 ARPA funds, particularly for the affordable housing. Is that not for this town meeting? OK. So there are ARPA funds. Andrew, do you want to? Yeah, yes. So there are ARPA funds in the FY23 proposed budget. Council can also allocate those at any point during the year. We are planning to have a larger discussion about process for allocation of those funds at the 22nd meeting. 22nd, OK, after February. Yep, yep, next meeting. And that's when you're going to, or the city, will make some recommendations too strong, but some options on how to spend them. But we won't be voting on it then. Well, and really, I think the agenda item for the 22nd is really a process conversation, how you want to strategically think about the use of these funds over the next bunch of years. We have lots of ideas. The community has brought forward lots of ideas as well. But the voting on those ideas won't actually happen. We'll have a more robust process about that. Yes, good to know. We have until the end of 2024 to allocate those funds. I'm sorry, that was muffled, Andrew. All right, we have until the end of 2024 to allocate those funds. And 2026 to spend them, correct? Correct. So that'll have to be here before we know it. But the process of discussing that and determining how we spend them will be a little longer and hopefully thoughtful. Okay. So are there any changes? Seeing none. Are there any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? And I will note that Councillor Chitenden is, oh, there he is, he has arrived. Okay, welcome. He's eating Lucky Dog. Okay, are there any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? Seeing none. Okay. We'll move on to five then. Announcements in the city manager's report. So announcements from the council. Yeah, I have a couple of things going door to door. It's always, I think a good practice and exercise to boot, but in two senses of the word that you get to talk to people and hear their concerns. And so there are two I wanted to raise tonight. One has to do with the home insulation program walking through Chamberlain. I would love to know and the residents would be very interested in knowing the schedule for that home insulation program. I know that there must be one because when I talked to Nick about a street, he said that's not at the top of the list. So I would love to know what that list is. I will include that in my report. Excellent. And then the second piece of, that I wanted to bring back from residents, Stone Hedge residents are very concerned about the amount of traffic that has increased on Spear Street. We've had those discussions here in council. And there is a request for a stoplight for them to be able to exit and enter, but also for speed limit signs within the Stone Hedge complex itself. So I just wanted to pass that on. And I would hope that some response, I did encourage petitions and gathering together in order to present a more united front to the city council, but I told them that I would pass that on. So they want the city to put speed limits in their street. And if it's private, then maybe we don't have the right to. Are those private drives or they're not really streets. They're more like driveways, right? They're roads. Are there roads in Stone Hedge? The mail carriers I'm sure drive through and they stick things into their mailboxes, yeah. Because unless we are in charge of the roads, I'm not sure we can put up traffic signs, but we can find out some information on that. Can I just pause us for a quick minute? Yes. I'm getting a chat that people online can't hear us. Are there others online who can hear us? Can somebody indicate? I can hear you just fine if that means anything. Thank you Councilor. I can hear you just fine. This is Roseanne. Thank you. All right, thanks, sorry. Well, with the masks though, we probably should get right up to even closer. Yeah, yeah. Okay, Tim, do you have any announcements? Yes, following on Megan's comments about, comments from residents right after knocking on doors. One comment I got was the frequency and the timing of the mowing of the edges of the stormwater ponds. It's something that I've brought up before. And if it's done too early, you take down, they've been doing it twice, once in the spring when the milkweeds just get going and then they do it again before the milkweeds are done and probably there are some monarch chrysalises in there. I don't know. So it'd be great to have a strategy that is conducive to the types of habitat we want in meadow type fields around the edges. So if they did it once and did it after the first really hard frost, if it was like late October or early November, whatever is feasible, you would have the least impact on the growth of all those natural, you know, flowers and things and it would be better for the butterflies. The other thing was today, I had the opportunity to spend an hour and a half with Mr. Bullduck and Martha Machar at the auditor audition, right, for RHR, which is answer the RFP, right, to do the audit for the city. So that's the first time I've been involved in that process and we were able to listen to two of the reps, one from Rutland and one from Middlebury and also the owner himself, Ron, and also have a school district representative and a professor from UVM who's an accountant. So good discussion. I learned things about auditing. I didn't know because I just had to ask the questions because I've never been exposed at what the technical details of it are. So it was thanks for the experience, I appreciate it. Were there three companies who were interested or? I think there was. Is that right? Yeah, we only ended up receiving one response to our request for a proposal. So only one applied. Okay, last time. Is it about the same one as, no, it's a different one, right? No. It is the same one. Okay, I'm sorry, you have anything else? That was it, yeah. Okay. Okay, Matt, do you have any? Just count me as one of the, I know this is a controversial issue, but count me as one of the people that was very happy to see 12 inches of snow outside my doorstep and it's a tremendous amount of work to move that snow that Public Works did and I know I heard some complaints about sidewalks, but it takes a lot of work and I think the Public Works did a great job and they did get to a lot of the sidewalks they couldn't get to over the weekend, so thank you for everyone that was out