 This conference will now be recorded Okay, I would like to call to order the South Burlington City Council meeting of Monday, July 17th, 2023. Our first item of business is the Pledge of Allegiance. Who hasn't led us for a while? Megan, why don't you lead us? Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Instructions on exiting the building in case of emergency? So thank you to those who are joining us in the room. If there's an emergency, you can go out to left or right at the rear of the auditorium and then turn left or right and exit the building for those participating remotely. Thank you for joining us. If you would like to speak on any issue you can turn your camera on and the chair will call on you or you can indicate your interest in speaking in the chat. Other than that, we are not monitoring the chat for content. Thank you. Okay, agenda review. Are there any additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items? I have one. Okay. Under other business, I would like us to discuss a recognition event for committee members who have stepped down. Okay. For other business, there's a resident of South Village has brought up some suggestions for improving traffic flow in Dorset Street. So just briefly, let's talk about that. Okay. Who's responsible for some of that stuff? Okay. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? Please come forward and Barb, you want to speak too. So we'll have, there's a person in here, would you make sure that the light on the speaker is bright? You have to push in the middle and the light should go on and then we can hear you. I think it's on now. It is. Kayla Moore. South Burlington. I'm here to follow up on prior commentary I provided at this meeting in the fall regarding the ban proposed ban in the cap for gas powered leaf blowers and string trimmers. Based on my prior comments, I had hoped and perhaps naively thought that we would be spending the fall without the noise and the pollution that these things cause. But I am following up now because I understand that there may be some reluctance to move forward with this ordinance due in part to the lack of ability to enforce it. And I just wanted to speak to that and see if there might be some willingness to to consider again the importance of this. First of all, my, my personal vision for this ordinance and I think for many other people, although I'm only speaking for myself, is not that people would be calling the police to report on their neighbors for using a gas powered leaf blower or string trimmer. I certainly don't think that's a good use of police time or city resources. However, I think that there are a lot of ordinances in place already that on the books, give the public the ability to speak to their neighbors and to say, Hey, there's an ordinance on the book. Can you do the right thing because we all know that, you know, scoop the poop is in place because of the harm that it causes to the lake to the environment to our health. This is very similar to that. I think that gas powered leaf blowers and string trimmers are horribly polluting. I mean, that is a fact. They are major contributors to greenhouse gases. They're very much under looked and it's really low hanging fruit on the climate action plan. There are hundreds of other cities. The entire state of California, as I'm sure you're well aware, has banned these things. They are not essential devices. It's not like a snow blower where somebody really needs to clear their driveway to get the snow off the driveway. Nobody really needs to use a gas powered leaf blower. They can either leave the leaves or they can get an electric one. They're not that expensive. It's really not putting anybody out, but without an ordinance in place, people are not going to make the transition. They will not do the right thing unless there is an ordinance in place. So that's why I think it's really important that the city council really consider this. It's on the climate action plan, which you have adopted. And to not take action, to not move forward with this is just sending the wrong message that you passed this climate action plan and then something like this that's really low hanging fruit. You just decide not to act on. I understand there's a lot of bigger actions out there and a lot more work to be done on that. But the pollution that these things cause and the noise, you know, many towns previously passed ordinances against these just because of the noise. Burlington being one of them. But now more and more as we see the effects of global warming, cities and towns across the U.S. are saying actually this isn't just a noise issue. It's not a nuisance. It's really a public health. It's an environmental issue. It's always real. And the the leaves on the lawn are really not that big a deal. So I just don't see how we can justify continuing to allow the use of these machines, given the harm that they cause. So I really urge you to reconsider that. And then second, the other point related to that is we don't need to strive for 100% compliance. Of course, that would be that would be my goal, but with many ordinances, it's not about 100% compliance. It's about telling the public what the expectation is to do the right thing to make the change to transition to electric. And and many people will then just make that change on their own. And if they don't, then they can say to one another, they can say to their neighbors, they can say to their landscaping company. Hey, there's an ordinance in place. Can you can you please, you know, make sure you're complying with this? It's not about calling the police and using city resources to enforce it. So I really hope that that's not what's standing in the way. And then I have one other item, which I wanted to just comment on quickly regarding the Hubbard Park bike path. Well, that's on our agenda. We will take public comment when we get to that and it's pretty quick. Okay. Okay. Which sounds like it's a long way away, but the step in between is pretty quick. Okay. Well, I'll hold off for that then. Thank you. Helen. Yes. Could I just say something? At our retreat, we all had spoken about how our counselor corners could be used for these kinds of directives to the public and setting an example to the public about things that we can't necessarily put into law because of enforcement issues. And this is not the only issue. There are others. And I would welcome the idea of all five of us signing a letter or a counselor corner with regard to using electric leaf blowers. I'm sorry. I'm August. Okay. So we've got the counselor. I didn't have time for the fall when the leaves are coming. Yeah. Well, mostly they're not used for leaves or used for grass. Oh. Cut grass. Grass clippings. That's what it's used mostly for. But I have other issues. Other rants. Rants about, you know, people having small, you know, little fire pits. Well, you can do the outdoor rants. I can't. One. Yeah. A soft rant. So I think we need further discussion on this. I don't think a counselor corner is sufficient as you know, but. That could be a start. It could be a start. That could be, you know, this is actually on your agenda under the climate under. Um, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Item 10 update on the implementation plans for climate action. So maybe we'll, maybe you'll want to stay till item 10. Okay. Any other. Oh, Barb service. She's on the. Screen, the big screen. So you would like to say something. Yes. Thanks, Helen. For those of you that don't know me, I am Barb service. I live in summer woods off patch and road. I was out of town. Now remote access allows me to attend most of your meetings, but I don't often speak. However, I've been listening to the discussions about ARPA and city priorities and know there will be more in the coming weeks. And Alas, an ailing family member out of town needs my help. And that needs to be my focus. And even tonight, 9,000 Girl Scouts are expecting me to join them in about 20 minutes. And I'm going to be here to be able to, to share a couple of thoughts. The ARPA funds have created a new conversation in South Burlington. And the decision about their use could have significant impact on our city. In the past, we've had lively discussions about a variety of topics that affect our city of late. That balanced perspective seems to have been lost. The talk is most often about climate change. The reason flooding across our beloved state is yet another issue of the impact of climate change. And I agree that we need to be concerned about the future for your children and your grandchildren. However, I also think the council has lost sight of the fact today's children and families need help too. The housing crunch is not going to be solved by more $750,000 homes purchased mostly by out-of-staters. Maybe there are a few modest units included, but even the definition of $319,000 as affordable doesn't affect our many South Burlington families. Then again, who said South Burlington has to be responsible to solve the housing problem for the entire state? In mind of my past generation, the American dream was a college education and home ownership. Much as it saddens me as a retired college president to say so, a college education is not necessarily required for everybody. I think both of those goals have been moderated. We need to live productive, enjoyable lives without a college degree or owning a home. And rather than a dream, there's a basic need for food and housing security and good physical and mental health. Is there some reason we can't consider nice apartment options at reasonable prices? All too often lately, I've actually heard people say, I like the idea of renting. If there's a problem, I can call somebody else who has to come and fix it. At the same time, I think we've already lost the city center that included open space. Had I understood form-based code, I would have been among the vocal opponents. Now we have a city center this beginning to look like a major environment with Vermont's concept of high rises and little open space for people to be outdoors or for children to play. Yes, there is open space in the SEQ, but what about the rest of our city? What about the parts of the city where middle income folks live, much less those with housing subsidy? South Burlington, I think, is losing its concept of community by listening only to the loud voices. And I'm asking the city council to take a step back, to think about the many who cannot afford to live in the SEQ. And while the voices of those in the SEQ are correct about the protection of open space, at least to me, some of them sound self-serving and nimbyish, even though I know that's not what they are. Mine is the voice of one who doesn't live there. And I support the protection of Hubbard Park. And I wish I could stay tonight to voice that support, but I can't. I do not support the continued covering of the little open space outside of the SEQ. I don't support eight-story high-rise housing, nor I just support more expensive homes with a modest allocation for a few. Morrisville was recently in the news. They came up with something that worked. We have something like that. Can we do some more? Let's do our part, but we don't have to do all of it. So yes, climate change is real, but so is the need for modest housing and spaces to play. Yes, even a recreation center for children and adults to recreate in the cold of winter, or like recently inside from the unsafe air created by fires in our neighbors to the north. And I did listen to the discussion with the school board and I know the dynamics of some of that, but I still want to say let's not lose sight of the potential for a recreation center. So I want to be proud of my city. Right now quite honestly, I'm not so sure. I will watch and listen and decide if I continue to be an active member or if it's time to find other places to invest my energy. And that sounds like a threat and it's not. I want to be really clear about that. It's simply a statement of my frustration and my concern. I'm asking you to consider a more balanced approach in planning for today and for the future. Consider a broader perspective behind your own personal passions. Consider all of South Burlington and the needs of the many right now as well as the generations of the future. Thank you. Thank you. Could I respond? I wish people would read the minutes that are in the packet for today because we have as a council agreed on agreeing for city center. So I just want that to be very clear that is in the public record and it's in the minutes for today. And I think that many of the things that you discussed, Barb, we are doing and I invite you to give me a call. Okay. Now I, I, Megan, I don't, I don't want to get this to go on long. I just am concerned that sometimes, not always, but sometimes it sounds like we are, we are losing that perspective that I am so used to hearing from this city council. And I have great respect for the dialogue, but I just sort of felt like I needed to say something. Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And I hate getting. Oh, I'm sorry. Are there other comments from the public? Someone who put their camera. I know someone put their camera on, but they, maybe they didn't realize that meant. I think it was just when they were coming. Okay. Oh, no. Colin. Larsen. Welcome. What do you have to share with us? Okay. Hi. Yeah. I live in Burlington. Um, I just wanted to come speak in support of the Hubbard Park path. Oh, that's later on in our, um, Agenda. Yes, you should wait. Thank you. Okay. This is for topics not on the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Gotcha. I was a little late. My apologies. That's okay. Any other. Commenters. Okay. Before we move on to counselors. Um, Announcements and reports and we are going to hear from the city manager. I just wanted to, um, recognize that, um, how lucky this community is to have avoided. Some of the horrific flooding and consequences of, um, several days of intense rain. And, um, Um, I was very pleased and, um, Jesse will share with the public how, uh, this community's, um, civil servants have stepped up and really provided, uh, some important, uh, support to those other communities. I mean, my heart goes out to them. This is going to be, um, probably a decade long, um, to bring people's homes and businesses and kind of understand, um, the consequences of flooding and intense rain that seems to be more common. And I also would just like to recognize the fact that this community has, um, provided a lot of, um, infrastructure for rainwater and, um, and I think, and, and the open space that we have bought and invested in. And I think that has helped contribute to being a place that isn't, um, making some of the flooding worse, but rather is an example of a community that has been working on trying to make a difference and, um, mitigating some of that. I mean, clearly we can't mitigate it all and we don't have a major river going right through our community. So we're lucky. Um, but I think we've also put in place, um, a lot of, um, zoning and development rules that help mitigate that and, and have better consequences for our community. Um, so I just wanted to say that and I, I hope everyone, um, can contribute in whatever way they're able to, um, help some of the other Romaners who, um, there's their city councils or select boards aren't sitting around a table right now, um, and they're going to be talking about, um, um, they're going to be talking about an audience talking about, um, all the things we're going to be talking about in a, um, new building that has had no, uh, consequences from the flooding or even the rain. So we're really pretty lucky. Yeah. Okay. So moving on to number five, councilor's announcements and reports on committee assignments. I'm going to start. I attended an energy committee meeting. Um, energy community is going to be hosting an event at the end of September, the energy festival. Um, they have lots of folks already signed up to, to exhibit. I think it should be, um, a really good educational event, um, for the community. Um, continue the committee continued going through the comp plan and I think made some really good comments and, um, um, um, and we'll see more from them, um, on that front. I attended the planet commission meeting as they continue to go through the comp plan. I thought that was a good meeting. Um, I attended a, um, an event at common roots where common roots has a vision to provide housing, affordable housing for farmers and, um, you know, personnel to manage our seven, seven hundred acres of farms in South Burlington, to provide childcare, to provide, to provide a, you know, a place where all those farms can, can sell their goods, uh, four seasons of farm stand. Um, I thought it was a really powerful vision and if they can accomplish all of that, um, dovetails with a lot of important city goals. And I'd love to start a dialogue. Um, as to whether we, you know, we can partner with them, whether we should partner with them. So I think, I think it's an interesting opportunity. And, and it was more to be said on that front. Okay. Great. Thank you. Tim. Yes, thanks. Um, I attended the pension advisory committee meeting last Tuesday. Um, just a couple of quick things to report. Um, we had a year to date increase in the balance of the pension, about, by about three, 3.1 million to a balance of around 43 million as of last Tuesday. The second quarter gain was around 3.5%. Um, based upon their recommendation, we decided to make some very small changes. Uh, we ended up moving a 2% from the emerging markets, equity and frontier to world equity. And we decided to liquidate all the diversified short-term fixed income into the limited duration fixed income, which was about 5% of the entire portfolio. And we voted unanimously to take those actions. And Dave Cappell is pretty much permanently taken over the representation by a CI of our portfolio from Pat Blizzard, who is moving on to other positions. So I was, Pat's pretty much his last visit here to, to Burlington, unfortunately, so. But, um, yeah, it was a good meeting. So. Thank you. Markets doing well, portfolios doing well. Knock on wood. Keep going. This isn't wood though. Well, it's been here, right? No, maybe it's not. Okay. How about this? Okay. Thank you. Megan. Yeah. And I might be missing alerts from other members of our delegation to Montpelier, but I just wanted to recognize that we have representatives and a senator representing our community who have been very, very active in the flood relief. So I wanted to recognize Senator Keisha Ram as well as representative Noah Hyman and representative Emily Krasnov, who have been, I think, very, very active in collecting goods from many people here in our community wanting to help out. And I know many of us have also donated, which is really badly needed and appreciated. I know as far as the, the work I've done, I am the liaison to the charter review committee and there was a meeting last Wednesday and they came to two big conclusions with regard to the city council and the school board. They will be advancing the recommendation to us to consider expanding the numbers from five to seven on both boards. As far as wards, they were not able to come to a consensus and so that will also be part of their report to the city council. They have been very mindful of the increasing diversity in our city and wanting to encourage people to have the ability to run and to represent the various, I guess, the people that make us up and we're a very diverse community and so there was a very good discussion about that. They're also very concerned about the amount of money that is being poured into council elections. I share that concern as well as the concern about diversity. So it was a really, I would say excellent discussion this last week. It lasted two hours and I give Peter Taylor a lot of credit for running what turned out to be a really various discussion as well as the committee members who have my utmost respect and the people in the audience. I was glad to see several people in the audience. Thanks. Okay. Tyler. I don't have a whole lot in terms of updates. I've been distracted with last week I was traveling for work and then on top of that was trying to pursue some grassroots efforts to help with fundraising for the flooding and the areas affected and I've been working to put together a fundraising event to support the Main Street Foundation organized by Mike Pichek and so we'll be running that on Thursday. But that and a lot of work on the Hubbard discussion, but we'll talk about that shortly. Okay. Thank you. I've been on vacation with my family. I've been cooking a lot. Take a care of babies. They've been about 13 to 15 of us every meal. So it's been, I haven't done all the cooking, but so I've been busy doing that. But tonight's a reprieve. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Steped away. They're on their own. And I'm here. Thank you. Can I just say two things real quick? I just remind everybody that in 2019, right? Was it muddy brook, right? Destroyed the Kimball Avenue Bridge, right? And we went through a couple of years of temporary bridges. And so that has been built back in. And I don't think we had any problems during the storm event. And then installing some resilience in the community. That was a, that was really important for us. Right. And the other thing is that if you didn't know a meter, mayor Pete, Pete Buttigieg was here today in the state with our congressional reps. So that was really great for him to be here. Thanks. Oh, and I would note, we're at the lake and we saw the one in two days, the water come up two feet. Wow. Yeah. Six inches, six feet. The first day and then six inches during the day. And the next night it was six more inches. So it's just amazing to me because Lake Champlain is huge. And to have it come up a whole foot. Or no, two feet, a foot and then two, six inches. So two feet in a matter of days is pretty remarkable. And it's just, it's just incredible. It's just incredible. And it's just incredible. There was a tide moving out of the cut. At the, at the Colchester causeway, cause the lamoille spills into there. And water was rushing out of the cut into the broad lake, which I've never seen before ever. Yeah, no, it's the power of water is remarkable. Now that Cambridge and Johnson have been, and Jeffersonville had been hard hit by the lamoille. Yeah. Just as much as the new ski. Yes. Yes. Okay. Our city manager, thing. We are at Councilor Emery's request staff is starting to work on a walking tour of City Center so we are targeting the late afternoon before your April August 7th or August 21st meeting so if one of those is better or worse for the rest of the council I would love to know that this week so we can schedule that tour and I'll send an email around about that. Also wanted to remind the council that effective July 1st the school impact fee ordinance is in effect so that is starting to collect half of the school impact fees the second half will be added January 1st. So in terms of flood response, echoing the council's comments, a lot of the infrastructure investment that this community has in the last 10 years led primarily by Tom DiPetro in Stormwater really did help protect our city and we're very thankful for that. As a result we were able to dispatch some of our experts to help our neighbouring communities and I wanted to highlight that today not only to thank the staff for their willingness to do that but also thank the community for the support to do that. These are professionals that we've invested in that we've trained equipment we've purchased and it meant a lot to the crews to be able to go and help their neighbours and bring that expertise to them. So on July 12th and 13th we had our street sweepers down in Montpelier with a crew moving the mud and debris off of the public right of way helping to move the debris off the public right of way. On July 12th and 14th we had our water quality superintendent and some of our wastewater treatment plant operators bring what turned out to be about 60,000 gallons of sludge from the South Burlington Airport Parkway water treatment plant down to Montpelier. This is one of my personal favourite municipal stories of the year but kind of gross. Basically the bacteria in the Montpelier wastewater treatment plant got so diluted as a result of so much water flowing through the plant that we receded that treatment plant with bacteria from South Burlington. Yogurt starter. Yeah, so we're doing a starter. I think it's great. Very helpful for them because it doesn't work without the bacteria in the plant. Additionally on July 13th and 15th we had a crew of about eight down in Berry City helping to remove debris from downtown and get that city operational again and then on the 14th we had a crew of two with our vector truck in Waterbury helping to get mud out of basements as well as one of our new firefighters down working with a crew from St. John's Berry pumping out basements. So we're really thankful for the community support to be able to use our treatment and equipment in that way and a huge thanks to the crews who did that work and helped our neighbours. That's all I have. OK, thank you. Moving on then to the consent agenda we have three items. Disbursements, approval of minutes from June 19th and June 26th City Council meetings and approval of the energy committee's application for municipal energy resilience program. I move that we approve. Second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favour signify by saying aye. We have approved the consent agenda. So moving on to item seven we interview and consider appointing a candidate to the energy committee. And I was unable because I had terrible internet so I don't know who this person is. Oh, Fred Kuznicki. OK. For the three year. Yes. So just a reminder to the council, the energy committee did not actually have enough applicants for seats this year. So we have two vacancies currently for two three year seats on the energy committee and Fred has applied. And I don't know if he is here. He indicated that he would be here, but I don't see him. Are we ahead of schedule? Seven o'clock? No. No, we're right on. Let's just appoint him anyway. OK, so I have a motion again to appoint for the three year session. Thank you, Fred. