and that “the total budget is about $2.5 million.”
The presentation divided consultant funding by categories — transportation demand management (TDM), water quality, bike and pedestrian projects, energy and others — and showed multi‑year trends. Distel noted that consultant funding for bike/pedestrian projects has gradually grown, TDM consultant funding has remained relatively consistent, and consultant support for Green Mountain Transit has increased over recent years.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about what the charts include. Christine Forde asked whether staff time and technical assistance were part of those budget charts; Distel confirmed they were not, and that the presentation covered consultant funding only. Distel also showed UPWP requests by municipality and partner organization, noting the visual does not include non‑consultant technical assistance and data collection CCRPC provides to municipalities with no fee or local match.
The draft UPWP was approved by the UPWP committee and will move to the CCRPC Executive Committee and Board for review, with final Board action anticipated in May. Distel said he will return to TAC next month to request a formal recommendation to the Board.
The presentation and discussion were procedural; no funding decisions were made at the TAC meeting. The committee also briefly discussed historic partner relationships, with Distel explaining United Way previously partnered on Older Adults and Persons with Disabilities tasks but has not participated in recent years.