in the cold, moving snow. And let me piggyback on that because there's a positive news that I heard is people love that we are clearing the walking and biking trails in the winter and actually making it possible for them to continue to use them. So they are doing an excellent job and the residents, I would say, among all the positive comments I heard, that was the top was thank you for Penny for Paz. And thank you for taking care of our walking and biking trails. And I'll chime in and say, I'm also appreciative of Public Works for all their hard work because there was a lot of snow in a short amount of time and that's the biggest stump we've had in a while, so I'm sure there were some drivers taking rest in between rounds because they were probably driving for hours and hours and hours, so I appreciate it. Well, Matt, I'll join you. I love snow. I am so glad we didn't get rain, particularly on top of the snow. I'm not, and I'm glad it's Southern Vermont tomorrow that's gonna get rain. I mean, I'm not happy for them, but I'm certainly glad we are not. I love snow and I think you can do stuff in it. It helps our economy in many ways. It certainly slows us down in driving, so it's not all bad. It just can be sometimes. I had, I would like to just report on a, and you'll hear from them. I'm hoping in the future, but I met with Dave Millum, who is the director of the Green Mountain Habitat and his development officer, Allison Johnson and Don Filbert. She kind of pulled the meeting together and we discussed kind of, or I learned more detail about habitat for humanity and exactly kind of how they work and what they do. And I came away very excited that this is potentially a wonderful organization with whom the city may want to partner. They also, interestingly, partner with a lot of developers because as zoning requirements in our town and other towns have required the inclusion of affordable housing, they have been able to actually go in and build the affordable housing with their volunteers for the developer. So it keeps the price affordable. And it seemed like that would be a wonderful partnership. And there's other organizations that do that we certainly partnered with CHT. But this was kind of they have, oh, three to 400 volunteers that work on these houses. And I was unable to actually go to the habitat structure that they built on Hinesburg Road. But I understand that they literally sold them for about $125,000. So you talk about affordability because $125,000, they don't make a profit. That paid for the land and the materials. And so all of the plumbing and wiring and all that kind of stuff is done by volunteers, many of whom volunteer every single week. And I just was really impressed and thought, well, this might be a place if we, when we get to discussing the ARPA money and dedicating some of that to supporting affordable housing, this is the niche that's the hard one. This is the home ownership. This is the housing that really takes people out of poverty. It's wonderful to have subsidized rents. But they're rents and they're always rents. But a $125,000 mortgage is, that goes back maybe 40 years of what you could buy. So it was a wonderful conversation. And I hope at some point that he will come and share with you and answer your questions about how they work. And then there's other organizations that will be helpful to learn about too. But this was one of the meetings that I went to. So. Yeah, interesting thing I learned too, again, talking to residents and then I go and look for information is that these nonprofits that are highly reputed can secure financing in a way that a developer cannot for development of affordable housing. So smaller houses and all these things. So that they are truly a key partner if we wish to have affordable housing because the banks after the 2008 housing bubble and crash are much less likely to provide that financing for affordable smaller units to just any developer. So I really think that's a really important thing for us to know going forward. And one of the nice things about Habitat is that the owners of those properties have a real vested interest because they have to, you know, they have to put in some of their own work. Yeah, 400 hours of sweat equity. Yeah, when under my former employer I must have worked on at least 10 habitat houses. And, you know, if I did the job wrong, I'm sorry. But, you know, you're going as a volunteer and they say, here, go do this. And you're like, okay, can you show me how? And then they give you a couple of tries. And next thing you know, you know, your pound and nails, putting shingles on, you know, chipping off old tile in some bathroom or, you know, putting up siding, stuff like that. So it's really, and I've worked like in Essex and Winooski and Burlington. This has been like four or five towns and even out in Cambridge, there was a house we worked on too. So it's really satisfying if you get an opportunity to go volunteer for them. Well, and just one other thing, one of the lovely parts of this is once the home or condo is sold, Habitat gets all their money back and then has the money to move forward and do it all over again. So it's sort of reusing money to continue to build. Now, is this the only answer to affordable housing? Heck no. But I thought it was a promising one and I was excited about learning more about it. Okay, the city manager. Great, thank you. So just want to also extend my thanks to our Public Works team and we put together a few data points for the community just so you kind of get a sense of what that response is to snow emergencies. So during this particular storm, our crew came in at their regular shift on Thursday morning, worked straight through the night obviously on shifts. So someone come go home and someone come back through until three o'clock Thursday or Friday afternoon and then came back in again at 4 a.m. on Saturday morning to continue to do cleanup. Of course, that's ongoing. You probably saw them out today as well and that you will throughout the week doing other cleanup. We have 400 lane miles of road to plow. We have 23 miles of path and 55 miles of sidewalks to plow. So just some data points to keep in mind when we're all enjoying that beautiful snow and they wanted to personally thank them for their really hard work out there when the rest of us are snuggled up at home. What are those 400 miles of road? How much of the trails in the sidewalk? So 400 lane miles of road. So like Dorset Street counts as four, four different lane miles. 