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. So we have filled one more of the vacancies for the energy committee. And Fred had been on the committee. Yes, yes, he comes with a lot of a lot of experience, a lot of experience. That we know. You're going to crap it's different. Sorry, it took so long. OK, so next item eight is probably why there are people in the audience. This is a discussion of Hubbard Park Path connectivity and materials to be used for that and provide direction to the staff. And Erica Klaylin, who is the DPW deputy director capital projects is here to give us the update. We certainly and I've heard from a lot of residents. And I suspect we'll hear from a few more tonight. But we'll start with our staff. Great. Thank you. Again, I'm Erica Klaylin, DPW deputy director of projects, big mouthful. Thanks for having me back. I was here on May 15th. There were some questions following up and given a lot of public interest. And I am back to open that up, answer some of those questions and any others that come up tonight. So I just want to first go over the project area again. We're looking at Hubbard Park here and north is going to be to the left of your screen here, so Spear Street is at the bottom and Nolan Farm Road is the S to the north to the left of Hubbard Park. And this path that we're talking about tonight is just on the Hubbard parcel. It is not going beyond it on either direction. We're just talking about within the property lines on the city owned property. So this is just a very condensed version of a few slides from last time public outreach to date and how we've gotten to the point that we're at today. The parcel was purchased 2013 or 14 in 2015. There was a visioning process that was led by the Underwood parcel task force, formerly Underwood, now Hubbard that then led into a 2018 master plan, which started to kind of hone some of those ideas coming out of the visioning process. The design for this path and viewing area started in September of 2020 or January of 2021. And there was a public workshop in September. And then, like I said, I was here in May. So in May, this was the design that you had all been shown. It shows the parking area, the path and overlooked viewing area and a public art installation. And this design, the parking area and shared use path are both paved. The other pieces are stone dust, crush gravel and some mode areas in the viewing area. And given that this project started a few years back and was in the previous land development regulations, the lines on this map only represented a 50-foot wetland buffer. But we have adjusted that to accommodate a 100-foot wetland buffer where it would have encroached. So on the next slide here, this shows an updated design. The southern end of the path would stay the same. And it's all the same design elements. This is just a very rough sketch. It would be flushed out to the level that the other one was and then continue with this, if that is the plan moving forward. So what this does, you can see the previous design is shaded in the background. The path actually comes over to the west side of the parking area and the crosswalk is on the other side. Going to Pinnacle and Nolan Farm goes across on the opposite side and goes along the west side of the parking area. And the parking area is also curved slightly. It would still have the same capacity and there would still be that hedge buffer so that lights or anything wouldn't go towards the homes that are just to the west here. But like I said, the southern end of the project would stay the same. None of that crossed into the wetland buffer. So the big question that came out of the May meeting was to explore options between a pavement surface and a gravel or aggregate surface. So pavement has been the planned surface based on those processes I had described. And so a gravel or aggregate would be a diversion from that, which would require a few steps back, but is possible. And so I just wanted to lay out a few other components that go into kind of the thought process, some of which was why we landed on pavement initially and other things are just things to consider as you look at this. So underneath the pavement, there is 18 inches of different surfaces, compacted gravel to make sure that it is stable. And all of that is still needed for the gravel and aggregate. So it would be the exact same minus that couple inches of pavement on the top. So you can see here, oh, I see a typo. That's a sub base and asphalt, but the 21 and a half and the 18 inches are the correct numbers of how deep materials would have to be introduced. The pavement accessibility has a big conversation. Pavement stays accessible for a very long time while aggregate, when properly compacted, is technically ADA compliant. It can run really easily from water or from frequent use. So it would have to go through quite a bit of maintenance to maintain that accessibility and some of it is also perception of folks if they want to use gravel or not. But when it is newly constructed, it does technically ADA guidelines there. Like I mentioned, the gravel or aggregate requires a bit more frequent maintenance to introduce new material and regrading it to keep that level compacted surface. Whereas pavement is a bit more low maintenance over its initial lifetime. It does require some heavier lifts when it needs to be replaced, of course. But on the yearly basis, it's a lower maintenance option. Pavement would be consistent with the path network that is planned off alignment of Spear Street. And gravel or aggregate is a bit more consistent with some of the other open space areas. But again, looking at this as the path and also part of the network. So those are some things to consider there. Both are considered impervious, requires the same amount of stormwater treatment and pavement, as Tom has mentioned before, and he's here to answer maintenance questions. They come up also. Pavement can be plowed, so it would be a four season use and gravel and aggregate can't be paved. So the construction cost is a bit cheaper up front for gravel, a gravel path. So that is the same exact cost minus the cost of the asphalt itself. And so this is just the up front construction cost, 175,000 for the pavement and 140,000 for the gravel. I know this is lower than the cost we showed before, but this is just for the path section. This does not include the other elements and does not include the parking area also in this calculation. So just lastly, probably should have put a QR code here on there also. But the project website has been updated with recordings from the May meeting, recordings of the public forum from 2021 and some history about the project and all of the different studies and visioning processes that have happened. They are all on the South Brillington website. You can go through the Rackin Parks website, go into the directory of parks and go to Hubbard and you can get a lot of information there. And just one last thing we had. Stormwater has been a big question also. So I got some answers for everyone today. They did some digging through. So stormwater is still in design and as things, the alignments have been shifting. Stormwater needs to be placed strategically. But given that there's agricultural land and some residences quite close by, I went back and looked at some conceptual stormwater plans. And so just to the west of the parking area is a planned stormwater treatment area so that it wouldn't reach those two residences. And any overflow from that there would likely be a swale that would bring it back to the roads collection system. And it's pretty much the same situation down at the viewing area, which is directly east of the common roots field right there. And it would be the same process, a stormwater treatment facility with overflow going into a disconnect or a swale that would bring water around the fields rather than going right through them. So I got those answers today for you. So they're not in the slides, but I wanted to make sure I had that for you. Do you have a cost estimate for? The stormwater we do not have a cost estimate for. I think there was just a single estimated line item in the previous estimate for that total cost. But I'm not sure exactly what that number was. So the figures you gave us are just the material to create the path. Yes, the 175 and 140 are just the path, but the numbers I brought last time were for the entire project of parking area, a path, viewing area, and the public art installation. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. Thanks for this update. Does the cost... Is it just for the path within Hubbard or does it include penetrating into the South Point area to the edge of the Bellavance property? It does not include that section. It includes the crosswalk to get across Nolan Farm and the curb work that would happen there, but it does not go outside of the park property line going south. Do you have an estimate for that yet? We do not. That hasn't been part of this project. This project is only in the park for now. That would involve, right now, there's a somewhat of a bridge, bridge through there, so it would be a bit more of an involved design going over the wetlands through there. Do you know if we have all the easements that we need to get from Hubbard to the edge of South Point? Anybody know? I believe we have an easement. Okay, yeah. Oh, just asking, yeah, okay. Yeah, since it was on the comprehensive plan and on the official map when that went in, I am quite certain we have it, but don't, I won't put it at 100%. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? I just had a question. Could you just address what thought was given to Cement, which pollutes less. I know it's more expensive and it's much more CO2 in production, which is something that everybody in this room is aware of, but it is, it's better with regard to the heat that's generated in addition to the leaching that asphalt. At this point, we hadn't explored Cement through this area. I'm looking at it kind of like a concrete sidewalk, the same way that it would be poured there. It has not been explored. A lot of that is due to the cost. And do our materials allow for one continuous slab, our equipment, I mean, allow for one continuous slab, like on a highway, for instance, or would it be the blocks like we see on our sidewalks? Do you know the answer to this? I'm not, I don't even think highways are one continuous. They're blocked too, but they're bigger blocks. Yeah, they're larger blocks, I'm not sure. Okay, like the floor of this building. Like a foundation of this building, for instance. I mean, technically it's possible because we have examples of that, but I'm not sure. It wouldn't be our crew and equipment that would do it. We would contract this out anyway. But yeah, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Other comments or questions from the council? Andrew? Well, I have comments, but are we gonna hear from the public first? Well, if you have some questions for Erica, then that would be good to do now. If not, we can open it to public comment. Could we ask Erica questions before she leaves? Well, I guess that makes sense. I was going to stick up here through public comment, if specific questions arise. I'm happy to, I don't know if you would prefer it go through council. Go through us, but yes, happy to stay up here and answer questions. Important questions. I would also just like to let the public know that we have had, I didn't count them, but we had about 150 pages. Okay, 150 plus or minus comments from individuals. I suspect all of us have read all of them. Some I received several times. And so in terms of the public comment tonight, can I have a show of hands? Who would like to make a comment? I understand that. I just wanna get a sense of how we, okay. So there's quite a few and there's some on, okay. So I would like to limit your comments to three minutes and also try to avoid, I would encourage you to try to avoid saying the exact same thing that someone else said. You can certainly come up and you're welcome to say, I agree with X and this is Y, but to go through all of it multiple times is probably not time well spent for the council because we've read it all. So we've heard it once in that format, but we're happy to have the public hear that as well. Although I guess all the emails have been included in tonight's information for the council, the packet. So why don't we start in, Michael, do you wanna ask your questions from Erica first? And then if someone else has, why don't you come up? Please tell us who you are. So the audience knows. Michael Mitter, I live just off Swift Street between Dorset and Spear and I've lived there for some 22 years. Is the bright green light on? It is. Okay, maybe get it. I'm not close enough. Now you are. There you go. My question for Erica was why do we need a stormwater facility in the park? Yes, why do we need one? The stormwater improvements were planned as part of the master planning and visioning process already without the path. It was proposed to do some improvements in that area with the introduction of any new impervious surface will make sure to treat any of the runoff from the new impervious, but it was called out in those two, the 2015 and 2018 plan to improve it anyway. Given the steep slope, it's gone down towards Spear Street in the past. So this would be an opportunity to add it and it would be right sized for accommodating the new impervious as well. So that impervious is only about four and a half thousand square feet for the whole thing. Is it really need a whole stormwater facility to handle that? It does cross the threshold that would require state stormwater permits and stormwater treatment for both the local and state level. And when we're collecting the stormwater we'll be wanting to treat it. And like I mentioned, the agricultural field and the residences downstream, we'd want to make sure it doesn't impact them. So Erica, is part of that requirement a result of including the paved parking lot? Does that, if the only pavement or impervious surface that was added to this site was the 10 foot walkway? Maybe Tom has an answer to that. Would that require the stormwater mitigation? That is my question. Okay. Good evening, everybody. Tom DiPietro, Director of Public Works, former city stormwater guy and the person responsible for putting stormwater treatment system in that master plan. That is there, Michael, because Bartlett Brook is one of our stormwater impaired watersheds. And so we've had issues in the past where water coming down the hill, that steep slope has caused washouts in the neighborhoods downstream. So when the city purchased that area, I pointed out that it would be great to have a detention facility to slow that water from coming down the hill and larger storms. So that was sort of the origin of that. Since that time, we learned that we can't put it there because of the wetland down by Spear Street. So with a large system, we had envisioned originally with changing wetland rules sort of is not possible any longer. So now the stormwater treatment system, such as it is designed, will be right sized for the parking area and the path. Okay, thank you. One last, I'm gonna be doing less than three minutes, probably one minute, and then I'm finished for the evening. Okay. But I'd like to say that I cannot think of an issue in the 22 years that I've lived here that has been so controversial and so divisive for this community. And it's a very, very sad state of affairs for South Burlington, putting neighbors against neighbor and neighborhoods against neighborhoods. It's really sad. I've already made my feelings about the path known to all in sundry. So I won't bore you with that again. Suffice it to say that I'd rather have it would remain in its natural state. Clearly there's a lot of support for this path and a lot of opposition to it. And I really don't envy you trying to balance the wants of all your constituents. And I hope you will be able to find the middle ground tonight. It's gonna be a hard task for you. I really don't envy you, but I thank you for the effort. Well, just for the record, I think another very divisive issue that we managed was the basing of the F-35s. That was pitted people against each other and was... And goes on to this day. I hope this one won't last this long. I hope so too. Thank you. I just want to know, we have a little experience with that. I just have a quick question for Eric as a follow-up. So will the runoff from the path, you said it would go downstream to the four acres? I couldn't quite tell from looking at the proposal and the topo lines. When I went to the park where the existing path is, it actually looks like it would run east. But do you know? So part of it is it wouldn't be exactly where the current path is. It would be slightly farther west because of the wetland buffers, especially now with the hundred feet, pushing it that much farther. And so it would go towards the slope and then continue down that steep slope. And so the two stormwater treatment practice proposed locations that are being explored right now are to catch the water and divert it, one between the parking lot and the residences, and then the other one between the viewing area and the common roots field so that it wouldn't reach it. It would be caught, treated, and anything remaining would be diverted. Okay, thank you. Okay. Someone else? Bob? No? Okay, yes. Yes, yes. Yes, I'm with Pinnacles. And I had a question on have you considered something such as deconstructed granite for the pathway which is payable and semi-permeable? And my other question was, this is a proposal for a mixed-use path, and we're very concerned about the pedestrian and bicycle accidents occurring. There are studies that have looked at this. The shared-use path, the rate of accidents is about 8.6 accidents per 100,000 bicycle hours. If you looked at a devoted bike path separate from the road, it drops down to about 5.8 accidents per 100,000 hours, and then on an asphalt road itself, it drops even further down to 5.7. We would like to make it as safe as possible and to separate, because the people who live in those neighbors tend to be more on elderly, and the health department and other groups want people to walk out as much as possible, get exercise, it's good for them. Having a path that is solely for pedestrian traffic would be preferable since nationally, nationwide there's about 100,000 bicycle pedestrian accidents occur resulting in hospital visits. They estimate it's about 50 times for near-collisions between pedestrians and bicycles. So we're very concerned about that. So just for me to be clear, you're representing just yourself, is that right? Well, actually I'm on the board at Pinnacle, so I kind of know what they're doing. Yes, the board would prefer that a separate, probably prefer not to have the proposed bike path be asphalt at all and have a semi-porous kind of construction even though it would be more expensive without a doubt because you'd have to have stabilizers with decomposed granite. But whatever the surface is, your position is that it should be exclusively for pedestrians? Yes, as opposed to bicycles, since it'd be much safer and all the neighborhoods could use it, it'd be for all and it's mainly a safety issue. Can I ask what survey are you referencing, what data are you referencing when you say it's safer? No, this is from Australia and they did a large study of the 100,000, excuse me, the 1,000 bicycle accidents is from our country and that's the National Institute of Health. Do you know when that was conducted? The National Institute of Health was in 2018, 2019. That's where the data came from. I'm not sure when the Australian, the Australian study came out at a similar time, but I'm not sure what time period it entails to get their data. So is that a policy that you would like embraced throughout all of our paths? Because as I understand it, most of the paths, if not all of them in the city, are mixed pedestrian and bicycles. I mean, they don't even have a line down the middle where, you know, some places it's... No, I'm just giving you the information for your knowledge about the shared path, but since this is a specific area, we'd like to keep it as natural as possible and we would like people to be able to use it. And there are other ways for people to get from South Village. I mean, there is a proposed part of the bike path from Nowland Farm Road down Dorsey Street to Midland Avenue, that's a blue dotted line that's part of your master plan. It makes more sense to put it there and not ruin the natural area. Okay, thank you. Okay. Someone else? Raise your hand. Yes. Hi, thanks. Beth Ziegmund, 338 Golf Course Road. So I felt like I should come up next because I'm a physician over at the hospital and I am 100% in favor of this path because I can tell you from where I sit as a radiologist every day, the risks to cyclists on the road are far, far greater than any risk of a pedestrian being on a path with a bicycle. When people get hit by cars on their bikes, they are killed. The number of accidents that I see every day, well, maybe hopefully not every day, but the accidents that I see are not bicycle versus pedestrian, they are bicycle versus car. So I just wanna start with that. I also wanna just make a couple of other comments. You all received my letters, so I'm gonna be very brief. I think that when we look around today outside, there's fog outside at 7.30 in the evening because there are wildfires raging in Canada. There are people in the state that are reeling from the effects of catastrophic flooding. There are heatwaves scorching the planet, all corners of the planet. We have to, we must, must, must stop burning fossil fuels. And one of the best ways to do that in South Burlington where 65% of our emissions are from vehicles is to get out of our cars and ride our bicycles. I know people personally who live south of Hubbard Park who will not ride their bikes to work. I work at the hospital, they will not ride their bicycles into town or to the hospital because they're afraid of getting killed. So I will leave it at that. I think you all got the gist of it from my letter. I would also say that I have a lot of respect for a lot of the folks who are coming out in opposition to this path. But on this one, I think they're absolutely wrong. I would ask them to just do a quick accounting of the carbon dioxide emissions savings from riding a bicycle versus driving a car, say five miles in each direction, 10 miles round trip, tune from the hospital, say six months out of the year on workdays and balance that number, which is hundreds of kilograms of carbon dioxide per person, per vehicle balanced against the impacts of a single bike path through Hubbard Park, the environmental impacts of a single bike path through Hubbard Park. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Someone else? Yes, Mike. And then the gentleman with the orange. Oh, maybe it would be helpful if people wanted to just line up. Thank you. You know, save us some time. And you can sit down if you decide you're against it. Yes, we do. Okay. Did you introduce that concurrent with me appearing here at the podium? So, Mike Semino, I currently chair the Recreation and Parks Committee and I was on the task force after Unsworth at the time, now Hubbard was acquired, as were you, Mike, I think. So, our Recreation and Parks Committee supports this path being paved. We support the parking area being paved as well. We feel that parks are for people and this asset, which was acquired approximately 10 years ago, has been very underutilized. And I think it's great that we're in the process of finding ways of starting to use it and plan for its use and getting more folks out there to do so. The original plan that was approved, and I know most of the people in this room are familiar with it, was a lot more ambitious and actually included a venue for people to gather. Since then, things have changed a lot and right now, the use is probably a practical one, but our committee would actually like to, you know, see other uses find their way into the park. So, Recreation Park supports the paving of the path and the parking lot in the park. Is it 30 new slots that you do support that? We support it. The other stuff, the art and the... Yes, yeah, we support the plan that is in front of you right now. I mean, we're always willing to talk. I mean, it's a process, but we like the plan and we support it. Okay, thank you very much. Yeah? Two minutes and 17 seconds for the record. Yeah, did you hear that, Mike? Two minutes, two, 17, so. Yeah, okay. I'm Francis McDonald and my resident of South Point neighborhood and I live on Upswept Lane. Hold on a minute, we can't hear. Would you start again? I'm sorry. Okay, Francis McDonald, I'm a resident of South Point neighborhood and I live on Upswept Lane. I agree that Hubbard is a very valuable asset for our city as a natural area. I would like to see a paved path through Hubbard as shown on the Recreation and Parks proposal. I think that extends the South Burlington Recreation Path Network and it partially completes a missing link between South Village and the remaining network. I would like to see it paved all the way to Parkside. The drawings for our neighborhood show that there is a city right of way between the end of the paved part of Parkside Drive and the property line at Hubbard. So I believe that there is a right of way there that can be used to extend that path all the way to Parkside Drive. I also support retaining all of the existing grass paths within Hubbard and I really would like to see that the path that's partly being replaced by the paved path to remain grass so that we could have grass for the people that would like to cross country ski in the winter, snow shoe, whatever, so that they have a path to walk across and then have a paved path next to it or nearby for bicycles and to make it easy for people that need firm footing to walk through Hubbard. I would support a small parking area for maybe six or eight for handicapped only but not the full parking area. I think a much smaller parking area would help maintain the natural area of the park and I do not support further development of the viewing area or the artwork area so that summarized my comments. Thank you. Thank you. 222 for the record. Good evening, my name is Don Cummings. I live on Spear Street. Many of the points that I made in my note to you which I don't think made it into the packet but I'm gonna paraphrase a couple of those things, particularly the climate change emphasis. I think we need to find alternate ways for people to get to work, to get to play, to get to services, to get to shopping and this is clearly one of the missing links in the North-South Avenue from South Village to the North. You've recently authorized the widening or the adjustment in Spear Street which I think is excellent because it aligns with the bike paths from Shelburne so that the brave and the capable can bike all the way to the end of Spear to Swift now. I don't think I would want if I had young kids and I do have grandkids. I think I'd be very careful when my wife walks our little grand kid but she's scared to death to walk our little grand kid on that street. So alternate use paths I think are key. And particularly they need to be paid so that they're accessible and usable. Echoing a point about the parks, the park was acquired I think with taxes that we all authorized for recreation and conservation. The park name includes the word recreation. You can't recreate on a park unless you can get to it. So a paved path and paved parking. You've authorized DRB development review, excuse me, land use regulations that allow for more people to live in South Burlington. It would be nice if they had a place to play too. Lastly, I think the developers around town would think it very odd if you require them to pave paths but you won't pave one of your own. So I think a paved path, if you're gonna require paved paths elsewhere, you should be putting in a paved path here too. There's been some discussion that this is gonna adversely affect climate change. To the contrary, if we increase alternate forms of transportation getting into Burlington, South Burlington, it will reduce climate change. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody, Linda. Nice to see all of you. My name is Linda Norris and I've lived in South Burlington off of Bezant Way off of Deerfield by Overlook Park for 28 years now. And I first wanna say thank you to all of you because I know how many hours and how many meetings, how many evenings you guys have been doing this and I really applaud it and I know we all appreciate it. So thank you for all your time. End your leadership on this city for years, some of you. Thank you. I have so much to say and I know there's a time limit. The main thing that I have a problem with and I know a lot of people do who have been around here for a while is that we all want bike path connectivity in the city. Definitely. I applaud Bob and all of the bike pad committee on what they've done so far. But we want those two things, the second thing being open space. I went to one of these hearings the gentleman who did the facilitation for all of the quadrants around the city and I think we're called the Southwest Quadrant if you're west of Spear Street and go down to Queen City Park. We had the biggest turnout, the most input and the facilitator who I can't remember his name said for this comprehensive plan input, the biggest of any input was keep open space in South Burlington. That's what we need. We certainly have a lot of pavement. There's no doubt about it. And I find that this field that we spent $1.7 million on is a rural field. It's called the Tom Hubbard natural, it's called the Tom Hubbard Park and natural area. So we have this natural area that you don't get back after you pave it and you change its use and you put in 30 paved parking lots. We've not had bikes in Red Rocks. We've not had bikes in Wheeler. We have 11 parks around our city which we're very lucky to have around our city but you can't have bikes in the natural area and not change what's going on. I've had, I've biggest ambassador for our parks. I mean them every day, one of them every day. And people, I've saw someone biking in Red Rocks a couple of times but you have to stop them. And if we do this in Hubbard, it's gonna change the whole environment in that field. It is open right now with the beautiful, beautiful additions that were made when the park was bought. You guys put in a beautiful parking lot. It has never been filled to capacity. Have I ever seen more than five cars at a time? I'd be surprised. So while we're looking at 30 and rushing to that, I really can't understand and rectify my mind. So I'd take your time on doing that whether you pave it or not. The other part I wanted to get through to you on is on pavement. I bike an awful lot. I'm a crazy lady that likes to be outside all the time since I retired. I bike Spear Street a lot. I did a lot through COVID with my family and our daughters. We'd go do the loop down Spear Street through South Village and back across Nolan Farm almost every night. It is not safe. What we're trying here to avoid and what we're all trying to fix is Spear Street. And when you dissect the whole thing, you know what we're trying to fix? About 300 yards between Nolan Farm Road, going down Spear Street to try and get into South Point. It's about that amount of space. We're trying to pave a bike path through a field to solve 300 yards. Let me give you, because in the business I was in, you always had to cover the solution somehow. The solution, we have paved paths going from Nolan Farm across Spear down Deer Field right now, down Deer Field and you go down Pheasant Way over to Baycrest and you're back up on Allen Road and you're right there at South Village, even beyond South Point. You have not had to go on Spear Street. So you have an alternative already that you can ride on a paved path to get around and you don't have to create a new one. Okay. I also want to just before I close, I'm hoping people, I tried to get ahold of Carol McQuillen of Common Roots who have the four acres for least there. And I know that she's out of town, couldn't come and said that she provides, you know, 6,000 pounds of food to this food, South Burlington food shelf. That was this year. She said, and you know to me that she's gonna have to provide about 8,000 pounds of food. So I want to make sure we're considering all that she's doing there, whether she might need expansion for acreage there or not. That to me is a better use of this field and what we have done for integrated land management that she's tried to provide for us and climate change before you go forward with another plan that is developing this beyond, I think where we need to go just for that section of a bike path. I could go on and on. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Who's next? Hi, I'm Havilah Gange. I live at 81 Butler Farron. I am standing on my own opinions, but I'm also the chair of the bike path committee. And so I just want to bring up a few things that I didn't feel like had quite been highlighted. One of them is that this path system, it's not actually just for South Burlington. South Burlington, we're kind of known as the cut through because we have all the streets that cut through from the surrounding communities into Burlington. And the same is true for our path network. We are a connection for Shelburne residents to get into Burlington. I know people from Hinesburg that will bike into work on Spear Street. They don't love it. They would love an off Spear Street option. I said, and we're also really connected to Williston and we're connected to other communities. And so part of our plan, and I think the way the communities are going forward is trying to make a more interconnected bike route. And this is a portion of that because it is part of the Southern access point into Burlington. And I didn't really feel like those things had been in the other letters as much. The next thing was I do support the paved parking. And part of that's access. And I think they might find more people who if they realize that actually is a park, I didn't even realize that that was public. And I thought it was somebody's field that I shouldn't be walking on because I'm going to mess up their hang at some point. It's also a bit of a tick farm, frankly. And so I think a lot of people would not use it. Who should have access? It was purchased with public money. It should have public access. Part of that is parking and not parallel parking all over Nolan Farm Road. I wasn't sure what 30 parking spaces looked like. And I was kind of wondering. So I went out yesterday to JC Park because I thought that's probably about the same. And JC Park has 40 spaces plus two spaces for handicap. So it wouldn't even be as big as that parking lot. And it may not get as much use. That parking lot also services a playground and two ball fields. Those, I think everything else I had to say was already in my letter and it's in the bike pad. So that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Hi. Musical chairs. You gotta move down. I'm Jennifer Cohen and I just speak for myself and maybe for the earth. I'm reading a couple sentences from the famous Japanese philosopher and farmer Masanobu Fukuoka who says, we must realize that both in the past and today there's only one sustainable course available to us. We must find our way back to true nature. We must set ourselves to the task of revitalizing the earth, regaining the earth. That is the path society must follow. The greatest gift we can give future generations is to keep as much land as possible, natural and wild. And just in the face of so much climate change, I just can't imagine anything better than keeping everything as wild as possible. There's so much development and just I feel it needs to stop. Thanks. Who's next? Linda? Hello, I'm Linda Bailey and I live over in Chamberlain, maybe a couple hundred yards from JC Park. I suspect that some people are worried what a busier park near where they live would be like. I can tell you it's actually great. Hearing the sounds of the kids playing and JC Park is lucky enough to have softball fields. All of those things make much more of a feel of community in our area. I do believe that we need a paved path through Hubbard Park. I know that I have stroller age grandchildren. I have a friend in a wheelchair. I have grandchildren that would ride bikes if they lived there. I would never dare let any of those people be on Spearsbury even if it is only for 300 yards. So paved is needed. I do believe that people need access to open and green spaces. A 10 foot path and a few picnic tables will give people access to the green space. I'm trying to touch on some of the different things I've heard people say on the note of having a parking area back before this all became raised to the surface and I was out looking for parks in the city. I got to Hubbard Park and the muddy parking area I didn't dare go into. I wasn't even sure if that was a place where I should take a car. I think that a paved parking area with suitable bushes to keep down the lighting and all of that will make it much more accessible and more people in our community will be able to enjoy our green and open spaces. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Bill McMeacon. I live at 74 Nolan Farm Road, which is one of the residences that shares a boundary with the park. Let me start by saying it's the first time I've heard anything said publicly about stormwater treatment since, I guess, back in 2021 when we had your original hearing. So I'm glad to hear that that hasn't died and that my house has been had a really nice dry basement for 25 years and I want it to stay that way. So thank you. I just wanted to, I have a short, I sent a short letter to you, but I just wanted to touch on a couple of things that have come on tonight. Obviously, I'm concerned, and I know there are others concerned about safety, security and privacy as the park has developed. And I heard mentioned earlier that someone, I think it was Parks and Rec. I don't know if Mike is still here, but said he would encourage further uses of the park and had a former meeting that I was at. Someone said maybe we could have events at the park because it might be a moneymaker. Well, the first thing that came to my mind was why don't we have a wedding for 200 people down by the viewing area? What would that do for us? Well, we'd probably tie up the whole park for three or four days while they brought in the tents and the port of parties and two days to set up, one day to have the wedding and a day to clean up. So I would just caution you in the future about what sort of events you're going to allow and how large they can be. Because if you got three or four days for a wedding, that's three or four days that the public can't enjoy the openness and natural amenities of the park. I'm a biker myself, I'm getting a lot older and I'm almost to the EV. So I used to complain about hills and I still do, but I'm sure the EVs will cure that. I'm a little concerned about the speed of electric bikes I do a lot of biking on the Burlington Bike Path and I can tell you at 20 miles an hour, an EV comes by, it gets in your way real fast. So I hope that that doesn't occur here, but I'm afraid it will because more people will use the hills to get to this path and they'll use them because they have an EV and they can get up all those hills and you'll have a lot more traffic. I think that's about all I have. I did send you a letter and I know you have that in your hand. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Bob. Hey there, my name is Bob Britt. I live at Three Adams Court near the park. I'm on the Bicycle and Ped Committee, but I'm speaking as a resident and neighbor tonight. First I'd like to thank everyone for this important dialogue. It's a great dialogue for the city to have. I've submitted my comments, so I'll try to be brief. I won't try to repeat them unless someone has a question from my write up. The big picture for me is the shared use path. I think it's critical to have a North, South, safe bike route for vulnerable users. Yes, there's going to be aggressive bicyclists who are gonna continue to ride on spear, but to have a path that people can use heading North and South for commuting, for going shopping, visiting neighbors, doing errands if there's ends up being a convenience store down at South Village at some point on the corner there or I guess the soccer fields off, but now there's talk about some kind of a playground or some other facility. So I think it's important. The shared use path also provides a safe connection for neighbors who live in South Village, South Point. All the streets along Nolan Farm, spear meadows for people to get together for kids to go to see their friends without having to go out on Spear Street. So I think it's perfect. I think that people are gonna be very happy when we finally, when they're able to go from say spear meadow over to common roots store and purchase some farm goods. Hubbard Park as we know was purchased with open space funds that does not mean that it was conserved. It's a passive park, which the definition from the city allows a paved bike path and paved parking. So under that definition, to me it's an equity issue to allow people to get to the park and people who are disabled, elderly, et cetera. So I think that what the right number of parking spaces is, I don't know, 10 to 15 at least, a paved parking would be great. And does it have to be paved? I don't know, it would be up to the DPW to say whether the maintenance costs were ridiculously high for it not being paved. I think we need three or four benches in the viewing area and I even would love to see one or two benches near the parking so that when I go to the cross, or excuse me, snowshoe, I have a bench to sit on because I'm getting old and putting on the snowshoes while standing is getting harder and harder. One thing that hasn't been, sorry, is a wooden bridge, that was taken out of the plan, but down on the eastern part, before you get into the forest, there was originally a wooden bridge because even in the winter, you gotta go through almost through water and freeze up your snowshoes or skis to get over that. So please think about putting that back in to the plan. Bob, can you wrap up please? Sure. I just, please note with all this flooding, I don't know if you've seen the kingdom trails and other things, but they've been wiped out, all the bike trails that are not paved. So there probably is some that have paved that got damage, but please do that. And finally, I just wanna do a public apology for in my letter to the council, I said that the DPW missed an opportunity to widen Spear Street when it repaved between Swift Street and Pinnacle. Well, I was away in Wisconsin at a family wedding and so I really didn't see it all. And from Elm Street where Spear Meadows comes out, it's now Elm Street, South all the way to Allen Road, it was, the center double line was centered. We got two more feet on the east side for a bike lane expansion or walking lane expansion. I'm a running lane expansion. So I do really appreciate that from the DPW and the end by Swift Street needs a little tuning still, but we made a lot of progress going from two to four feet. Great, thank you very much. Can I just point out that on Saturday the governor was supposed to ride a 90 plus mile route from the rail to trails that have been completed in St. Johnsbury and of course that had to be postponed not only because he was working diligently with the flood victims, but also because a lot of the paths were damaged. Which is incredible because they were railroad trails that are, I don't know how many feet of rock and stuff they put them on, but they're not, they're like a real road. They're not a little path. Well, the rails have been derailed. We have hundreds of miles of rails derailed. Yes, and how many other people in the audience do you want to speak? Okay. We got two more. Okay. And then, or three more, and then, pardon me? Then there are some people online. Yeah, four on. No, they've already, and then there's, yeah, online, there's four online. Yeah, I got two, I got your names. I just wanted to take care of the personal ones. Hi. So please, hi. My name is Jean Branna. I live at Pinnacle Drive and I've been in South Burlington for about 25 years. And this just is a broad comment in that in 25 years in the last decade, I am shocked at the rampant development in South Burlington. And when I look at that field, at the end of that neighborhood, in its beauty, and I just cannot imagine that this one last place probably in South Burlington has the potential to be degraded in a way where we put up artificial lighting, parking, impervious surfaces, parking 30 cars. It's just unconscionable. I just, you look outside the air we're breathing today. My eyes are burning. You can't see the mountains on the other side of the lake. Wildfires are burning 120 degrees across the Southwest. Floods just in our own state. I mean, to add any more impervious surfaces to this earth is really old thinking. And I think we have to be more progressive in our thinking. When we say getting more people off the road, I'm for that, I'm a biker. I travel spear street every day to go to work at the hospital and I can count on one hand the number of bikers I see on spear street commuting to work in the morning. And I wanted to know, do we have like some sort of statistical study done for how many cars do we expect to get off of the road during peak rush out, peak commuting times? How many more bicycles do we think we will add to the roads and cars off the road? Have we really studied that? Like it all sounds good in principle, but have we really studied it enough to the point where we want to bring in the tar trucks and make a 30 car parking lot and put up lighting and put the bike path out there just to get that one stretch of spear street that's got to be another solution. I don't know what it is, but maybe somebody else does. But anyway, that's all I want to say. See Roseanne? Yeah. Good evening, my name is Roseanne Greco. I live on Four Sisters Road, which is pretty opposite where the Hubbard Natural area is. I'm going to read my comments in order to keep my speaking time under three minutes. I'm delivering to you a petition with signatures from 129 people on behalf of the majority of those who live closest to the Hubbard Natural area. I also signed the petition. These medals are very special to many people and to me personally. Walking on them, especially when no one is there and it is quiet, helped me heal emotionally and spiritually during a very difficult time. I am grateful to these lands and I feel a sense of responsibility to protect them. I sincerely hope our voices matter to you. Unfortunately, in years past, other councils frequently ignored the voices of those who live closest to areas where there were proposed plans which affected their part of the city. In the majority of instances, and I can recall over 10, the council disregarded what the close by residents wanted. We can talk about the F-35 if you want. In favor of what special interest groups wanted or what individual counselors wanted. I hope this council is different than past ones in that you will listen to the people living closest to this land as well as to the science. Saving this land and other lands in our city from human encroachment is an imperative for climate mitigation. Experts advise that technical fixes without preserving nature are half measures. Every bit of our natural world is important. We have lost much of nature because of the false reasoning that protecting small areas won't matter in the long run. I remember sitting in the audience a few years ago when the council was told by Vermont experts that our area harbors the most unique natural communities in the entire state of Vermont and that areas like ours are critical for maintaining the biodiversity of the state. We just witnessed another climate disaster in Vermont. Future disasters are baked in at this point. It's no longer if it's a matter of when. The science is crystal clear. Carbon reach soils store water and mitigate the consequences of flash floods. Nature is our best ally in fighting climate change. But if we don't take proper measures to let it thrive, we will be ditching the best chance to survive the coming climate impacts. Most of you have expressed a belief in human-caused climate change and a commitment to taking action. You even established a climate action plan task force and adopted its recommendations. One of the recommendations is, and I quote, protect our remaining meadows, forests, grasslands and farmlands from further encroachment, end quote. Please abide by the climate plan you adopted. Thank you. Thank you. Do you want to speak? And then we'll go to those at home. Hi, my name is Ryan Doyle. It's been really interesting to read about the past plans and all the effort that went into getting to a large master plan and then cutting back to a very modest path proposal. It's interesting because when people talk about sprawl or our developed lands, I think it's really interesting because when you look at places like Pinnacle Drive or Four Sisters Road, those are once places just like Hubbard Park that were then quote, degraded by suburban sprawl. Yeah, hypocrisy. Yeah, so when we look at what actually really happens, just the paved area on Pinnacle Drive that services the first six homes is more asphalt than what we're talking about for a path that connects across the entire property to the south village. That's a lot of impervious surface, but compared to what people use just to get out of their own driveways, it's not that much and it allows people to actually commute quite far on bike. I wonder how many people talked about how important climate change is, but drove here. I think when we talk about having spread out spaces, the narrow area of a bike path sheds water pretty quickly and with a large area of grass around it, that water can be absorbed very fast as well. That's opposed to about the 2,500 square feet of impervious surface that runs off of Roseanne's property directly into the storm drain and then without a retention basin goes directly into a wetland. I wanna make sure that we're very clear that we're being fair in the way we balance our discussion of use and our commitment to the environment. There's a couple of things that people haven't mentioned, although I'm very happy that people have talked about using impervious surfaces for the parking or not having parking there, especially what Francis said about making sure that there is safe parking, like handicap parking spaces there, it's possible to incorporate handicapped spaces that are asphalt or concrete and have the rest of the spaces be impervious, sorry, pervious surfaces like gravel. Also, if you look at Overlook Park, which is home of a view, a lot of white pines blocking the view, if you've been there recently, it's possible that that can be used as part of the parking for Hubbard Park because certainly during much of the day, there isn't a lot of cars parked at Overlook Park, but to do something like that, we would really need to make a much safer crossing. Obviously, Spear Street is really fast, but if we implement good crosswalk strategies, like having a median so that there is a buffer for pedestrians to cross the street and some bump-outs to sort of inhibit the feeling of speed, that would both be safer for people trying to drive out of that intersection, as well as the people visiting both parks. So while I know that there's a lot of debate over gravel or pave for the bike path, I think the obvious answer is paved, but when we look at the other ways to utilize parking and guess you aren't using their feet or pedals to get there, that there are some other ways we can approach that use of pervious or impervious surface and also the safety. Thank you. Thank you. Nobody else here? Okay, we'll go online. Loretta, Marriott. Hello, my name is Loretta Marriott and I also wrote so that I would go quick. I wholeheartedly support bike-ped infrastructure and like to see more, especially in the Chamberlain neighborhood. Here's a practical, interesting question. Would the bike-ped infrastructure be cleared in winter to the same degree as streets are? For example, generally dry for commuting with plowing and salting. Perhaps winter maintenance, yes or no, makes a difference in the paved versus pervious decision, perhaps not. It would be wise to clearly stay on the record that paved versus pervious decisions can vary from area to area so that we don't have to worry about precedent. Building infrastructure is great, but what about the budget for maintenance? The bridge at Lewis Crossing has needed repair for several years. Further, it needs to be changed on the official city map from a planned road back to its original and current use of bike-ped infrastructure. The Red Rocks trail down to an overlooked, sustained major erosion in the Halloween storm years ago and has been washed away little by little every year since then. The trees along Market Street whack me in the face as I ride my bike along the south side. I've asked a variety of city staff at all levels who will deal with preserving what we already have and when. They say, yes, maybe. I say soon, I hope. Thank you. Thank you, Mary, Loretta, okay. Laurie Smith. Good evening, Laurie Smith. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. I live in Queen City Park and I am a planning commissioner, but I am speaking for myself tonight. And I just wanna say first thank you to all of you for going through this whole process. As we've been working on the comprehensive plan, there have been two very big issues that are being addressed. One is preserving open space and natural land and the other is CO2 or green house gas emissions. And I think that the path as it's planned can provide a great connector for transportation and for recreation. And I think that if South Burlington's 20 plus miles of disconnected bike paths can end up being connected, we can have a recreation and transportation network that rivals the city of Burlington's bike path. And in terms of Hubbard Park, I think that doing the bare minimum amount to make it so that this transportation corridor works. And I don't see a need for building infrastructure for a viewing area. The whole park is a viewing area. I think it would be great to have some benches scattered throughout the park. And perhaps for a parking area, think about starting small with the opportunity to grow. And if there are 15 parking spaces or 10 parking spaces and they end up being full every day or a significant portion, then it can be added to, but let's minimize the impacts that we balance the concerns of, as someone said earlier, both sides of this debate moving forward. So that's what I have to say tonight and thank you again so much. Thank you. Colin Larson. Hi everyone. So I live in Burlington. I'm a primarily a bike user. That's how I get around pretty much everywhere, which is great, but it means that in your lovely community of South Burlington, I'm often very limited of where I can go for excursions and events if I want to attend. So I would favor a bike path in Hubbard Park, particularly a paved one as it's more durable over time and it's easier to use for a variety of users. The most best way that we can reduce carbon emissions is to get cars off the road, which means that we need a connected safe bicycle network. My understanding is that building protected bicycle infrastructure on Spear Street is not on the table due to cost and timeline. If that's not the case, I'd support that too, but this seems like the solution that's being put forth at the time. So I think it's important in terms of the parking lot. You know, I'll just echo what other people said, car infrastructure is kind of a, if you build it, they will come situation. We want more cars off the road, not more cars on the road. So, you know, parking should really be carefully considered whether that's necessary at all. Thank you. Thank you. And Kayla Moore. Hi everyone. Hi. I just want to reiterate some of the comments. I'll be very brief. I think the Hubbard natural area is just a pristine natural area. It's really a gem. I think it's a very unique environment and I would hate to see it paved or any kind of impervious surface put through there. In addition to more traffic, I think that it should be left for wildlife and really as a natural area with as little human traffic as possible. I'm an avid biker. I have been a bike commuter for much of my life. I've biked in cities without having owned a car for many, many years. So I absolutely support bike infrastructure. And I also, my understanding was that the Dorset gap bike path was to be prioritized over this, which I suspect would be much less controversial. It's a, it's about a 0.75 mile gap in the bike path along Dorset street that has been approved. I believe there's even federal funding for it. And so I'm just not, I'm not clear why this Hubbard bike path has somehow become prioritized over that, which I feel like is more critical and less controversial. So thank you. Okay, thank you. Are there any other commenters? All right. I have an email from the H.O.A. South Village. If I could just read the first paragraph. Sure. So the South Village H.O.A. Board and residents of South Village fully support the proposed paved recreational path from South Point to Hubbard Park. We also would encourage the city to work with the new owners of the long property, Bellavance property, secure right away from South Village to South Point. And the region is primarily for safe alternative travel in South Burlington. There's more, but that's the paraphrasing. Thank you. Okay. All right. So now it's, Oh, we got some. Oh, okay. Thank you. I think Noah Hyman wants to speak. It's south of no one farmer. So there's a path from Old Cross north to Stady Lane that has been being worked on for two years since we started it. And it's finally going to get built this coming. The project is being finalized in terms of right-of-way needs before we can go through any conversations with property owners and then it would move into the final plans to go to construction phase. But it goes from Old Cross to Stady Lane to complete that one of the few remaining gaps on Dorset Street. Okay. This isn't a conversation with the public, but we got some additional hands. We get Noah Hyman is on the, and then you two want to speak. Is that? Okay. Well, let's let Noah speak. And then you can ask your question. Okay. So you can come up to the mic if you want to get ready. Noah. Thank you, Chair. I spent a lot of time thinking about the benefits and the cost of this proposal. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion for myself is that I don't see the real need. There's plenty of state funding, there's plenty of federal money, and we have the pennies for pets. Putting a impervious surplus over a park land that really should be kind of designated, and I believe it, please correct me if I'm wrong. I believe it was designated to be NRP or Natural Research Protection, or sometimes there's a protection for this land. I understand that the one that people may have for more bike paths, I mean, I get it. I mean, I love going for a bike ride with my family, but given what we are going through and what we have decided as a town already and what we've designated as finance, even though I understand how it can affect people and it would be able to have it as a bike path, I think we've already decided it shouldn't be. And that's why I am asking you to uphold that. I believe it's best served as wildlife. We don't need any more impervious services in certain areas. And I thank you very much for listening to me and I hope you have a wonderful evening. Thank you. Thank you, Noah. Okay, yes. I have one comment. I'm in the area. What's that? Identify yourself. Albert Gross, I live on Holbrook, which is in the same area. My concern would be, and we walk part of our exercise is to walk on Nolan Farm, which passes the beautiful areas on Nolan Farm. The fields that was saved just off of Dorset and the area we're discussing today. It would be my concern that if this is done, it doesn't lead to massive additions in the future. Passing it now in some form, the idea that there's a barn, there's gonna be other things area, other things added to the area, I find totally objectionable. It's a beautiful area. It was designed to also foster the wildlife of the area. I don't mind any of the proposals that have been made, but if it leads to addition of additional construction and filling in the field, I would be opposed to any of it. Okay. So, thank you. That should be in consideration too, and not that this is a stepping stone for further development. Thank you. And I'm sorry, you had a question. I apologize. I have a question, but I really have three points. Please tell us who you are. Robin Hall, I live downstream from the field, actually on the other side of Spear Street. We do get water that comes on Whaley Road and Deerfield. There's an ice slick. You can do a 360 in really quickly in the winter. Not water's coming right off of Spear Street. Anyway, in our neighborhood is also implementing a store expensive stormwater system in part because of the development up the hill. But my question was we talk about dialogue and I just don't know where you came up, where the council came up with or the planners came up with 35 parking spaces because I use the path all the time. I know we wanna get more people there, but it's 35 and it's impervious surface really the best choice. I'd like to have a here conversation on that from you. My second point is if you're gonna have a path for wheelchairs, bikes, whatever, could you also add into the equation a path that's just mode for people that wanna walk their dogs and don't wanna be on a path with electric bikes and so maybe that could be part of the maintenance of the park. So we could still continue to use it just in a natural pathway. The park is very wet all the time except for maybe high July. If you haven't gone there, you should because that 10 feet will probably be the only dry or certainly the driest part of the park and we still wanna use the park. So I've never seen, anyway, I see a lot of people parking using the park. I don't think we need the parking space and I think we could perhaps still continue with a mode path. And lastly, a suggestion of somebody earlier, could we also incorporate into the development of this going forward an easement so that it's preserved and no continued development occurs so that when you all do or don't get re-elected, there won't be another plan to add a bandstand which we have at Veterans Park or consider that maybe as part of the development to make it a finite project. And don't forget we have another park right nearby with all that parking. That's all. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so council, it's your time to talk. Oh, I'm sorry. Pardon me, we all got it. Yes, we did. No, we got it. And I suspect everyone read it. Thank you very much. Okay, Andrew, do you wanna, Andrew? Thank you. So there's been a lot of community feedback that I feel I need to make some extended remarks and I apologize in advance, because I'm usually brief, but there's a lot to talk about. I'm in favor of the paved bike path. I wasn't originally. So a key aspect of our climate action plan is to reduce transportation emissions. We have a goal to reduce our vehicle miles traveled two and a half percent a year. That's a really, really ambitious goal and it's gonna be terribly difficult to meet. To do that, we have to get people out of the car. And safe for the bike and pedestrian infrastructure is integral to that. Presently, there's no safe way for people south of Noam Farm Drive near Spare to bike north. Only very experienced riders truly feel safe on the shoulder of Spare. My wife and daughter don't feel safe riding the roads and they won't ride the roads. I wouldn't send a young person to a friend or to school on the road, no matter how wide the shoulder is. I was originally against a path. I'd hope the city would be able to construct a safe, separate, shared-use path along Spare Street. But after many discussions, I now understand that would be enormously expensive, given the utility poles, the right-of-way issues and that would take money away from other important shared-use initiatives. I also hoped a shared-use path could be constructed on the foot of the meadow, parallel to Spare, but that option is foreclosed because of the presence of wetlands. The proposed path through Hubbard is a vital piece to our bike-ped puzzle that will connect north to Vale Drive, proceed through Spare Meadows to Swiss Street, where we'll join the current path on Swiss Street and then eventually connect to the existing path on Spare for safe riding into Burlington. It will provide the connectivity that our Climate Action Plan requires. There's a question of whether the path should be paved with some other permanent material. My perspective is a path needs to be usable for a season. It needs to be kept free of snow and ice. We see all around the world examples of infrastructure being built and people using that infrastructure for a season. I ride my bike in the winter. That's what we need to do and we need to have the infrastructure for people to be able to do it. The city and the engineers we hired investigated whether we can do this with permeable and crushed stone service and they said we can't. The maintenance would be too extensive and we can't maintain that kind of path in the winter. So it's not a viable option. We can't do it that way. We need to pave a path like we have in the rest of the city. The amount of impervious service is so trivial, compared to all the impervious service in the city. It won't have any impact on the ecological function of our wetlands or on that meadow. That meadow alone is 60 acres. It drains into surrounding forests and surrounding meadows is gonna be a storm water basin. The notion that that trivial strip of asphalt will have an impact on the ecological function of that meadow is ridiculous. It just won't. I hike in Hubbard all the time. I live right up the road. Out of Dorset Meadows controversy which I was integral involved in, my family purchased the 10 acre parcel that adjoins that meadow for conservation. I know how beautiful the area is. I know how important the area is. And I know the path will detract from the aesthetics of the meadow. And as many of you know, addressing climate change has been my life's passion. I'm heartened that so many people tonight that spoke and favored the paved path are also passionately dedicated to addressing climate change. I prefer the path doesn't have to be built. But I'm certain that to do our part to address climate change, we need to. That's on the path. I'd like to see a mowed path parallel to the shared youth path so people can continue to walk and bike without fear of being struck by an e-bike. I'm sorry, people can walk and snowshoe and hike in the winter. As Bob Britt mentioned, I think it makes sense to have some wooden, little wooden bridges and some really wet areas there that people sometimes just trounce through really ruining the reeds and things. It makes sense to have some wooden bridges to prevent that. I don't think we need to pay the parking lot. I'd like to see the existing area cleaned up, a little split rail fence around it. I don't think we need more impervious surface in a parking lot. I don't think we need to install lighting in that lot. The park is supposed to be closed at dusk. So I'm not sure why we need lighting there. It's gonna disturb your neighbors. I'm not in favor of that. We should have good landscape screening, not just to protect the houses to the west, but to protect the neighbors to the north from also being disturbed from the headlights. And I think we need some bike racks and maybe some some balliards at the end of the path so people don't ride their ATVs or other things on the path. I wanna address the large group of neighbors who submitted the petition, forcefully arguing for no development on the property at all. I think it's important for us all to reflect on where we've been and where we are now. This land was purchased in 13 with open space funds and at the time those funds were to acquire lands for conservation or for recreation. And immediately at the time in 2013, that was the law for open space for conservation or recreation. That's what was in place when it was purchased. Immediately the city set about implementing a recreation vision for that parcel. In 2015, a task force was created. There were members of the city's natural resource committee, the bike pad committee, the sustainable agriculture subcommittee, the planning commission, the recreation and artificial committee. There were five task force meetings. Each meeting was attended by the public. Out of that came a really extensive development proposal with barns and soccer fields and restrooms, 120 car parking lot, two entrances and exits from the field. Something that compared to what we're looking at today, right, a creative proposal. In 2017, there was another workshop which I attended. Folks may remember there was an air balloon. There were stations all around the park. People came and they gave input on what they want, what they don't want. Got all the feedback. There was a public survey. From that feedback, the parking area was reduced. The fields were eliminated. There was some more natural elements, but there was still the event barn. There was still lots of other things that are not in their proposal today. In 2021, there was a third plan that further scaled back a little bit more, gone with the event barn and the restrooms. We finally get to the plan we have today. We're talking about a strip of pavement for bikers. I don't understand the vitriol. I just don't understand it. I don't get it. I don't get it. Compared to where we are now, it's so trivial. And it's so important. I hope the neighbors will be able to appreciate that. I see this current vision as a win-win for the entire community. As someone said, I don't want this plan to be phase one of more development. I don't want some future council to say, we've got a bike path. Now let's do this. Now let's do that. I would love for us to agree as a council that as a prerequisite to doing anything on this parcel, we at the same time put a conservation easement on the rest of the parcel that we all know and we all agree this is what we're doing and this is the only thing we're doing. Thank you. Thank you, Megan. Thank you, Helen. I also have extensive remarks. And I just want you to know that I too have been at this beautiful piece of land. And actually one of the times I brought my parents and they're aged. They're in now late 70s and early 80s. And- Careful, careful. Well, I know. But my father wanted to take a picture of the Adirondacks and he lifted his arms and he fell. And we discover at that moment that he had a heart condition potentially, all right? He had no place to sit down and we helped him back to the car, all right? And this is a guy who doesn't want to be helped. So he's not aged. I want him to be clear. But for his daughter who loves him, I didn't want him to fall, okay? So I understand the beauty and the value of this land. I have on many occasions voted to conserve land. And I do hope that you can understand the merit of my reasons as I explain why I have concluded that we need to have a paved shared use path at Hubbard, I'm totally in line with the mode walking path. That's fine, that's fine with me. So here's the question that I asked my husband who happens to be the chair of the conservation and the rec, what is it? I can't remember. Natural resources and conservation committee, all right? We disagree, okay? And we had lunch on my birthday on Saturday. We were in Brattleboro and we argued in this restaurant. And then I said to him, I said, when you're old, older. Thank you. And maybe you'll be in a wheelchair, maybe you have a cane, maybe you have a walker. Would you want to go see the mountains? Would you want me to take you there? And he said yes. And I said, I would like you to do that for me too. And you can't do that at Red Rocks. The overlooks are too far. You can't do that wheeler, it's not set up for that. You can't do it at Overlook. I have to climb up on the wall. Those trees don't belong to us. This is the one place that I can take my father. Well, now he has a pacemaker. Sorry, dad, he hates it. It's the one place I think that many people, including you all, as old as we hope to become, will want to go until the last day of your lives. As we heard, Kayla said, this is a gem. And our residents have paid for that gem. And let's make it available to all of those residents. Now, how did I get to this, okay? I visited wonderful national parks out in California. My son moved out there. And I paid attention. And when it's on slope near water, it's paved, all right? So I saw that in Oregon. I saw it in one of the Redwood forests that we visited. And that's Sequoia National Park and Sequoia National Forest. And what I noticed in addition to the slope where there's water runoff, those are the biggest sequoias in the world. That's where General Sherman is. That's where General Grant is, all right? There's a handicap parking lot paved. There's a paved parking lot. There are paved, you know, very smooth surfaces, even for those who didn't park in the handicapped spot to get to the biggest sequoias in the world, the gems of our Redwood forests. And every American, every resident, everybody in the world who gets there can go see them and they're amazing. Let us not deny that right to everybody who wants to go see those mountains. That's what I have to say to you. There's much more, the questions I have. All right, clearly the cost is something that we have to take into consideration. I would like us to consider cement. I know it's more expensive. I know you haven't considered it. I did a very quick unprofessional Google, okay? But this is from paving companies. Concrete deteriorates with salt use. Let's keep that in mind. But asphalt absorbs heat from the sun, which will cause snow and ice to melt faster than it would on a concrete driveway. That's good too. And yet it causes heat in the summer. So just keep that in mind. Asphalt is less expensive, but concrete lasts longer in colder climates and needs less maintenance over time. I leave that to the professionals. I trust you, okay? Clearly, concrete leaches less asphalt. I don't want it either. I want us to stop the fossil fuel uses. I think everybody here would agree to that, most people. What I wanna say, in addition to that, a couple of questions. So in addition to accessibility and the cost of upkeep, which if we had gravel, if we had fine stone, we'd have to go back and back and back and schlep all those materials there. Imagine the exhaust. Just imagine the exhaust, okay? Okay, let me just scroll down here. So just my questions regarding parking. I wanna know more about the water table, Erica. Is it the same as the path? Is that a high water table where if we put in gravel or crushed stone that we would have to go back because of the water table? I haven't looked at the soil testing results in that area. That's something I can absolutely take a look at. Okay, and again, I do want us to think about the people like my father who's still hearty as an ox, all right? But people like I will be perhaps someday, like you will be someday. Getting out of their cars and wanting to go see those mountains. How close can they get to that paved path, right? Should they be able to just be dropped off and have a slope to get up on this paved path? Should we actually give them a parking spot? Perhaps this is someone who drives themself but needs to use their cane to get onto that path, all right? And to go hopefully sit on a bench and see those mountains, okay? I would like us to at least have some places, parking spots that are paved, ideally cement. I would love for us to have less COT emissions but I know that it's limited and I'm just thinking about the common roots and I'm thinking about the natural meadows there with regard to the leaching. I leave it to the professionals but if we could have some kind of hybrid where if it makes sense, most of the areas are unpaved. Okay, it could be gravel, so it could be pervious which would be ideal, I think. And, but I'm not a professional, okay? And I think that the on-street parking which I had considered, my husband and I also had a back forth about it, that all of the people who are concerned about parking on their street where they live and their homes, you want there to be a lot. You don't want people parking on the streets because they're gonna turn