23 miles of paths and 55 miles of sidewalks. Okay. We also had a water break this morning. Another thing that our public works team was dealing with at the intersection of Dorset and Grandview Drive. Yes. Crews are on site, it's cleaned up but there likely is some traffic disruption while they were doing that digging and when they will make future repairs. It disrupted my walk this morning. It disrupted your walk this morning. So I saw it all. Other things they are responding to. As I have done in past meetings, I did want to give you a quick update on COVID in South Burlington. So in the last week as reported by VDH, we've had 95 new COVID cases in South Burlington. I do want to caveat that with, I think fewer cases are being reported through VDH because more people are relying on at home tests. So there is that acknowledgement but that is significantly down the prior week we had 254 new cases. So significantly down our rate increased 3.7% this week. That's the first time since the middle of December that we haven't seen a double digit percent increase. So hopefully we, like the rest of the state, are declining. The city clerk wanted me to share with you that our ballots are in. She mailed out 294 ballots on Friday. Folks are interested in voting early or by mail. They can call the city clerk's office at 846-4105 and they can send a ballot to your house or you can stop by City Hall during regular hours to vote or of course visit us on town meeting day. Wanted to let you know that we are continuing our work on regional dispatch. I haven't talked to you all about that in a while but I want to use this opportunity to talk to you about because we recently received a $250,000 grant from Homeland Security to fund the startup of that center. We are also watching very closely the $11 million that's before the legislature to transition to all regional dispatch centers and are really hoping that with multiple different grant funding sources that we can close the gap to those startup costs. So much more to come but we are good news. What was the figure from the state? So we've received $250,000 in grants from Homeland Security so far for consoles. Oh and that's from ARPA money or that's just? I don't know what the higher level funding source is. I thought you mentioned another pot of money from. Then there's $11 million being considered. The governor mentioned in his budget address the state is looking to move entirely to a regional dispatch model. Basically get the state out of the business of doing local dispatch. So right now in the budget my understanding is that there's $11 million to do grants to regional dispatch centers to stand up. So we're tracking that at the stay house. And the RCIP has an item for next year for some dispatch equipment. Did I ask whether that was translatable into the new dispatch center if it could be used there? So that's the idea that if we, right now the CCPSA board is on a bit of a delayed timeline. So as we are getting more grant dollars we think we can move more quickly. However, our dispatch consoles are at end of life now. So if we weren't going to regional dispatch we wanted them built into the budget but with those dollars built into the budget and regional dispatch moving we can line up those two efforts and that will be our capital contribution to that effort in the future. So can I ask you, is that the receipt of that grant has that inspired some of the other communities who've been maybe dragging their feet or just kind of folding back? It absolutely has because that grant also must be spent by a time certain this calendar year. So it's not even a grant we can just sit on for a future allocation we need to make that investment now if we're going to move as a board. Okay, great. So very good news. I think most of you have seen the update that VTrans did install the 30 mile an hour signs along Hinesburg Road. Finally, thank you to them for that. Last Tuesday Andrew and I held a candidate informational session for the city council of candidates had great questions, great discussion and are just so thankful that members of the community are interested in stepping up and serving and being very thoughtful about local government. And then just wanna remind you that of course next meeting is the 22nd, which is Tuesday night because Monday night is president's day. Thank you very much. Okay, and Tom, I'm sorry, I skipped over you. Did you have any comments to make or things to share? I'll say one thing. So Friday night I had the pleasure of doing a ride along with the South Burlington Police Department and it was the night of a lot of snow. So I'll say this, I never knew that snow was treated as a very calming effect in the community and officer snow made for a very quiet night. So it was a pleasure to speak with SBPD to see the city through their lands and I encourage all counselors to ride along with the cops if you can get around to it. I think it was a great experience and I encourage others to do so as well. Okay, and will you keep an eye on that $11 million for dispatch? Thank you very much. Okay, moving on then to the consent agenda, we have two or six items. The disbursements, approving the 2022 certificate of highway mileage submission to the state of Vermont. Approve, what's stormwater? Grant request, the Lake Champlain Basin program. Approve another stormwater grant application, mark design and implementation block grant. Approve the 2021 TIFF annual report and approve a resolution and certificate along with related legal documents, a lot of legal documents necessary for the Vermont bond bank to issue general obligation bonds in a total amount of $1.4 million for 43,000 of which it- Four hundred and three thousand. Oh, four, that's right, I'm sorry, 430,000 of which is to be serviced with a tax increment financing from the city center TIFF district. And this 1.4 million is for the construction of the South Burlington Public Library and City Hall as authorized by the ballot November 6th, 2018. Do I move that we approve? Second. Are there any, is there any discussion or comments or questions? So our mileage went up to 69.6, right? So that's just the raw mileage of the roads. But then you talked about lane miles, which is like two or four or whatever. So that's why it was up in the 400s right now. Yeah, that's why. Right, or sometimes there's three. You know, we have that center lane a couple of places or turn offs. Whatever, I mean it's a lot of lanes. It's a lot of mileage. Yeah, you got to follow them. Yeah, oh, and the number reflected here is solely the class three highway. It's not all of the municipal roads. Okay, ready for the vote? Okay, all in favor of approval of the consent agenda signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, that's it. Sounds like five zero and it's approved. So ordered. Okay, item seven. This is the opportunity for counselors and the public to share information and resources on climate change. Is there anyone in the audience or online who would like to share anything? Thank you. Well, I just have one little thing. And I know not all of you have read the Vermont climate action plan. It's quite long. I know Matt has and I've read probably half of it. And one of the things that I think I was struck by is the multiple times that it talks about needing to look at town development regulations in order to deal with climate change. And going through there are just an enormous number of references to that very thing. Building resilience in communities in the built environment. Changing recommendations to change Vermont's land use policies. So current and future land development will be adaptive and resilient to climate change impacts. To promote healthy connected river corridors, flood plains and wetlands. You know, there's too many to read. We'd end up reading the whole thing. But I just bring this up because their pathways and some of their strategies are really very much aligned with a lot of the work that has been completed for interim zoning and the LDR regulations and things that the Planning Commission continues to work on. And I also might add that the task force on climate change is certainly using this as a template. And I think it's very much aligned with some of the things that we all feel are important. And they've identified what looks like some local activities that the task force will be looking at in more depth. I think they agreed to specifically start to focus on kind of the built structures and how can we make them more efficient or work to combating climate change. So it's just, it seems that it's all coming together in a way that we will start the ball rolling with a vote later tonight on the LDRs and then continue with our task force conversations and recommendations. But it was comforting in many ways to learn that we, we're not alone thinking that land use regulations can positively impact and support ways to make communities resilient and better fight the changes of climate or at least get us more prepared. Yeah, since we have 15 minutes for this item, I will just add that we are in the Winooski River Basin and that will be a major flood zone. And I think that we're fortunate to have forecasts and New York has forecasts. I can't imagine all the work that they will have to do in order to make New York City resilient and other coastal cities resilient. But just something that caught my eye, I've shared with people before I grew up outside of Chicago, could see the Sears Tower, I'll always call it the Sears Tower from one of our main streets. And they don't know. They don't know if they will be flooded out like they had this past spring or if they will be in drought. And if they are in drought and the lake level declines, the Chicago River, which they engineered to go away from that lake and very polluted river will reverse its course and no engineering can overcome it and will pour into the lake, which is the drinking water for a city of 6 million people. So I think paying attention to our lake and to our drinking water source is something that the city has to very seriously consider in terms of our responsibilities to future generations. Yeah, interesting. Roseanne, Greco would like to make a comment. Yes, thank you and thank you again for making time on your city council agenda to talk about probably the most important problem and priority we have, which is the climate crisis. I heard Matt Kota say a few times about reading the Vermont initial climate action plan and how much great information was in there. So I did, I read it. And I also was struck, I think Helen mentioned this about how much is in there, about how land and land conservation in particular and how we save our land can help us through the climate crisis. I wanna draw your attention, there's so many references, as Helen said, it'd be great to summarize it in a paragraph or two, but you really can't. But one of the things they talk about in the pathways for a sequestration and storage of carbon, which by the way, early on, they say that we are losing our carbon sinks, Vermont is losing our trees and the land that sequesters carbon. So we're gonna be in a dire predicament. Even if we reduce our emissions, we will not have enough natural land to store the carbon. But what they talk about, which I think is critical to understanding and so much in alignment with what the city is doing in the planning commission with the land development regulation amendments on environmental protections, because it says Vermont's natural and working lands and waters are our greatest asset in mitigating the impacts of climate change. They say natural climate solutions, which they go into great deal about in section 13, are conservation, restoration, and improved land management actions that can increase carbon storage or avoid the greenhouse gas emissions and landscapes and wetlands across the globe. And there's so much more, but they talk about two sides of the coin, reducing emissions and saving the natural resources that store the carbon. So I think thank you, Matt, for recommending the Vermont Climate Action Plan. It is full of information and it really confirms the work that you're doing here to preserve our open lands. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, we can move on to, is it time? What time is it? Yeah, we're after seven. Okay. Okay, so the public hearing on the proposed amendments. This conference will now be recorded. Okay. And we now have people in the audience. I just want to note for Dawn, I talked all about our meeting. So you missed that conversation, but I did mention it. Okay, well I want to welcome everyone. Tonight we'll be holding our second public hearing on the proposed amendments to the land development regulations provided to us by the Planning Commission last fall. Prior to this evening, we've been provided the draft regulations, worn these public hearings, received a presentation from the Planning Commission Planning Director and received recommended clarifications from the city's legal counsel, in addition to a lot of submitted testimony. The purpose tonight is to hear from you. We won't be responding to individual comments except perhaps to ask a clarifying question to make sure we understand a commenter's point. We also won't be having a dialogue amongst ourselves. We will take all that we've learned tonight together. We will have a dialogue after the public hearing, but we'll take all the letters and emails that we've had time to digest and have a council discussion and hopefully a vote. Finally, I would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission and city committees who've put in countless hours into preparing this work and to thank all the members of our community who've taken the time to review and provide feedback on these draft regulations in writing at prior meetings and those of you who will speak tonight. Procedurally, we'll have comments from folks who are in person and folks attending remotely. If you're in person, please walk up to the podium and I'll call on you. For those attending remotely, please indicate that you would like to speak in the chat function and our city manager, Jesse Baker, will keep a running tab of those wishing to speak. To be fair to everyone, I'll attempt to mix in both person and remote attendees. If you're participating remotely, turn on your mic and your video if you wish when I call your name. I'd lastly like everyone to keep their comments brief and succinct. We'll use a timer and I'd like them to be under four minutes and try not to repeat comments made by others. And if there's time remaining, after everyone who wants to speak has spoken, I will entertain a second comment if it's new information. So we need to open the public hearing with a motion. So moved. Enter into, unless there's a formal one that you have. No, so moved. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. So the public hearing is taking place. So is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak? All right, is there anyone at home? Oh, okay. Sandy, Duly? Just just for clarification, this public hearing is about the small technical legal changes that were made in wording from the last, is that correct? That is very loud, apologies. Paul Conner, director of planning and zoning. The notice was put out to put it as a second hearing. So while the changes that you made were the technical legal ones and the ones that you made on January 18th, the hearing advertises the full draft. Okay, thank you. Sandy, you wanna come up to the podium? Yes, when you get up there, sure. Just make sure to light on the mic. I submitted these comments, but late. So you probably haven't had a chance to read them. This is more about process. I think these regulations are really major and I having had experience in the legislature as I know at least three of you have. The process there is different when something is really big and momentous. Big bills sometimes go through days, even months of testimony and committee. Sometimes they even go to second and third committees and they have testimony from experts and sometimes committees ask for consultant reports as you have done. And the goal of course is a unanimous vote, but that doesn't always happen to send it to the floor. But when it's really big, the whole house wants to have a role or the whole Senate in really forming that legislation. And they debate sometimes for days and amendments are proposed and sometimes they send them back to committee for assessment and sometimes amendments are added. And I really think the importance of these rules are comparable because we're the second or third largest city where part of the big jobs and growth center and the biggest in the state. And we really have a reputation of doing things thoughtfully with a thorough consideration of their effects. So with all those things in mind, I really ask and really believe that these regulations should have, they should represent your integration and collective thinking about what the balance should be of development and conservation in the city for these last a long time, I think. And I really haven't heard that. And I also add to that, it's not a timer going off. Oh, that I've watched the process as much as I could and my sense that they really need your examination and open dialogue comes from the fact that many of the things in these rules came from a four to three vote. I know they had a shock down against their head. There was a deadline, three years, it was up. And certainly everybody wanted something as opposed to nothing. And so they all got together and voted seven to zero to send them to you. But that doesn't represent, say that they are consensus. And so what I'm really saying is I'd really like you to give them your imprint of your values and principles. And I haven't heard that. And I really, I think there is some time for that. So that's pretty much what I have said here. I'm not asking you to seek more input, at least not from the public, if you want more expert or something consultation, that's of course your will and your decision. I just think they really deserve more from you. The only other thing is I attached how, I just wanted to, I have as Helen knows, I've worked with her on regulations. I've had a lot of experience in that area. I took a look at the rules that would need to change for what the Affordable Housing Committee has proposed. And with all due respect, the changes wouldn't be that bad. It's really what you want them to be. And these make, we have a housing crisis and these would make, not that they would turn it upside down, but I've said many times we need a gigantic toolbox and we need to go at the housing problem with every tool that we think will make a difference. And I must say I do differ with Councillor Emory's view that they add, I think the addition involves a piece of land that's not in the Southeast quadrant. I also think the numbers don't include the housing potential housing units that are lost by reducing the maximum