right, they're gonna turn left on to Pinnacle. They're gonna go there. So just think about making the park, a public park and your street, your street. It is a public street but it's in front of your house and I respect that. With regard to the split wood fence, I'm all for it, let's keep it as natural looking. I think we have a beautiful dog park that has that split wood. I think that makes sense. All our parks close at dusk. So I read very carefully the comments about wanting to see stars at night. If you live there, you have your blessed backyards that you can stand in. I want us to know if any low light I would assume with cover so that the light would be directed at the foot level, right? That that would not impact the night sky for all of the people in their backyards looking at these heavenly bodies, okay? Because it is magical. So we can pay attention to that. If it does not impact it, and this can be an incremental thing too, I'm all for that. I'm all for, again, leaving it to the professionals. Can we start with 15 spaces and grow to 30 if needed so that we don't have people parking on no land and on pinnacle? Can we start with no lighting and then move up to lighting? I don't know, so that. But I really want to respect the night sky because I think that that is a value and a real asset for people in the area, just like quiet is in my neighborhood, which is Chamberlain, all right? So when the planes aren't flying, it's blessed to be in my backyard as well. I think those were my questions and just leaving it to the engineers. Yeah. And there we go. Who else wants to say anything, Tim? Tyler? Go for it. I'll be last. Okay. I won't, I'll try not to retrain over around that Megan and Andrew have already covered, but I would like to thank each of you for giving this careful consideration because again, I recognize it's not an easy decision and I know that, particularly for Andrew, I know this is a change of heart so I really appreciate you giving the time and consideration that the issue, not that you wouldn't, but that the issue deserves and I really appreciate you being willing to keep, both of you being willing to keep an open mind. Megan, I echo your sentiments about accessibility. My father was Parkinson's and he lived for many years in Dorset Park and it was really hard to watch him try and navigate the terrain at Wheeler. It was heartbreaking and I am not comfortable for a number of reasons. Introducing, taking land that was purchased with tax payer dollars and saying that it's okay to make it accessible for some, but not for all. I'm just not. So thank you for bringing that to the forefront. And yeah, I'll pause there. On the, Andrew, you mentioned safety. One of the proposals that was going back and forth was again, can we repurpose more of Spear Street for a dedicated bike lane? And this was something as a former professional cyclist, someone who is I think probably on the spectrum of comfort in terms of riding on Spear Street is definitely more on the aggressive rather than the conservative end. This is something that I was possibly open to until I started really digging into doing the research. And it's, I think, I'll spare everyone the details, but a 2019 study pretty conclusively, proved how in major metro markets, specifically Denver, which is one of the more bike-friendly cities in the United States, that this process is markedly more dangerous for cyclists and for path users, cyclists, commuters, than dedicated standalone separate bike paths. And interestingly enough, the problem is made markedly worse the harder you work at it. If you introduce a median, if you introduce visual elements that divide the bike lane from the road, it makes the cyclist harder to see, it makes the rider harder to see, and it causes more lethal accidents. All that aside, I think the most convincing argument for not going down this road, excuse me, sorry, bad pun, was from, what is his name? Dave's, I think arguably fewer people in the United States have done more to advance bicycle infrastructure than a gentleman named Dave Snyder. He's arguably the nation's foremost expert on bicycle infrastructure. He's currently the director of Infrastructure Policy for People for Bikes, which is the largest lobbying group for bicycles and pedestrian walkways in the United States. Dave spent the last 25 years fighting, first in California, and then in other parts of the country for shared use bike lanes and for proposals similar to what we would do on Spear Street if we were to go down that road. And in this, this January, after he started a different role with People for Bikes, after 25 years of doing, advancing this work, he reflected on all of those efforts. And I think this sums it up more than anything that any of us could say. I was wrong. The efforts to try and use dual-purpose paths on the side of a city street is not the right approach. And that the research has validated that and that standalone paths are the way to go. Climate change, Michael, you're correct. We've identified climate change as one of the, if not the most important issue that we as a city need to tackle. And the largest contributing factor for greenhouse emissions is transportation. I feel strongly that we should address that issue head-on. And the best way to do that is to, as a passionate cyclist, it is hard to get people to change how they transport one themselves and how they locomote. It's damn near impossible. And if we're going to do it and we're gonna do it right, we need to take every single possible barrier to adoption that we can out of the equation. So I don't feel that this is an area, if this is something we truly wanna do and this is an issue we truly wanna take seriously, I think we need to take a serious approach. And that's why I'm voting for paving the path. I'm open to other discussions around how else we could help mitigate some of the objections, but accessibility and, accessibility and minimizing barriers to adoption for alternative means of transport are my two top priorities. And the last thing I'll say is, again, I don't think any of us, I don't wanna speak for anyone else in the council, but I don't think any of us have come to this decision lightly. Rosanne, your voices have been heard. Truly. It's just, it's a difficult decision and it's, but that's the job. Okay, thank you. Tim. Yeah, when I went to college, I graduated in 81, I got there in 77 and they have this huge quadrangle in the middle of the school with all these nice large granite buildings around the edges, beautiful. And I noticed walking between classes that it was amazing that all the students were walking right on the sidewalks. And there's weird angles of sidewalks going across this quadrangle. There's a reason for my story. And I asked somebody, somebody was like, it's amazing how the students actually stayed at the sidewalks and don't tread on the grass. And somebody said, no. When they finished redoing the whole quad, they planted grass and then they waited for all the cow paths to appear of all the students treading between classes and then they poured the sidewalks where they traveled so that they got the paths right. And I'm like, that's incredible. So when I discovered that I could go up Midland and then go up North Jefferson and then cross over what was then the long property through this little tiny wet footpath which sometimes is dry and then cross over to South Point and this is on a run that starts at Cybermill and then ends up at Nolan Farm Road and goes back then in my house and then ended up at the Hubbard property and then again, there would be these like puddles that you'd have to walk around and deep grass to get around. I felt like one of those cows that found the shortest distance to doing two points and I'm thinking, well, this would be a great opportunity to establish this path because this links South Village, Sovi to the long property or the Bellamance property to Sopo, which is South Point, right? To the Hubbard property, to the Pinnacle property to now the Spermenos property. And which would then link up to other neighborhoods as well. So for that reason, and this is the only thing in that park that I really support right now besides the current parking lot and we're gonna have to talk about that later on. I don't want to expand it, but that path represents a really good network interconnection for all the other paths that are in the city. And after hearing public works talk about the difference between just putting down sure pack or putting down pavement, the difference is three and a half inches of pavement and the cost is not that much different. So in terms of the wintertime being able to maintain it and plow it, which I think is important for a lot of people to be able to use it. And it really is, Councilor Chalonic said, it's a very small amount of impervious surface and I'm not even sure how pervious the surface is on that path anyway right now where the way of water doesn't drain anywhere. So I think that I obviously support it and you've got to keep in mind this trade-off between our comprehensive plan objectives, right? Lowering CO2 by having alternative transportation methods versus the, a lot of people would love to see that park just left totally natural. And I think that that is a great goal to have but you've got to let some people get into that park. You've got to have some respect for the equity equation here for people to be able to get in the park and then get across it and get to other neighborhoods. The one thing that I worry about is our ability to convince the Bellavances and then be able to get an engineering assessment done on what it would take to connect North Jefferson across South Point to the Hubbard Park. So, and until I think we have that ability, we, I don't think we should really do anything until we have a better kind of, you know, across the engineering work and the plan across all the properties. Cause I don't think it makes sense to do the Hubbard Park and then kind of have it stopped cause we don't have the money for the, for the South Point. And then we have grass and sidewalk and street. And then we have a muddy path across the Bellavance property to North Jefferson. So, but I do support the path and I support paving it. I think it's the best way to go. Okay. Well, being last in line, I don't think I can add a whole lot and I'm not going to give a long speech. What I am going to say is this is what I thought I heard as a consensus of the group and the direction that we'd like to give the staff. It appears that let's pave it. Maybe you can look at cement for some parking for handicap, but some kind of hard path, you know, hard path. So that seems to be yes for everyone. It sounded like for most the benches, you know, maybe wooden benches, but some kind of benches so you can sit, maybe to put on your snow shoes at one end and sit and watch the view at another. And depending on how long the path goes, maybe another bench on the south end. Helen implicit in what you're saying is no constructive viewing area, just benches, right? Right, yes. I'll get to that, yep. It seemed as if everyone was certainly found a mode path to be an acceptable way for people who don't need to walk on a paved path that might want a snow shoe or cross country ski or just like to walk on grass. They don't want to walk where there's bikes going by. It sounds like a small parking area. Let's start little. And if we need to expand it, I think there was no clarity in my mind that yeah, it needs to be paved. Could it be, you know, again, I think it's really up to our professionals in many ways, but we got a couple of people and I agree with a split rail fence. I am not sure lights are needed. And again, I think Megan said maybe we get to that at some point, but I think the thoughts of not having light pollution when one of the nice aspects of that area is perhaps to see the stars or at least for the neighbors to appreciate the stars. And then I also heard from a couple of people, I would like to pursue personally what it would take to conserve the park. So we do the bike path. We do some kind of parking with the fence around it. At this point, no lights, a couple of benches. And then I feel, I put more than a couple. Well, whatever, I don't know how many benches. Some benches, some bike benches, some bike things too. And put your snow shoes on. I thought Bob's- Yes, no, I mentioned that. I think that sounds great. At the entrance. And I also, you know, I think it's important to consider or pursue conserving the rest. Because I do believe that this is a natural park area. I mean, maybe at some point, we have some bridges that will go over wet places in Wheeler. I think the youth conservation punchins, the youth conservation, Vermont youth conservation, built those and you can get grants to do that. It doesn't have to be done now. And I do think Tim has a point about working with the neighbors to the south to see, can we really make this a connected bike path? So if I've missed anything, does that sound like most people would feel that that's a reasonable approach to this? Yes, can I ask one question? Hello, sorry. We're all kids at heart. Yes. So just a question about the width of the path, right? So the width of, I think most of the sheer news are 10 feet or eight feet. Or eight feet, seven feet. So what? Our standard is 10 feet and they usually have a one to two foot gravel shoulder on the outside that often gets grown in with grass but that helps stabilize the path. Okay, so that explains it. Cause I mean, I went and measured a lot of the paths and they're all eight, but you're saying that's because there was a foot on each side that's now you can't see anymore. Well, oftentimes the pavement itself is 10 feet. There are some sections where they had to go down to eight. I mean, it's not. I measured a lot of paths. No, I'm talking about the South Brownington paths. They're all eight. Andrew, the DOT's guidelines for design standards are 10 feet of paved. And that's relatively new, but that is the best. Presumably, that's to allow pedestrians and bikes to pass each other safely. But if we're gonna have like a mode which I think we should path for pedestrians parallel to the bike path. Don't forget people with their walkers and their teams. That's an access issue. Paved is shared use. You just have to be careful with bikes. And I would agree that e-bikes may be an issue in the future. And that's another thing that the city might have to respond to. You know, you really don't want your father walking along with a water. And he's not. And he's not. But my fault, well. Mine is. Over his dead body. Somebody told me, okay. Walking along with my water. No, you're not. And had, you know, an electric bike go whizzing by at 30 miles an hour. That would be disconcerting to me. So that's an issue to look to the future. So I, does that give you direction, Sarah? Can I add one thing that really is relevant? Sure. Thank you very much. I'm Sarah Dopp, the president of the South Wellington Land Trust and a resident on Cheese Factory Road. I purposely didn't speak before because you had received our South Wellington Land Trust statement. And I knew you had read it. And I wanted to leave time for other people. And I heard such a variety of points made on all sides of this issue. It was truly illuminating. The one thing I wanted to say was in regard to the idea of a possible conservation easement for this in the future, the South Wellington Land Trust in the last couple of weeks did reach out to the Lake Champlain Land Trust just to discuss this whole thing, get their thoughts and their expertise. And I certainly can't speak for them. They haven't taken it to their board, but their director and their executive director and their chair of their board did walk up on Hubbard in the last week and said, this would be a great easement for us to hold. So, well, you know, that's not a promise. That's not anything. They'd have their process. But I just wanted you to know that it could get real. And there is somebody who's got some real interest in it. Great. Thank you. Jessie, you wanted to make a few comments. Sure. I feel like we do need to revisit the path width because our standard is 10. So if you're giving us a direction to change that standard, I just want to check it. I don't think you are. I was asking a question. Okay. Okay. No, 10. 10 it is. Great. Helen and Megan's comments, it was addressed. Excellent. So I guess three additional questions or one request and three additional questions, it would really help staff if you all could vote. It sounds like you're a unanimous, but I would love a vote just for the record. But before you do that, I do, I think the lighting is going to be very hard for our public safety professionals. So I would like us to be able to bring you back a proposal for a very low directed single or two lights on either side of the paving for your consideration. I think our public safety folks, even though, yes, our parks close at dusk, we don't gate them, we don't keep people out. If there is no light whatsoever, there's going to be a lot of, there could be a lot of public safety issues in the future. So that's one small request. The second question is, are you eliminating with the proposal that Helen outlined the public art from the project? Okay. Yes, yes. And the bench thing, the fancy bench thing. Okay. So just so the council is aware that is a commissioned piece that the public art committee has been working on? I know it's on our agenda. I saw it for the next month or something, right? Yeah. It's hard on her. So we can obviously redirect that somewhere. I just wanted you to know that your committee had been working on that. And so I would request that you take a vote on this. And then I think the follow up question is, this is kind of an unusual way. We don't usually design parks this way. So with that vote, we have authority to go forward with final design bidding, whatnot. So I'll make that motion to give final authority to city staff to go forward with bidding design and whatnot. I'm sounding like my sons and... I'll second that. Okay. I just have a question about the lighting. I understand that that would be public safety. I'm trying to think of another bike path that the city has that has low lighting. I mean, some of them certainly have street lighting. You have light going over the path on the street. We don't have any lighting at Hubbard, do we? There's no lighting in Farrell Park on the bike path that I know of. I don't think the lighting is a reference to the path so much as it is the parking area. Yeah, I was gonna bring that up. The lighting is the parking area. The lighting, they're currently, it's proposed for six fixtures that are not full parking light height. They're more of the 15 foot range rather than the 30, 35 foot. You would see in a typical parking lot. And so there's only about six of them and they all... Are there shorter ones? Can you do short, 15 feet seems, I don't know, two of Tim. That's tall. We can look at lower. You know, I think it's some of the national parks that have like very low lighting at a two, three foot level. Just so you can see your feet, like very dim low lighting. So you can see your feet. There are certain things we had gone back and forth on this. There was some talk about being able to see someone's face, being able to recognize someone's face in terms of the public safety. And so it could, there are options to go lower. We typically don't go too much lower because when a parking lot would be paved during the winter, we don't wanna be knocking over low ballards. So something just a little bit taller but still very minimal. That's something about the fence too, right? So could we think the, because the fence could be knocked by a plow, could it be a fence along Nolan Road? The current plan had a stone wall around the entrance that you would be able to see from Nolan Farm when you turned in a short stone wall on either side of the driveway. I think a split rail is the one we're gonna have. But I'm sorry, but we not really maybe fully discussed the nature of the lot. Maybe we punted that a little bit. Helen, when Helen was speaking, I thought Helen was articulating support for not an asphalt lot, maybe a couple of asphalt spots that are 80 accessible. So I don't, you know. I'm not thinking the whole lot would need to be plowed. Oh, but you still need to plow the gravel. The gravel can be plowed according to what I read. And so I think we should plow that lot in the winter. Most definitely. We want people to come and go snowshoeing and go cross-country skiing and, right? People do. Right. They can't travel there today. But the idea is, again, that it's accessible to our entire city and not just the folks that live adjacent to it. Lot by the dog park plowed by Wheeler? There's no lot. Yes. Yes, it is. The Wheeler was plowed? Yes, it is plowed. But there's no lights. The lights. Yeah. Let's not pay a view. And there aren't lights at Red Rock. Right. Where the parking is. Where the parking is. Like halfway there. Right. Well, yeah. And there's street lights. But there's no lights inside the park at all. Right. No, right. I wasn't suggesting. Well, we aren't talking about lights inside. Yeah. Yeah. My? We have. I'm sorry. Did you have some other? I would like a vote. I had a point of clear. Yeah, we had a motion on the table. In a second. In a second. There's a second. You can make a comment. I mean, let other people. I saw them again. Come up so the people online can hear you. Up so you can hear, please. I want your face. I had a point of clarification also on the motion after Mike speaks. Pardon me? I had a question, a clarifying question. Oh, okay. Sounds like he's taking. Oh, go ahead. I'll go after Mike. Okay. Mike's in Manoga. So I'm curious about how this motion will read and most particularly whether you are saying that we'll pave it only if we put a conservation easement on the park. That's not part of the motion, Mike. Okay. I just, I just wanted to. Make sure that that linkage wasn't there, that we weren't going to hold paving hostage until we got a conservation easement. I think that's a big discussion. I know how much we went through with Wheeler. I was on the task force for that one too. And we have yet to actually place a conservation easement on Wheeler and that was several years ago. So anyway, that was my question. Thank you for your answer. So Mike, I think this conservation easement would be a lot simpler. And I moved to amend the motion that we don't do anything on the park unless there's also a conservation easement in place. I don't think that's a friendly amendment. I would ask that it not hold up what is I think an important improvement because I've been on the council a long time and conservation easements take years. And so. Let's do it quicker. I would say, if we could move so many things quicker, we would believe me, this is not where there's a will, there's a way. Some things move slowly. So I would consider another friendly amendment that has to do with conservation easement that could be on a future agenda that would not be a condition, however. I agree with Megan. Yeah, I won't second that. You're a friendly amendment. Okay. But before you take the vote, I do have another question. Okay. So the question is, can the work that gets done to analyze how this will be built, can it include South Point? I mean, and tell us how much it's gonna cost to do South Point. So the pre-design work, can you please, is it feasible to add that in at this time? On the existing easement, on the section of the existing easement to get to South Point Upswept, we could do a quick cost estimate to see what it would entail and permitting implications. I don't feel comfortable saying, yes, we can add it to the project, but we can explore what it would take and what it might add to the project. I wanna know, right. Yeah. And Eric. I think that's important. And something that makes me feel confident, and I just want to, you know, I'm thinking about Andrew and, you did come a far away in your thinking as well as the people in the audience. Erica, could you please outline what the stormwater studies suggested about the original 2015 plan? Yeah, so the 2015 study, it was a multi-site assessment around the city. And this was one of the areas that at the time wasn't actually moved forward. All of the other ones had larger packets. This one did not move forward at the time. It's not coming to mind right now. The suite of reasons they gave. It had to do with stormwater as I- Yeah, yeah, there was one of the pieces of stormwater that rendered it infeasible to put a treatment practice in the space that they were planning at the time. I believe that one was related to wetlands. It was the wetland area, right, that it was being looked at. So if we can't build stormwater to make more impervious surfaces, I think that's a- Where there's a will, there's a way, Megan. Ah, no, no, no, no, no, no. Not in this day and age. Not with our regs. We have 100 feet. We have a hundred, on some things, but our regs are in place, Andrew. I stand by them. So I just, I think that's a really important fact for people to hear. Okay, and I'm happy to revisit. Okay, so it sounds like we have two outstanding issues that are important to at least some of the counselors. One is the conservation package, if you will, and the other is as finite as one can get a cost estimate to extend this to South Point. So we don't have a road to nowhere. Or a paved road to nowhere. I don't know if that's possible to, that's a lot of work, I think. I don't know. I mean, maybe it could come together and I believe those conversations have begun or are about to begin. Is that right, Jen? I mean, you've talked about it a little bit or you're considering what, and so that certainly would be part of it. But even without that, you still get to South Point, right? No, you don't, you have to go through. You can get to South Point, but not South Village. Yeah, you can get to South Point. Okay, so you don't get to South Village. Right, so that's another step in the process. And I'm not sure. I mean, I feel like if we keep adding on, we're gonna have an internal bike path that goes from the edge of Shelburne all the way up to, you know, Root Williston Road. Which is great. Which would be great, but to make all of these pieces contingent on getting that all done is probably more than our city manager wants to chew on. Well, she will be here a long time, but, you know, she's going to do her job not too hard to be, I'm ready to vote. Pyraman issue, you know, like, oh good, this bike path's up built. So I think those are two issues that need to be resolved. So is everyone ready for, we haven't really nailed how many, what's a small parking area, but that was my point of clarification. Well, is that what we were talking about? We said 15, I thought. 