number of units that can be occurred in those small, lots of five acres or less from four to 1.8. I don't think those were considered. That's a lot of housing units, potential housing units that were taken off the map. So I do not think these rules expand housing opportunities. Quite the contrary, I believe they diminish them significantly. So thank you for all your work, but the planning commission did a lot of, we need more on these in my view. Thank you. Thank you. John Burton is online, I think? Yeah. Hi, John. Thanks for taking time for me to speak a bit tonight. You having your packet, the motion that the Economic Development Committee put together. From our perspective, we have concerns about whether this does expand or contract the number of housing units that we can put together as a city to impact the housing issues. And we believe that permanently withdrawing land as an option down the road is probably an economic impact. And so we have proposed a full economic study be done as opposed to the earth economics study, which if you look at the authors of that report had degrees in geography, environmental politics and marine biology, they're not economists. And they were just looking at the non-market value of the ecosystem services. They weren't looking at things as taxation. They weren't looking at city services associated with additional housing units comparing the old regulations to the new regulations. And we think that data needs to be on the table to make an informed fiscally responsible decision for the community. So those are some of the thoughts that our committee had. And we think it makes sense is Sandy was saying too to pause enough to put in more consideration at the city council level and get additional data so that we're on firm footing because these will be, I'm sure, long lived regulations. So I'm here for questions if you have any. Okay, we typically don't have the question and answer but we'll discuss that we as a council can discuss your proposal when we talk about what we hear tonight and what we've heard in the past. Unless does anyone have some clarifying? Maybe I'll just ask one clarifying. Did you, we got the proposal. I was a little surprised that a committee went ahead to sort of ask for a contract from a consulting company. Typically the city does that and does an RFP. And I was curious if the company understood that this was a dream or a hope of the Economic Development Committee rather than a bona fide requests from the city of South Burlington. Absolutely, absolutely. We thought for you to make the most informed decision you'd want to know about how long might it take to do a study and about how much it might cost. And we were quite clear with the consulting group that I happened to know and actually Jesse Baker worked with them in Manuski. I know them through the Brattleboro Development Corporation because they did some economic studies for them. So I know they have a good reputation and I contacted them saying this is not a bid. This is a rough estimate and a scope of work pending the city council taking any kind of action on this and probably doing an open bid process. Okay, thank you. We've got a clarifying. Yes, would you come up to the mic, please? Tell us your name and ask your question, please. My name is Andrew Werner. I was wondering what rules that you're sure are long lasting. Pardon me? He said there are some rules that he is sure are long lasting and I was wondering what rules those were. Oh, we're talking about the LDRs. Yeah, I'm not sure it's my first city council meeting. So it's my first city council meeting. So I was curious as to what exactly is being discussed. We're specifically looking at the land use development regulations that are being proposed for the Southeast quadrant. Yeah, I didn't know if he could tell me what rules that he was sure were long lasting. He said that. Yeah, I would say the entire set of regulations isn't frequently updated. So it's likely that it's infrequently updated. So I would believe that these would be in place for some time. So... Okay, if that's your question, I think it was answered. He answered the question. This is an opportunity for you to tell us. This is another witness. So this isn't a dialogue between people giving testimony here. You're welcome to make a comment. You have four minutes to make a comment about what your feelings are, what your opinion is of the land development regulations. I'll email it to you. But the back and forth between another witness is not what we're looking for tonight. And our chair is the one who presides over this meeting as well. Okay, thank you. All right, is there anyone else? Okay, Monica, thank you, John. I'm speaking as a resident who happened to attend every planning commission meeting, so I'm trying to separate the two there. I also happen to sit in every affordable housing committee meeting and I happen to agree with pretty much everything Sandy Dually ever has to say. That said, I very much support the city council approving this package tonight as a whole. It is a web, complicated web that is interlocked and heavily reliant on interconnectedness within. It's taken three years to put this together. And once approved, if it is tonight, there are definitely improvements that have to continue to be discussed. COVID was no help in the middle of this process. The work that was done to add an additional nearly 1,000 acres to protected lands within Article 12 of critical natural resources, something we should all be very proud of. And when I drove past massive areas of trees in South Burlington and thought back to the regulation appropriate clear cutting that happened on Kenneth Drive years ago that harmed a lot of our hearts, I was very happy to know that these new regulations would put different allowables in place. So we won't see that, especially in this beautiful winter when we can see these beautiful masses of trees that these regulations will protect. But that as soon as and if approved, absolutely having strong discussions about priorities of things that need to continue to be evolved, which is what the planning commission does all the time. And I'm saying that as a member of the city who recognizes what the job of the planning commission is, everything always evolves. And there's a lot that has to evolve. What we've heard already needs to continue to be discussed. But I absolutely support approving this big bundle that you have received. And I hope that you do so tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Jean Chalot, he's online. Yes, he is. Can you hear me? Are we gonna see you? Yeah, maybe when my camera turns on, hello. Oh, we can hear you. You can't see you yet. There we go. All right, well, there we go. Hello. So I'm Jean Chalot, I'm the chair of the Natural Resources Conservation Committee in South Burlington. I'm here to support the land use and development regulation that come in front of you today. As a base, as a very strong base, like the land is the base. I think this is set of regulation, really define something that is the ground, no pun intended, of everything else for the long-term. Because I think we are living for the long-term and short-term development may have conflicted interests with the long-term interest of South Burlington and of the world if we go over bigger picture with climate change right now. Let's say, I think those intricate, like Monica said, and complex regulation will be altered in the past, in the future, to some extent, but this is certainly a base that I'd like to really put in place before we move to something maybe more refined, even though it's already really well-designed, but like having to make sure that everything is done in a very impartial and objective way when it comes to reviewing the development and their alterations to make sure flexibility is there, but also objectivity. That's why the NRCC has recommended to have an independent review of encroachment and deviation from those all the hours. I hope that's something that can come in the future. And there are really that score of what I wanted to say is to put in place this important base for our land and then build up from there. That's it. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Jeff Nick, before you get up there, how's your daughter doing? Oh, good. Did you know that, yeah, she's from the Olympics. Oh, woo-hoo. Yeah, yeah, that's pretty exciting. It is, and it's very exciting being Megan Nick's dad and mom. That's for sure. Well, give her our best. Okay, she competes on Sunday, next Sunday. Oh, good. Yeah, so we're a partner in a Heisberg Road land that we call the Hill Farm. We still have some major concerns with these LDRs that are proposed. We still have undefined, the commercial uses have been undefined for us yet, and yet your city plan does call for them, some type of commercial uses, but yet we have not yet landed on those after three years. The mapping is somewhat confusing for us. There's this map here, and it talks about newly regulated outside the SEQ conserved areas, and then we talk about level one habitat blocks, and there's a shaded area here. I thought we were talking about habitat blocks the whole time, and now we're talking about conserved areas. So I'm confused by the, maybe I missed it in all these meetings, but the terminology seemed to have shifted a little bit, at least as far as we're concerned. There's an extra three acres of a hayfield that's not related to the wooded area. The school land adjacent to us follows the wood line on our property for some reason, doesn't follow the wood's line. So I don't think we're being treated fairly if this becomes a document that everybody's using. And is the school district, are they aware that they're losing all the development potential on their land? I don't know how, you never put a school there with this new designation. Well, I don't think the school owns it, just to clarify, it's city land. They've looked at it as a school and turned it down as I understand when they were proposing a new elementary school. They said that wasn't large enough. Okay, I always thought they, at some point had a school idea there, but anyway. Well, I think they did, and then they looked at it with that design, it didn't work. So the habitat block as it's always been defined here is 45 acres of our land. Using the wetland buffer delineation is between 16 and 22 acres of our land. So it's a significant amount of land that you poise to take. And I'm hearing different references to conserving open space now and carbon sequestration and then reducing emissions. I don't know, is this a mission creep? Have we gone from habitat block to all of a sudden needing it for other reasons? And I'm really baffled by, if you wanna conserve reduced emissions, you've got a parcel of land that's close to city services, already served by all the infrastructure. If you wanna have a good place for housing, you can ask for a better place for housing. And to long term, you're talking 20 years, you've got all of this growth that's planned. A regional planning calls for 2% growth and you're gonna really force people to drive longer distances. So it's confusing to me on one goal, you wanna reduce emissions from automobiles. On the other hand, you don't want housing close to all the infrastructure. And I did a little research about, is this actually habitat? You know, we hired our own habitat expert and they've consulted with us and said, no, it's not critical habitat. You know, you've got walking trails and a lot of dogs on those trails in Wheeler Park and they come right across our land. Our land's really an extension of Wheeler Park. And if you look, if you Google, walking trails, dogs and habitat, they're not compatible. So you really, you know, it's not a habitat area, which is for the last three years, we've been talking about habitat and arguing about what's critical habitat. But if you do a little research and dig a little bit, it doesn't appear based on its location with a highway and rooftops at a park and walking trails and a lot of dogs, it's not really habitat. So I'm wondering if this is an attempt to, you know, have an extension of Wheeler Park on our land without really telling us. At least that's what it feels like. It really does. So if you want housing close to your infrastructure, you wanna reduce emissions, this is the place for it. And, you know, we're willing to sit down and talk about it and try to negotiate something. But it doesn't feel like, you know, this has been all negotiated or not negotiated, but in good faith, moving forward, it just doesn't feel right for us. And we can, you know, we've been consulting with our lawyers. I don't wanna make this a legal thing, but it appears that that's where we're headed. So