15? I had written down 10 to 15 based on what I heard. With some paved for handicapped, if that makes sense engineering wise, and the rest gravel. Yeah, one thing with the gravel lot that I will just note out note here is that gravel is also impervious. It's still, we'll count towards stormwater and it is that same depth. Like I had shown on that slide. So it is still deemed impervious. But it's not asphalt. It's not asphalt. It would likely still require pavement apron to get into it so that we're not tracking gravel in and out. I'm sure most of us have seen driveways where that's the case where gravel gets tracked in and out. So at least a paved apron, but those things would likely be worked out as design goes. It's tricky to have half paved, half gravel, but the number of spaces that we should be exploring is I would say the more important piece from a design standpoint right now. So what's the thing you like? How many? But something that could be expanded. 10 to 15 and let us look at the design. Yes. Is that a 10 to 15 with space to expand? Michael, you have another number? This is the last comment. I'd like to, we have a, we still have a bunch of them. Yes, I've measured it out. That parking lot will accommodate 18 cars. What parking lot will? The current parking lot. Yeah, I agree. The size that it is now will accommodate 18 cars. It's pretty big. Well, let's not make it bigger than that. That's how big it is. Okay. For the record though, I'd like to comment on some people's opinion of the conservation fund. And they called it something else, but just for the record because. Michael, can we need that right now? It's involves this conservation easement idea. Well, we're going to work on that. It's only a moment. We have time to talk about it. May I? Normally we have a comment. Shallow voters establish a reserve fund to be known as a conservation fund for the purpose of funding the purchase of lands and rights in lands to preserve open land and natural areas in the city. Doesn't say anything about recreation or anything else. For the record, that's the ballot, which was voted on. And one last thing you probably didn't mention, which I think you talked about, is vegetative screening around the parking area to shield adjacent properties from headlights. So it would be good for us to hear the motion in its entirety. That's a friendly amendment. Okay. So the amendment includes a mode path, a paved path, benches. No viewing area. No viewing area. No public art. A small parking area that may or may not be paid. I guess it's going to be paced now with a fence around it and some vegetation in the no greater than 18 slots with a significant number for, I'm going to add this for handicapped. I mean, not just one. Let's, you know, we really want to make it accessible. Low lights. Not twice, Tim. And we're going to look in the future to look at the conservation issues as well as the easement and conversations with South Point to extend the path to whatever street it is that it bumps into. Is that? The punch-ins or the punch-ins for the wetlands? Yeah, and if we're going to build those, I'd love to have the Vermont Conservation Youth Corps be thinking about building those and not add to the cost of this, right? Because the lighting's going to be more expensive than the numbers we're looking at. Can I just make one small change to what you said? Maybe, yeah. You said in the future, look at the conservation easement. Can we change that to in parallel? Fine, in parallel is fine. That's what I meant. We'll be looking at the conservation as well as the easement with South Point. But neither of those things necessarily have to be resolved before the path and the parking and the fence and the little little lighting and the punch-ins. The punch-ins. Related to the punch-ins since they're not in the immediate path area and that is expanding the scope. That is an area where we have very little existing information, so it would be a pretty large. Yeah, I didn't see that in the plan. It has not been part of this plan and would require a lot more on-site investigation and survey, so it would be a pretty large scope increase. That's resources and bike and ped to look into that, I suppose, in parks and parks. So that's not part of our direction to you, I guess, that's more another. Put that in the explore category. Let's explore, that's to make it more, I mean, we had the paths in Wheeler Park before we had the punch-ins, is that correct? Yeah. So they evolved over time and it made it more usable. I'll put it on my explore list to explore. Okay. Just put it in the easement that we can do it. Well, right, it would have to be. I need to use the restroom. Oh, okay, so you're calling the question. All right, are you ready for the vote? Yes. All in favor of this, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye, that's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Ty. And they're right, I think. So we're moving on to item nine, the planning commission shared to brief the council on the comprehensive plan. Jessica Luisos and along with her is our director of planning, Paul Conner. So take it away. Yeah, so I'm Jessica and we have one trustee planning commission member joining us in the audience as well, Michael's in attendance. We have been working for a pretty long time. I'll show you the timeline on an update to the comprehensive plan. So many of you would recognize the words comprehensive plan. We have one in place from 2016. This is officially in state statute referred to as a municipal plan. And I feel that we felt like members of the public sometimes had a hard time understanding what the words comprehensive plan meant. So for our outreach efforts that we've been going through we've been using the term city plan 2024 and we have this logo, you see it up on the screen. So just as a clarification, at least at this point we're calling it the city plan. If we get a lot of pushback and people really feel like it should still be called comprehensive, I think that's still an option too. So the municipal plan is an overarching kind of policy plan for the city. It is not as specific as the zoning regulations or some of the other policies and ordinances we have in place as well. This is really looking at a long-term vision and then within it it also lists some specific goals and actions to get towards that vision. So it does get readopted every eight years in order to stay current and active. And although it's readopted every or redone every eight years it does have a much longer timeframe. We think of this as like decades long vision for our future. And as the planning commission we do often work in land use planning and this document does do some of that but it also includes some other topics some of which are mandated by the legislature that we need to include and a few of those are listed up there. And we also consider some statewide goals. So you'll see in here there are some specific updates based on statutes that have been adopted in the last eight years. So it's really important and when you see the timeline I want you to keep this in mind that without the city plan in place we don't have as much power to push back on things or do grant applications. There are some like actual real reasons why we wanna make sure we always have one in place. So as a foundation we have this beginning statement that we have up here and I can give you a second to read it. This was also in your packet. So we are proposing to open up with this statement that is very specific to climate change. And as we have updated the plan from the 2016 version we have incorporated components from the climate action plan that you've adopted within our comprehensive plan and wanna make the strong statement right up front that it's very important. So moving into the next section we had previously had four what we called vision and goals and we are proposing to kind of change that to be our guiding principles. And I'm gonna leave this slide up for a little bit. You also have this text in your packet. This is kind of an important piece of the plan will be kind of right up front as a summary page and if you remember from the current plan we have four vision and goals right now with various bullet points listed underneath each of those. So on the screen you can see there are still four and they are similar to the previous bit of an updated and instead of having bullets we have some kind of descriptive sentences. We felt like the bullets that we have right now may feel to some people that they're supposed to be inclusive and there's just so many topics that would fall under these guiding principles. We felt like kind of a more descriptive approach is important. One of the other things that you'll notice is that right up front we say the overriding guiding principle of this plan is to make every policy decision through the lens of climate resilience and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. And then we have our first guiding principle of climate action listed above as an overarching kind of lens in which we would see all of the other pieces of the plan. You can see then it says that South Burlington also holds high the following guiding principles and every action we take is a community and we have our other three guiding principles listed there. The inclusive, fair and just, thoughtful and sustainable built environment and collaborative and engaged. And you as the city council have used the four vision and goals from the current plan quite a bit in your policymaking and kind of justification of some of your actions. So, you know, this is kind of that upfront summary. Then moving further into the plan, we are, as I said, building on the 2016 plan, we have tried to add more measurable goals where we can and kind of streamline the whole thing so that it's shorter, not as redundant. Some of that has come with reorganization of sections where we felt like we could combine things into more succinct topic areas. And we also have other plans that the city has adopted that are kind of underneath this one. So for example, the parks master plan or the climate action plan that you have adopted also our kind of standalone plans that are really amazing documents that we would refer to in this one. I was just gonna jump in to say that as a result this draft plan is quite a bit shorter in numbers of pages from the last one and a big chunk of that is descriptive elements. So a parks master plan will have a much more robust discussion of describing each park whereas here that section was shrunk down a lot so that the city plan, the comprehensive plan can really focus on getting right to the key issues and not be as much of a descriptive discussion of everything. Which is nice, it's less to read or get lost in if you're looking for something specific. So at this point we have had a lot of public input, committee review, staff review from different departments and have been kind of working through this timeline that's up on the screen, you know starting back in March of 2022 and as part of that process we've had a lot of input that covers a lot of the first boxes and for your, I just wanna very specifically point out some of the end pieces here because this is where I think you as a group are gonna have to really step in with some actions of your own as well. So at this point we do have a full working draft, it was, it's date of July 6th and we are working on some kind of more informal public outreach and collecting information and doing listening sessions and soliciting comments from the public through mid-August or I guess we have August 2nd, August 2nd where we're asking for any final public comment on this particular round, then we are gonna do some additional edits so that in kind of the end of August we would have our kind of official public hearing process where we would warn the public hearing with that draft and then make some edits as needed with that public comment and then starting in October, it will come to you for your public hearing process with the target to be adopted by the beginning of February. So that is our process we're in now. Then a little bit more about the plan itself. There are a lot of different topic areas, one of which is the land use piece itself. We have tried to kind of focus this discussion with a stronger vision and more descriptive clear descriptions of each of the different types of land use. One of the things that I wanted to point out specifically here is that we have actually broken the commercial industrial land use into two categories. We've been hearing over the last many years that there is a place for commercial and industrial with some supporting residential included as well and that wasn't a category that we had previously included and felt like if it's something we wanna pursue as a city we wanna kind of have that specifically in the plan. We're also being more clear about in the residential areas that there are appropriate types of commercial that make sense. So an example with that would be with South Village. We had made some changes to have some small scale commercial allowed in that type of setting. And although our current comprehensive plan does allow for that, we just wanna make sure it's more clearly articulated as part of these descriptions. Then I think the next piece is looking at some mapping. There are a variety of maps included in the current plan and our proposed plan. This is one I thought would be good to just do a side by side comparison of. We have our future land use map from 2016 on the left. And we sometimes call that the fuzzy map because you can see there are fuzzy boundaries between each of those future land use types. And then on the right we have the draft 2024. So some of the things that I just wanna point out the kind of purplish color is that new category of commercial with supporting housing. So we've designated some areas where the conversation has come up that it might make sense. Other things that to specifically point out the green area, the principally conservation area has been expanded based on a lot of the work that was done in the last many years for updates to articles 10 and 12. So you'll see that on there. Along Williston Road, you can now see there's a little bit of like an orange or kind of strip along Williston Road. We've heard that it might make sense to have a little bit of higher scale uses right along the road itself while still maintaining kind of the residential feel of the adjacent neighborhoods and felt like if that's something we might wanna make changes to our zoning there in the future we wanna make sure that that's a discussion for the public as part of this process. We have, let's see, there's some other areas. So the Champlain Water District kind of near Red Rocks, you have the green and then there's a red blotch there right under the word Burlington. And that's actually where Champlain Water District intakes are located. We felt like it was not, it was kind of, it doesn't make sense to have a yellow knowing that it's kind of a more commercial or industrial type of use. So we have changed the color there to be more reflective of what we're seeing on the ground. And then in the Southeast quadrant there's a few spots that had showed up as kind of a red node of development. And with all the work that we have done in the conservation PUDs and kind of refining land uses in that area it didn't make sense to use the color red and have it be visually the same as city center which is a more intense planning district. So we felt like the color scheme there just needed to be more reflective of what we were expecting in that area. And then one of the things that's a little bit hard to show on the map is the conservation and other PUDs envisioned for parts of the Southeast quadrant. So because they're kind of parcel by parcel and you would have development in one area and conservation on the other parts of the parcel it didn't necessarily make sense for us to kind of show blobs. So you will see kind of the yellow and the green but then we need to use our imagination a little bit to think about what that actually looks like on the land in the PUD concept. So I think those are some of the big things on this map. And then we can move to the next slide please. This is just a little bit of an overview of the plan. So on the right you see kind of the organization of each of the sections to do an overview start right up front with the goals and actions and then get into the inventory and text and resources really referring to other studies that have been done and then a list on the right of the plan section. So kind of how we organize information into each of those. And I think that could be. So I did include additional slides in your slide deck with a little more information about each of those plan sections but I feel like that's something that you can read on your own and if you have questions you can let us know. But didn't think we needed to go through all of those in person. So that was what we had prepared so. Yeah. Yeah, Megan, any questions or comments? I think you were here for part of the discussion about the Hubbard Park Path. And there we were clearly talking about climate change but also equity issues. Did you see that discussion as reflective of what kind of your hierarchy that seems like a soft hierarchy but I just want to know how hard it is between the climate change being the top and then the equity and the thoughtful and sustainable build and the cooperative. How do you see those pieces? I mean, I think that your discussion kind of showed that. Like let's make sure that we're not favoring one population over another but we also have these big goals that we're trying to meet as a city and we've set climate action goals and this is one way we can achieve that. And I think that it's a really good example of. Okay, I just, and I think that that's, you know, I've always been convinced that if we put equity alongside climate action because serving the least served populations, those that live near highways, those that live in polluted areas, those that, you know, have to rely on cars because they don't have access to basic services that if we focus on that equity piece with the climate action, it does bolster the climate action because we're lifting up everybody to where we need to be. So I just, I want that to really be closely wedded. Like in my mind, without that equity piece, you're going to fail on climate action. We're going to have complete disparity and I just really wanted to say that. Well, I think the Hubbard Park was a pretty cool example of that. And in my mind, almost an easy example versus some other things that when you put equity with climate action, it might be more challenging to make those decisions. So that's when you make me pause, when you make me pause because I think that when you talk about a meadow, right, obviously the best thing for that meadow is to do nothing. Let's just be really clear about it. Michael Miteg was right. Rosanna's right. Kayla's right, right. The best thing for that meadow is to do nothing, right? So, you know, I go back to my discussion at the National Parks with a wonderful ranger who just says, you know, Yosemite, oh my goodness, you know, we don't even reserve spots, you know, it's kind of first come first served. And so you can imagine how early you have to get there and people park all over the place. And so she said, you know, we're still working on the people and the park, the people and the park. And we want to bring people to the park because if people don't come to the park, they're not going to become sensitive to why we need to preserve natural spaces, right? So we have to have the two together. We have to bring people to our parks. I'm not saying the most sensitive natural areas where we have, you know, walking trails that are cutting through breeding grounds, but we have to give people access to our natural areas so that they can say, this is why I'm spending this much money in taxes to preserve biodiversity and to preserve the tree canopy and to preserve, you know, all these things that we know are going to be critical to the survival of our species, yeah. I'm just saying that I think that was an example that made it very clear and to my mind an easier answer than when we get into housing. And if no one's building affordable housing, we're kind of up the creek, right? So it's harder when it's the public or private groups that you need to sort of string along. I mean, we own the land so the city can say, yeah, equity is important and this is how we achieve it and this is how it responds well to climate change. Housing, I just think is an example that's a little more challenging. So I don't disagree with you how important it is. I just think our conversation and even the, I guess the options we have as a community are perhaps more limited. Well, on the property or if you have control of it, I think it's easier to make policy that supports climate action as well as equity. If you have to work with someone, they not share those goals and they own it, it's a harder conversation. Right. I mean, what's your leverage? So I'll just bring it back to Wilson Road because just to finish my thought, we need community gardens and we need to have open space even in those high dense areas and use the term in your map here, let me find it. High, low. High, the higher scale, primarily residential higher scale and then the balanced high scale mixed use. We need to include green space in there because of heat islands, because of people who do not necessarily have the means to have air conditioning or whatever additional expense will go into remaining cool during the hottest months that they have the city's structural infrastructure, I guess infrastructure is a better word, including our natural infrastructure, working for the betterment of their life and their living conditions. So not just to have concrete in that area because we really need to save biodiversity in another area. I know you've heard this before. I know I'm kind of also preaching to someone who's been very thoughtful about this, Jessica as well as Paul, but I just want you to hear it again and I'll keep repeating it. And I receive emails about it all the time and I let them know I say it every opportunity I get. So we have some really specific goals as well. I gave you the overview slide and even on the overview slide, we have the thoughtful and sustainable built environment with the idea that things are welcoming. There's pedestrian orient and you're building parks and then also the equity piece. So I think a lot of what I'm hearing you say is in here and I guess one thing to point out is just because we have four guiding principles and they're all great, it does not make your job easier because there are a lot of things that are important. And I think when you come to an individual decision, you're gonna have to weigh those decisions with all of these things in mind. And now that the presentation's off and I can see the people in attendance, I just wanted to acknowledge that Laurie Smith and Paul Engels are also planning commissioners and I'd only mentioned Michael because I saw him but they're also attending virtually. So are there comments or questions? Just a quick one that I really appreciate the separation of the commercial industrial and commercial industrial and housing because I think that there's a lot of potential there without getting into the whole equation of the schools and stuff, but there is land in those areas that is ripe for some form of housing that's fairly dense, right? And is compatible I think with those industrial or commercial uses. I think that's a forward-looking stance to take and I appreciate it. I just have a question, maybe a minor thing about the future land use map. The area along the water, I guess the fowl, the entire thing is fowl, I thought some of that is wetlands that's showing yellow there. I guess I would have thought more of that would be green or that we would hope our vision would be to, for that waterfront piece to plan for that to be more green and not to be developed, similar to, I mean, Chamberlain's yellow. In my mind, you wouldn't be building like a Chamberlain neighborhood on that waterfront, at least that wouldn't be the vision. Do you want us to pull the map back up? I believe there's a pretty big strip right along the water itself. I think Quincey Park and yellow, myself, but. That Quincey, no, no. Isn't. Well, not rocks, but then you might be also looking with the old Farrell property. Yeah, that's what I'm looking at. That's a big. I see green there, myself, but. I think as a practical matter, you're correct, there are a number of wetlands in that area. They're sort of, sort of, swatched in various places. And so the future land use map tries to take a broad brush approach to it, but it doesn't necessarily capture each wetland. And so what's captured on this map, which is a change from 2016, where you can see it on the left, is the identified forested habitat block connecting to what is on the official map of a planned park area. So those are the two that are shown in there. And you have to really squint your eyes, but it also shows that there's a stream that cuts through just north of Bartlett Bay Road there. I think that the commission wrestled with to what extent the map should be fuzzy and not to sort of show that these things are not absolute firm statements because of whether the city chooses to adjust policy in the future or on the ground conditions. The commission decided on one that is fuzzy, but slightly less fuzzy than the 2016. And there's. Yeah, I'm not talking about the fuzzy, I'm talking about the, I mean, just to point out where I'm looking. It's like, this, right? I think this is like all wetlands here, and I know some other wetlands down here. It looked funny to me to color that yellow. Yeah, so I guess one thing that isn't captured on here is every single one of the natural resources. So like what would be used in the actual development of a property would be the land development regulations, which do regulate wetlands. So like once you look at the site level, I think you're right. Like there's wetlands kind of around in there that would not be developed when it came down to a site plan. But it's hard to kind of blotch those little blotches around. Yeah, I mean, it's kind of two thoughts. One, I think there's a lot of wetlands in there too. It just seems like a really, I honestly, I would love for the city's vision to be to conserve that. I mean, it's a really important parcel. It's pretty undeveloped now. It's waterfront. If this is like what we intend the future to be, I would intend the future to be green there for all those reasons, not yellow, so. And I mean, we can take direction from the council on things like that. What is there currently? Is that the Farrell property? Claritin? Well, some of it is anyway. Some of it is, where he had pointed is. And you can see that we do have quite a bit more green on the proposed version than we had in the past, so. Right. And then another little. Right, and then the line where it becomes red is essentially the railway. And to the east of that becomes, it's physically disconnected. So that's why the line is fairly sharp there on the street. And that's Holmes Road past the railroad tracks that circles around. Correct. Bartlett Bay to the north and then Holmes just below that second sort of right. Holmes is right. Oh, this mouse is tricky to do that. Holmes is right here. And Bartlett Bay is right there. Nope. Holmes is right there. I've only been here for 15 years, folks. We got it. Keeping you on your toes. Holmes to the north. Bartlett Bay to the south. And then they almost touch. Yeah, they're separated by a yard. And a stream. I think the issue that I have with that, Andrew, is I don't know that it's an issue, but I guess I go back up to, I'm less concerned about the specific plots of land. And I go back up to, and maybe it's semantics and I apologize if that's the case, but so yeah, it can't be everything. We have to stack rank in terms of what's your top priority? Right? In our top priority, we've established the overriding guiding principles by making every policy decision through the lens of climate resilience and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. And I guess what I struggle with and I'd love some clarification or just some discussion around it is I agree, but I also strongly believe that over 50% of our residents can't afford to buy a house here. They rent. I wanna make sure that this lens that we're looking at things through doesn't disproportionately burden folks who are already living paycheck to paycheck. And because I've, for many of my most recent tenure here, I've been one of those people and we've heard a lot of input, particularly around the conversations around ARPA funds, but there are a lot of those folks in this area. And we've made, so I guess two questions. One, how does the plan and how do these guiding principles reconcile those two and do they do they do so strongly enough? And I guess that's a question for all of us for the council, I'd love the input. And two, along those lines, if we're talking about housing affordability, we've discussed that the major corridors where we are going to promote and allow additional development to be Shelburne Road and Williston Road. And I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's what we've discussed. And if we're looking for more areas there, it just, it feels like at some point, something's going to give and we are going to become an exclusive community that is going to drive people out. And that's not what historically we've been. We've been a community that's been inclusive. We've been a community that's provided great schools. And I want to make sure that we're, as we tackle the challenge of climate change, that we don't lose that character and that identity. I think it's really important. We're not Shelburne, we're a city. And I want to make sure that we're, yes, a responsible city, but I want to make sure that we don't lose sight of that. And I'm concerned the language is proposed is perhaps doesn't reconcile those two enough. I think the other thing you have to sort of factor in is what, oops, sorry, is what the city can control. You know, I'm looking at developments behind our house and this square foot development cost is, I think it's like $750 a square foot. That's like New York City. And so it's never gonna be affordable if that's the going rate that is charged when somebody builds a home. Whether it's a duplex or whatever. And so, I mean, I appreciate that you want to have affordable housing all over the city, but nobody's building it. And it's not, I don't think, just because of our LDRs. I think there's other stuff at work. Maybe simply greed. I don't know. But perhaps, I guess the counterpoint to that argument, Helen, is one could say the exact same thing about climate change. We're limited in our capacity to fight climate change as a city alone, but yet that is our top priority and that's our guiding principle. And just as we've made a decision that we are not going to rest on our laurels and throw our hands up in the air and say, well, there's only so much we can do with climate change. I would like to see us take that same tack for making sure that we remain accessible and that we would try our damnedest to retain our character and remain accessible as a community. I don't disagree. I'm just looking at the reality of what we as a community, municipal policy makers can actually do. And usually I'm not very pessimistic. I'm a pretty optimistic kind of person. But I look at what's happening with development and it's not just South Burlington. It's all over the country. Stuff is just so expensive and people are paying it. And the people that you're talking about for that diversity are stuck with different kind of housing if there is any. If I could jump in here. Sure. Jessica wants to say something too. I just wanted to say that I really liked this purple which is new. It's something I've seen as a potential for many years. I've even talked to the React people about it and they expressed interest in it when I talked to them about it years ago. And so I'm just really glad to see that moving forward and having served on the IC, the Interim Zoning Open Space Committee. I know that the space close to our lakefront is really rich in wildlife and the feral property is because it's just a house homestead with open land that they are. It is a wildlife corridor and we need the wildlife to have a place to live. We can't, if we get rid of our bears and our foxes and everything else and here there are a lot of cats and I can't remember what kind of cats they are. But that is really important wildlife territory there. And the feral property has kept that. So that is respecting what Andrew is talking about is respecting the current use of the property just by passive, not building on it. And I do think that when we look at the high, what did you say, the higher scale, high scale mixed use, higher scales, the orange, if we really include places for people to go sit under a tree, so you have their children play where they can watch them play, we need to include that. There will be a market for that. And I think because it's on our high transit areas it makes sense that's where people can catch a bus. Some people choose to live in high-rises. My parents downsized. Some day, I won't be able to do a care of my yard either. And we just have to be ready for that stage of life and age gracefully. We all don't want the same thing. We don't all need the same thing at the same stage of different stages of our lives. So I just, I really wanna focus on that purple which I think is a really positive thing. I wish we didn't have F-35s flying over them, but anyway, that's just the fact of life here in South Burlington. I just, you guys, you wanted to say something. Did you have a comment and then- Oh, I just, I just wanted to say, I didn't read all of the words in those guiding principles, but affordable housing is specifically listed as well as under the thoughtful and sustainable built environment, we're really talking about all of the different areas where people live really striving towards that welcoming walkable with parks and facilities, safe, resilient. I mean, all of those things would apply to all of the different areas, whether it's the red where there's more mixed use, whether it's the orange where it's higher scale or in the yellow as well, where we would expect some neighborhoods as well. So, you know, it's not only the red areas where we'd see affordable housing because of our other policies we have in place as well, like the inclusionary zoning, which does include affordable types of housing kind of throughout the different areas of our city. Lisa, did you want to say something? Come up to the mic, so please. Well, it might help you think about this a little differently, Tyler, is this is a guiding document and nice job. I read the whole thing and I made some notes too. When it comes to housing, that's one of my worries. I was born here, I grew up here. I worry about being able to stay here. I live in Queen City Park. You have all these forces outside my neighborhood, I mean, not just South Bolinton, but outside that are saying, what a great, fantastic place to live. It's a neighborhood. When I was a little kid, it was the poor side of town. We had somebody pay 1.3 million for a house down there. I told them how stupid they were. I know what those houses were. They were originally camps and people have had to redo them. So, affordable housing is a wonderful concept. Unfortunately, people who are here are being pitted against people coming in from outside that have the money, they have the resources that we just can't compete with sometimes. So, when you're forcing developers to have to have units or housing that are for lower income people, that is something we can control, but we can't control everything on the market. But I understand where you're coming from because I do look at that. And yes, I think about, you know, I'm aging too and I turned 65 on my last birthday. And I think about the fact that at some point, my yard's gonna be too much for me to be able to take care of. And yeah, I have no problem going into senior housing, but am I gonna be able to even afford that? Is there anything going to be available because of the influence of people that have been coming here? So, there's a lot of concerns and that's where we can probably have a little bit more control with the regulations and planning and stuff like that. And you have fish or cats. Rather than so much with, you know, the comprehensive plan, we put it in there, this is what we want, but the more minute detail comes later. And you have fish or cats in your part of town and there's a lot of runoff along the way. I personally would not wanna build a single family house. There, to be quite honest with you, having visited that part of town, there's a lot of the- Well, I go up the door and it's like skunk, I'm out here if you're here. And I usually have, I'm okay, but yeah, I had a fox just run through my yard yesterday. Yeah, I don't mean for the conversation to focus on whether or not this yellow patch is appropriate for housing. That's the bigger issue is, again, around our comprehensive plan, are we taking enough measures and are we thinking carefully enough about how we are going to balance not affordable housing, strike a balance between our vision and our desire to fight climate change with balancing the affordable neighborhood oriented character of our community. Not affordable housing, but affordability. And, again, I worry we are going to have big bills coming up regarding our schools. We're gonna have big bills coming up regarding mitigating climate change. Particularly, we have this, the plan is wonderful. It's not free. And we have, we're not, there's a fixed amount, a fine amount of income that we are generating as a city in revenue. And it's only going to get more difficult as years go on. What are we, how are we going to balance that? And is that adequately represented here? And is it adequately reflected here? And housing is part of it. But there are other components too. And I worry about that. And I wanna make, I'd like for us to have the conversation around that. Because I, you know, like Helen, I don't know that I share everyone's optimism that we will be able to attract or retain residents after their kids are done with our schools. Tax burden is really high. And as soon as your kids are out and as soon as you decided to downsize, that might be a real consideration, it might be a real factor. And I worry that if that is our plan, exclusively for how we are going to invite more people in, I worry about that. I share your worry. And I sat on a San Diego sidewalk patio listening to the last meeting and I heard our tax collector say that our tax rate can go down because we have more in our TIF district and more in our rooms and meals and a grand list. And I'm like, yes. No. It's not going down. It's not increasing as much. It's not increasing as much, fine. It's still going up at 5.4%. But I meant that it's going down from what we had passed, the projections. What we had passed in March, it's lower than that. People will not be paying the same amount in taxes as what we had told them in March. Am I right? It's lower projection. So lower projection. But they didn't have a tax bill to actually look at. It's a lower increase. Yeah. It's a lower increase. But it's an increase. It's a lower increase. Yeah, so I guess just to kind of circle back a little bit. So what we're doing today is we're giving you an update and I think it's kind of our job as commissioners to spend between now and October when we're back to you kind of evaluating that. Are we balancing right? What is the public feedback? Does this continue to make sense to have climate change as an overarching goal? And those are the kinds of things we're gonna be hearing back from the public on and gonna be able to come back with maybe some answers to what you're saying. And we've heard from public and had a lot of discourse in topic area, discussions and things for months. And this is where we've gotten to at this point. But we do still have work to do between now and October when you're gonna see this again. So I think our plan would be to answer some of those questions for you. Does it feel like the right balance? Our increase is lower because we've been building this congregate housing. Let's just make it really, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but and if we can build commercial, if we can build commercial, it will further be lower increases going forward. So I really know from years of working with the staff of South Burlington, and we've gone through several city managers. Paul's only the second city planner I've worked with. And they know what they're doing. And I see other communities, I won't name any names, but they're paying nearly twice what we're paying. And they're living right there. So we just have to really keep pushing like you're pushing. But I'm not ready to say it's doomsday. I really think that we're moving in the right direction. I really do. Okay. Can I have two wrap up points if possible? So just, I know you have the supplemental sides. And I said I wasn't gonna go through all of them, but two things I do wanna point out is that with our planning areas, there's a map in there. And the planning areas, there's discussion about each of those kind of quadrants almost of the city. And then there's one first city center. And in our 2016 plan, city center, central districts, you know, had kind of a funny hourglass shape. And we've now made it blocky. So what it means is that we're not leaving the neighborhoods kind of adjacent to our central district, kind of hanging out there. And we're, we want to kind of focus of that whole area discussion, including those adjacent neighborhoods in this plan discussion, because those interactions are important. And then the other thing that I wanted to point out is that we have included all the information we need for this plan to also be an enhanced energy plan. And that's important for various things. And I think one of the biggest ones, so that we as a city have substantive difference. And that's not the right word. Substantial difference, substantial difference when there's an application in front of the public service board. So those are two kind of bigger changes that, you know, there's more details in your packet, but I thought I could point those out. And then Jesse, I think was- And Jesse wanted to say something. Well, I guess I was trying to go back to Jessica's attempt to ask some, ask the question of what feedback you got that would be helpful to the planning commission tonight. And I, because I thought that was a really good question for the council, because all the things you're debating are the things that will be continued to be debated for the next six months as the plan is finalized. So I think what I'm hearing from counselors is that you're comfortable with climate change being a very high, if not the superior goal to everything else, but there's an interest in looking at that balance and looking at ensuring that all of the four areas are really highlighted and equitably treated across the plan, even if one's kind of above the other. Is that guidance that's helpful to the- Uncomfortable the way it's written. Planning commission. Yeah, yeah, I am too. I just, you know, the whole thing is what's realistic in the end. And so you have all these goals and you strive to meet them. And then the bottom line is the decision you make needs to be realistic. Right. Whatever it is. Lori, you had your finger waving if you wanted to speak. Yeah, I just had a quick comment. And I just want to say, Tyler, I totally agree with you and I'm one of the people that has been pushing hard for the climate focus. And I think that if you take a look, dig down into the plan, you will see that the issues of equity and affordability and real community balance runs throughout the entire plan already. It doesn't show up in the highlights so much. And that's something that maybe we need to look at, but everything that's been talked about tonight is some, are things that we have been focusing very, been very focused on in our commission. Okay. That's great to hear, Lori. And I guess my feedback would be, let's bring that, let's make that more pronounced in the forefront and in those first few upfront slides and let's make that more clear. I support that. I support that. Will Hurt, thank you. And keep in mind too, it's really important that we look long term, which the planning commission, that's what they're charged to do, is the incremental changes that might seem like steep today, these are molehills compared to the mountains. If we don't do these molehills today, the people in 20, 30 years are gonna be climbing mountains. And we have to plan for that. We have to plan so that your children and your children's children can pay to live here too. You see what I'm saying? It's a long term. No, 100%. And that's what, that's, we're very much in the same page. That it's, this is, I wanna make sure that that comes through and that it's not, it's not one at all costs. One at all costs. That what's not one, that's climate. It's not climate, if we're fighting climate change. Okay, yes. I agree. And at all costs. I agree. Thank you guys. They're actually saying very similar things. Yes. Yeah, they are. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Jessica. Thank you. And Tom. Sorry. And the other commissioners. It's so great, yeah. And great work. Yes. One more comment on the comp plan before you move on. You may. So this is, I'm gonna step a little into your world for a minute over a step, perhaps, which I feel a little bad about considering how awesome the Hubbard Park conversation was. I would encourage you, Jessica, put up a great timeline of when, what feedback we're gonna hear when and when decisions are gonna be made. And the five of you have the ultimate authority on what is in the plan that gets published. So the planning commission is gonna do a lot of public outreach and engage with people. They're gonna finalize the draft that they recommend to you. And then you get to change it, if you would like. That's a lot of authority for five people to hold. So as we go through, as they go through the public engagement process, I would encourage you as you're participating in those conversations to really make as much room for everybody else as possible. This is the opportunity for the rest of the community to be heard. And you guys hold a lot of authority. And when you start talking, other voices shut down. And that's just human nature. You have a big city councilor expressing an opinion. And if I'm not confident in my opinion, I'm not going to share it as much. I'm not saying don't get involved. I'm not saying don't provide feedback, but think about how you five kind of stand back for a minute to let the public engagement process play out because ultimately you get to decide whatever you want in the end. Does that make sense? Yeah. Thanks. Well, let me talk about that for five minutes. Hold on. I'm just kidding. You are five minutes of the agenda. Just coming up. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll try not to get in your way. And thank you. So we're moving on to item 10, receive an update on the development of the implementation plans for the climate action plan. All right. So the next three agenda items are actually in my head a bit related. So this is a new agenda item that hadn't been on your agenda planner, but as I was going through with the leadership team to finalize the policies and strategies, set of recommendations coming off of the retreat, I realized that what we hadn't done going into that was tell you a clear picture of how we are implementing the climate action plan and what strategically we think are the best moves going forward. So I wanted to give you a summary of that in writing. I felt like we owed it to you to tell you where we were with those three implementation plans. So just high level summary. And again, this is our, as the policy turns over to implementation, this is our attempt to make sure we're achieving the goals established in the climate action plan, be as strategic as possible. So we're focusing on the biggest impact changes and then being very clear about how we need to leverage other resources to get there. Paul, I hope you're not leaving. Okay, there's three implementation plans we're working on. The transportation implementation plan, as you know, we had a UPWP grant for, that's the one that's farthest ahead of the pack. And as in, quite frankly, I would say the final stages of collecting information and writing, and we anticipate having that final implementation plan in the fall. In addition, you've taken some actions already with the bike and pedestrian master plan priority and the LDR priorities. So that's great, that's moving on. Government implementations plan, which is really how our organization is going to meet these goals, has been a pretty significant challenge in the last year. And one of the reasons I want to give you this memo is that I realized we hadn't talked to you about this. So as you may remember, we got a grant from the state to hire a consultant to write this plan. We put out an RFP on the street. We got one consultant response. It was non-responsive. They were only going to do a very small portion of the implementation plan. So we deemed it non-responsive and didn't follow through. So we have reprioritized Lou Brezee's work and Nick Atherton, our new city planners work to partner to write this plan for us over the next six to nine months. It's gonna be a pretty heavy lift of staff. And we are taking the approach of we're really trying to engage all of the leaders in the city into what are those creative ideas to meet the plan. So on Wednesday morning, we're having our extended directors meeting, which is the leadership team plus middle management that's really focusing on these efforts. Our hope is to have enough of an idea of the early years of that plan to bring you as part of the FY25 budget and then adopt the full implementation plan over the winter. The reason I wanna highlight this one specifically is as we were working with Nick and Lou to finalize that plan, I realized that Andrew, a lot of what you had been bringing up in the policies and strategies were parts of that implementation plan. So when I rewrote the policies and strategies document, I called that out more specifically in that that we brought forward to you tonight. And then the final one is the buildings and thermal implementation plan. We have no funding for this yet, but you have taken a number of steps already and there are additional steps in the policies and strategies that are aligned to this work, but we don't have a plan for actually writing the implementation plan yet. So I just wanted to give you those updates of where we were because you will see it again into agenda items when you talk about the policies and strategies. Paul, anything big that I missed? Just that while we would have loved to have had responsive proposals to the RFP, this is also a really neat opportunity of a couple of folks, Lou having been involved with the city for a long time to really build internal strength and support for something that really is gonna be a system-wide approach. And so we wanted to make sure even if we did get a consultant that it's not, here's something dropped on your desk because it's really, from the very beginning with developing the Climate Action Plan and the work for the Energy Committee, the question was how do we make sure that it's sort of in the minds and in the thought process of decision-making from the start. So I think that this revised game plan, I think we'll have a really strong ability to do that. Okay. That's all I wanted to say on that agenda. Okay, let's move on to item 11 then. Discuss and consider taking action to direct the city manager to work with the school superintendent on the transfer of ownership of 577 Dorset Street to the school district. So this is coming out of your conversation with the school board at the steering committee meeting recently. I think there was a lot of agreement between the council and the school board that starting to work towards this plan of transferring ownership of that property is a good idea that superintendent and I certainly would recommend that we start working on that. It is a pretty detailed process that's gonna require defining some legal terms, figuring out some shared use agreements and additionally moving forward with the CHT lot line boundary adjustment for the ARPA funding. So I thought it would be appropriate for you to take an active vote to direct me to do this because you are the ones who have the authority to sell property, I do not. So I'll make that motion. Second. Okay, any discussion? Yeah, we just closed everything that we needed to about that building to the school district. I'm just kidding, I'm sorry. Jesse, where does it leave us with respect to the, if we sell the building, the rec space that's there or the plan to maybe expand for the additional folks for the rental, you know. Where does it leave us on those two? Yeah, that's a great question. So Steve is working on that. That is one of the items that we need to unpack. We have a number of things stored right now. We have recreation storage there. We have our emergency radio server there. We have our vaults there that stores all of our election materials. So we need a plan for either keeping some of that in like subleasing back from the school, some of that space and adding on to the fire department. So as we talked about with the rental registry we were starting to cost out some options and scenarios for you on that. We are still going through that process and are hoping to bring that back to you in the second meeting in August with the rental registry ordinance. I would agree to the motion but I would want us to focus on subleasing so we don't incur in order to expense in moving things that are really hard to move. So happy to do that. I don't think there's a whole lot of likelihood that they're going to, I think they may allow us to keep the vault and keep a server closet. I'm not sure they're going to let us keep office space. Office space is not hard to move. Sorry? The vault and the server are hard to move. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. But am I hearing you say you want to keep the rental registry there? Oh, I certainly want to keep the vault and the server there. It sounds like those things are really hard to move. And so if we sell the building, we should negotiate that we can keep that stuff. Okay. The rental, I guess I'll leave up to you. I mean, it's a staff management. Like where do you want to see people where the best, I don't have strong feelings about that. Yeah. I know that the fire department did, right? Our electrical inspections team did so. Right, there's a real programmatic advantage to having building inspection and rental inspection co-located both from a staffing perspective, being the most nimble, having the staff that's the most nimble to deploy, but also co-locating fire prevention with fire suppression. So you have your suppression folks thinking in a prevention mindset. Could there ever be an addition on the north end of our fire station? See, there's a reason he stayed. Yeah. Why don't we just defer this as a question because we're focusing right now on the, giving you the power to negotiate, right? Yes. Because you're gonna come back to it and talk to us about this in the future, right? We are, and yes, he's looking at that. Yeah, so that's the report we hold to bring with you to on August 21st, we've asked the consultant to look at adding onto the north side of the building as the most economical way to house the inspection, rental registry all into one place, easy access to the public, and enough storage space to take care of some of the parks and rec storage that we would be losing. You can just grab a zoom. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. So you need a motion. I made that motion. We have a motion that was made and seconded by Tyler, right? So you're ready for that? Yes. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Is that unanimous? Go to it, Jesse. Great. I think you should also expect a formal letter from the school asking you to enter into the note. Those are negotiations. I had that conversation with the superintendent today. Yeah. And they are preparing them. Good enough. Can I go on to the next one? Yes, I'm sorry. Let's go on to approving the FY24 policy priorities and strategies and the committee work plans. So thank you very much for your time during the retreat. I and leadership have spent some time integrating what we heard from you all on the 26th into this proposal. What we are looking for tonight is an adoption of both the shared work plan between the council and the leadership team as well as between the council and the committees. Two major changes I want to call out in the leadership team and council one is one I've added in a priority around planning for 575-577 Dorset Street that hadn't been in there as a priority previously. So I specifically called that out. And then I've rearranged the climate action plan set of bullets on page four, the last section of your priorities that specifically emphasize the completion of the transportation implementation plan and the government operations implementation plan and then talked about what we would do once those are completed, what things we would immediately prioritize. So those are the specific high level changes I've made and hopefully I've reflected your conversation. And I would ask for a motion to approve both our shared work plan and the committee's work plans. So moved. Second? I'll second it. You second. Yeah. Yeah. And ready for, I just had a question. I did have a question. The pending resources explore creating a village green and city center. What resources, is that the ARPA discussion? Is that, what are? So it could be ARPA, I think to have that conversation well, we're going to need some help thinking about how we activate the spaces that are available and what that might, what it might look like to have a green space in a poon lot, what it might look like to have a green space at the university mall, what it might look like to have a green space at the judge parcel, and then have you all give us some authorization to start negotiating with private property owners. So that's what I mean by pending resource. That's a pretty big dollar line. So, but we will do it this year. We will have that discussion. Assuming you allocate some money to do it. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, I have a couple of comments. I think we should reword that. Pending resource to explore sounds very weak to me. Yeah, but just to. I mean, pending resource to do, okay, but we should be exploring. Because we were ready to vote on that on the 26th. Okay. I think that we should have a discussion with the owners of the lot to try and negotiate a price. And that doesn't cost a lot of money to have a discussion. And are you specifically talking about the poon lot or are you talking about like, that's what I'm talking about. What the parking lot at the rear of the blue mall could look like or what it could look like if it was between. That's too complicated. I'm talking about the parking lot that's opposite city center. Yes. So I think it puts us at a strategic disadvantage to be saying we are gonna throw the council's entire weight behind buying a parcel from one particular buyer for one particular purpose. It's a blank check. I'm not doing it. I agree. That's why I was trying to give you some options to like explore how we. Exploring sounds good. Well, let's explore. So you guys talk about that. But it's not a pending resource to explore. I think we should be exploring. Exploring it. Yes, I agree. But my point is if it may do, is the issue that it's only, it's not a may do or a must do? I think it's a want to do. I think explore should be a must. I don't know. We're not gonna do it, but to explore it. Yes, we should be exploring. Yeah, so let me try one more time. Yeah, I'm not sure. I'm not following. I think if your direction is go buy the poon lot and explore that, you're right. Colin and I can do that within our existing resources. I think it's going to be a huge price tag to buy. If the council says we just wanna buy this one property, it's a blank check to them. They get to set whatever amount they want. If we spend a little bit of consulting money saying to a place maker, go tell us what this green space looks like and this green space looks like and this green space looks like and do they assess the value of each of those parcels? And then we, in executive direction, you give us direction of how to do that. To me, that's a better strategic approach to locating a green space than go, you telling me tonight to go get the poon lot. So can we do? I can do that. So I would like to do the must do, explore creating a village green and city center because if that's a small amount of money just to have a consultant develop those three options, we'll give it to you. I mean, we're ready to do that. So that's fine. I'm happy to change that to a must do, but I'm gonna bring you back on your next council agenda and allocation of fund balanced. Okay, that's fine. Yeah. I have some other comments. So we talked about a tree ordinance. Is that amenable to everyone? For now, yeah. Pardon? Yes? For now. Okay. We talked about a tree ordinance. Is that somewhere in here? Or is that too detailed? Tree ordinance, where is that? I didn't see it. Talk amongst yourselves for a quick second. Okay. Hey, I watched a wonderful movie on the plane. A good person. Have you seen it? No. I've seen Freeman and Florence Pugh. Wonderful. Really, really wonderful. And it's about opioid addiction. It's about OxyCotin. It's an amazing movie. And I really recommend it. Hey. We might get to watch it tonight. We might get to watch it tonight. Yeah, I could probably bring it up. We could just spend a couple hours watching it. It's on Amazon Prime. And so the tree nursery is on here. I guess I left that off this because at a previous meeting discussion about Astries, you gave Tom direction to do it. And it's also on. That's a totally different thing. We talked about the tree ordinance that the NRCC is working on. The NRCC work plan. It is on the NRCC work plan. I know. So there's lots of stuff on this work plan that might come to you for action as well. If you're saying it doesn't need to be here in order to consider it in short order, that's fine. But I think it's really important that we consider it in short order. Yeah, I would recommend you give direction. If the council approves the NRCC work plan, then you could ask them to bring that to council. I've done that. Okay. We talked about incorporating into the rental ordinance weatherization requirements. Are you looking at a specific area of this plan? Yeah. In the rental, adopt a rental ordinance and stand up a rental registry. I would like to add, including consideration of weatherization requirements. It's in the housing and city plan. It's not. The housing city plan is a pending resource to even do a plan. It's page 156 in our packets. What's that? It's page 156 in our packets. It's under housing. It's in the city plan. It's in the comp plan. Energy, right, the comp plan. Oh, it's on the comp plan. It's the city plan. It's probably the city plan. Well, Jessica and Paul, we're talking to us about. Okay, yet to be adopted. Yet to be adopted. Yeah, it's on page 156 of our packets. That's great. Improve energy efficiency, weatherization and electrification of existing homes and new homes. I'm talking about something very specific. Yeah. Right? In the rental ordinance, we have the power to require landlords to incrementally weatherize. And I think we should add that here as something that we work on. We're gonna, in August, we're gonna be talking about the short term rentals and long term rentals ordinance. Yeah. So does that need to be included on the plan since it's already on an agenda in August? Well, it's not. Steve, feel free to come up. But I think what Andrew is asking for is in on the policies and strategies document under core municipal services and administration. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven down is adopt a rental ordinance and stand up a rental registry you're asking for. That includes weatherization requirements. That's what I would like to see in there. Okay. I would encourage you to let us get the rental registry off the ground before we add additional components to it that would add complexity to that group of what their assignments are. So I don't know. I would ask you to hold off and let us make sure we form that and move it forward before we add additional work that's really outside of the normal scope. Add a pending resources. I would say, I hear you. I understand and I would say that there's no way we're gonna hit the goals of our climate action plan even remotely close unless we start working on it. So that's, I would argue we are working on it. We're standing up the team. I mean, we're standing up the team and do that work in the future. I understand. I know. Could it say something like adopt a rental ordinance and stand up a rental registry with a future intention that includes whether that includes a weatherization component? That wouldn't be my preference but I'm only one voice. I gotta follow the direction. For the horse. Yeah. I mean, we have the horse we've got, you know. I hope we can put him in place at the same time. We've heard, I think we've heard from Chief Locke that the best practice and best way to proceed is to get it up and running first. I'm inclined to trust our staff and I'm inclined to take prudent and reasonable measures that we can but we have to walk before we can run. I think I would take his advice as well. And we've got a horse, Andrew. Yeah. We got a horse and a good horse. Eventually we can fill the cart up. Yeah. Maybe. Maybe we can. A horse. Yeah. You know, a horse was gold back in the day and it still is. All right, so. I got one more. One more. Okay. Sidewalks. That isn't here. That's where to God I put that in here because we had a whole conduct to sidewalk condition inventory. It's pending resources. It's under roll of council and prioritized maintenance and future budgets. We needs against shared use path and paving needs. And remember that by changing our city center, Paul helped me to a designated downtown growth area. My close population growth area that we would save a lot of money and then permitting process by changing city center to a designated downtown and population growth area. So the objective this year is to renew our existing new town center and neighborhood development area designations. They expire every five years. And then we've talked to the planning commission about expanding the neighborhood development area both to the north side of Williston road and as far down as the former city hall site, which will help the, it gives us some benefits in terms of grant priorities and things like that. It also helps the development community in that it limits the rat to 50 exposure and caps a lot of their fees at the state level, which helps with housing affordability. Also in the proposed policy priorities is to begin to lay the foundation for becoming a designated downtown. The structure is not laid out for a place like South Burlington to be that. It's really, this is a multi-year effort in our mind to start to help ourselves and then our state partners and possibly the legislature conceive of what does it mean to have created a downtown. So it's sort of laying those first steps towards that which brings even more benefits. Great, great. And ultimately gives us more money to work with. Gives everybody more money to work with. Gives everybody more money to work with. Yes, and reinforces the statewide planning goal of compact developments around a by-country side, which is really ultimately what this is all about, so. Yeah. Yeah. So I think that's the placeholder in my mind, the sidewalks. I know I've heard several people talk about it throughout the city that sidewalks are an issue. So I've got it as a placeholder, Andrew. That was during our retreat. I put it there. Let's turn it from a pending resource to a may-do. The reason that's a pending resource is that we currently have $2,000 in this year's budget for it. I know. So if you want to give us resources, we would be happy to do it. You should. I'll go along with you when the update comes. It's going to come, Andrew. Your day will come. OK. OK. So I think you can to adopt this. Motion. Can I make a motion to approve? We already did. We have a motion and a second. Oh, I did? Motion and a second. We're just a discussion. Yeah. So we're done with the discussion. Do you have any more points? Those were my four points. So what are we changing? We're creating. Explore creating a village green and city centered to a must-do. And I'm going to bring you a finalization. Weatherization, we're not putting it in there. Well, you're going to put something about future. The weatherization, we're not putting into later. So we have the registry up and running. OK, so not even a future. OK. The tree nursery. The tree nursery. You have to bring the NRCC's work plan forward for us to adopt. They have to bring it, yeah. Well, OK, they have to. But as the council liaison, you can say, well, we're ready to receive it. Is the wife through the chair? Then the fourth thing was the sidewalks. We're not taking anything on that. I'm just, I'm with you when the dollars are there. But the dollars aren't there yet. They have to be clearly moved from one column to the other column. You have to take action. Yep. And a warned agenda item. OK. All right, Tim, my motion and Helen, you second it. OK, are you ready for the vote? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Did I hear all four or five ayes? OK. I do very much appreciate you guys spending so much time going through that process with us. It really helps staff to know how we can be successful in your eyes. So thank you. OK, item 13, one of our favorite. I would entertain a motion to go become the liquor control commission. Second. All in favor? Aye. We have one pending La Quinta. And move that we approve the La Quinta in Sweet's first class hotel liquor license. Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. We come out of liquor control commission. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. OK, I'll drink to that. Other business. The one quick thing is that, I know Barry Gerard is a resident of South Village, I also knew him at IBM. And he's been emailing me about traffic building up in the middle lane at Dorset Street wanting to turn left because everybody thinks that they have to get in the middle lane. Some of the people want to get onto the interstate to go north immediately. But he thinks the left lane is underutilized because the signage doesn't detail well enough the fact that if you get in the left lane, you can go to Burlington. You can still probably get on the interstate south. And the far right lane is right turn only. So the middle lane, I just sent Erica an email saying, what switches do we have or dials to pull? It may be a state signage problem. It's a state sign. It's probably not ours at all. So anyway, so I don't want you to respond to it. So that's it. So anyway. Maybe the same thing on Shelbur Road for the Burlington to the highway. Right. It's two turns. That's all I'm going to do other business here. OK. OK. And then we have the recognition. Yeah, thank you. So Sandy Dooley and the Affordable Housing Committee, as usual, they came forward asking for ideas of how we could recognize John Simpson, who will be stepping down from city service after many years of really exceptional service. And I know that he was appointed a city counselor. Back in the day when I stepped down in 2012, along with James Knapp, Jim Knapp, we got a plaque. And I, from 2012 to 2014, have no idea what happened. And I don't recall that since 2014, we've been giving plaques. I'm not aware of any plaques. That have either stepped down or perhaps someone else got elected and they weren't able to continue. But that has been a longstanding tradition. It's something that I always knew during those initial years. And so I suggested to Sandy, don't listen to John Simpson, that we get him a plaque because of his months of service as a city counselor. And in addition to that, his work on the Affordable Housing Committee and all kinds of subcommittees and working committees that he's worked on. And then we also have Dave Kaufman. We have Tom Chitman and Matt Coda. We have Pam McKenzie, Chris Shaw, Pat Nowak, unfortunately not, but maybe her husband. But she got a whole resolution. I mean, she got a big thing. That's true. OK, very good. Thank you for remembering that. Yes. And prior to that, Roseanne and Sandy herself and Paul Engels. I mean, there are quite a few people that I think deserve more than a thank you. It's quite an honor to serve as a city counselor. And I think it's also a sacrifice. It's public services. You sacrifice your time. Your family sacrifices you. I think it's something that we could do. And in addition, we could do a resolution for all of the committee members who stepped down, not only on the Affordable Housing Committee, but on several committees. We have very good people who have just really done great things for the city. And so the idea that I further suggested was that we do this at a Sobu night out. And since we have a few left, I'm bringing it up now. And I don't think this is a serious action item. I don't know if we have to wait until August in order to approve this. But I would hope we could just tell Jesse, please do what needs to be done so that at the next Sobu night out, that's possible. We can gather along with all these people and just thank them publicly and hand out some plaques and read a nice resolution that Helen would do and just have a great party celebrating South Burlington in service. Sandy liked the idea. Nancy Simpson thought it was wonderful. And John, turn off the TV. Okay. So it's committee members and former councilors. Certainly not opposed to it. It was just, I have it. It's a little wooden plaque with a nice metal, you know, and just, I can't remember the wording. I can bring it in if you want to see it. Just take a picture of it. And appreciation for X number of years of service. I can definitely send you a picture of it. So after the fact for some of the folks, but I'm okay with it. Well, you know, we went through as a city, we went through a city as a city, some real tumultuous years after I stepped down. And I think that we can just say, you know, this is, we're back. Re-instituting that tradition. We're re-instituting that tradition. Yeah. We're, you know, sometimes writing over sites is worth it, yeah. Okay, I certainly am not opposed to it, so. If it doesn't rain. If it doesn't rain, yeah. Can I make a suggestion given that so many people in the middle of summer that we do it on August 24th, that's the last Sobu night out? August 17th, they're likely as somebody else on our elected official team, we won't be celebrating. That's what it's about. That's another. And I have been talking about. Yes, I didn't say that person on purpose. Yes. Okay. Yeah, okay. Yes. I'm assuming that she knows very well what's happening tonight. Okay. So do you need a voter? Do you have direction? Let's go do it. So, but that's on August 17th for her? Well, that's not confirmed, but that's what we've been working on. Okay. So it would not be on the August 24th all together with everybody? Well, it could be all together, but I think that really may be perceived as diluting. So August 21st, you say? Fourth. And then the 17th. So if it's all right with you, I'll just be that date to give that date to Sandy and Nancy. So can I just check in with Holly to make sure? Of course. It's all okay. Yes. Okay. I'll wait. You're good information. Thanks. Okay. Any other business? Motion to adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn. All in favor? Bye. Bye. Bye. Oh, no, we're adjourned. Well, it seemed like I called you all. Actually, just before everyone scatters, Travis.