we'd rather not, but that appears where we're headed. So that's it, thank you. Thank you very much. Helen? Yes. Can we just? You can ask a clarifying question. Yeah. Are you aware that the zoning proposed zoning change of the parcel that you're discussing would allow between 300 and 500 homes? I wouldn't say 500, but I do know well, it's 300 on the whole thing, but if you put commercial on the front, which is what your city plan calls for, you're not gonna get 300 or 350 homes, you'll get a lot less. But how much was it zoned for previous to these draft regulations in terms of housing? It wasn't zoned for housing. Zero housing? Yes. So these regulations would provide for at least 300 units possibly of housing? Well, at the expense of what we could have done, which is industrial land and... I.O. is not housing, right? It wasn't, it's not zoned for housing. No, that's right. Right, so, but now it is. Well, housing is in commercial, right? We came to the, right here, it would not be rich, your old room, and we presented a plan that showed a mixed use development. And it says, right, I've read this before in the minutes, it says it was well received. And we've shown that plan a number of times. It has commercial, not retail commercial, but job creation growth, that type of development on the front and housing towards the back and a mixed zone in between. So you have some nice mixed use housing, you have higher density housing, and then you get lower density housing. You go down towards the, at the bottom of the hill. That seemed to work for the Dawson Park people, they like what they saw. Their planning commission at the time, like what they saw, it's in the minutes, but yet here we are five years later, and we have no commercial development in the regs right now. We did get some housing, but... And neighborhood commercial, it's both... It's very limited, very limited commercial, yeah. Wow. So it's not job creation development, which is what the city also needs. There's a very, although people think that there's a lot of green space out there that's ready for job growth, there's not. And the prices for industrial land is through the roof, it's crazy. So there's a lack of good land for job creation. There's a lack of good land for housing. But you're talking about 20 extra acres, that's a lot of housing. And it's not wildlife habitat that I'm quite sure of. So it's something else. And I think it's some, seems like a mission creep going on about other goals for this land. And so that's how we feel. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Mittag. Thank you, Chair Freely. We've heard already this evening that the draft LDR don't really represent the consensus of the Planning Commission. I'd like to make it known that there were many motions voted on and straw polls taken. And there was not unanimity on all of those, but all of them involved robust discussion and debate. And in the final analysis, all commissioners felt that we had a good product that they could all support. And that does represent consensus, clear consensus. I'd like to make two other small points. Neither Jeff Nick nor Jim Burton used the word climate change mitigation one single time in their presentation, which should indicate to the council where their thinking is. Thank you. Okay. Mike Simino. Good evening. And thank you for hearing me. I want to channel Simon and Garfunkel a little bit and just kind of say that you should slow down. You move too fast. So a couple of thoughts. It's a rare occasion when there's a lot of conversation about significant issues and people on either side of those issues cannot trot out their own specialists, do their own studies and attempt to drown one another out with the details of what they've come up with. So I don't want to get into debating the studies that have been done, but I will say that there were two studies that fit the narrative that have been embraced very consistently. And there were two other studies that were done that seemed to be swimming upstream to the narrative that have been robustly discounted and may not have even been read by all of the people who sit on this council. So the counter narrative studies seem not to have been attached with as much credibility and taken as seriously. The next point that I want to make is that there has been a lot of hard work done on these proposed regulations and the odds are pretty good that the bulk of that work product is good and we'll serve our community well, but I think there are also some things that people have a lot of concern about and these just aren't a few people. You've got your own economic development committee and I know, I've seen a little bit of chatter about whether the thinking was accurate or not or might be determined to be false. Let's just say again that maybe there's a difference of opinion on the data that's being passed back and forth there, but your own city economic development committee comes up with a statement and it's being given very low consideration. Your own affordable housing committee, the entity who for years has met and attempted to try to come up with some changes that are going to accelerate the creation, not just of affordable housing, but to improve housing affordability. And I don't think the term housing affordability gets used enough. We know there's an affordable housing problem, but there is a housing affordability problem that is throughout our market, throughout our region and for that matter throughout our country and the biggest response to that crisis is an increase in inventory. If you read the articles and you read the literature, it's supply and demand and we need more supply. Finally, your South Burlington Business Association has come out and expressed having great concerns about some of the proposed changes. The SBBA is made up of approximately 100 businesses and the majority of these businesses are small to moderate size businesses who are either owned by the operators or they employ a lot of local people, not just in South Burlington, but outside of the area. But the capacity of these businesses to be sustainable hinges a great deal on the affordability of housing in this area. So given that, you know, these aren't folks who are looking to kind of win a battle. They're not ideologues. They're people that are just looking for equity and sustainability in the lives that they live. And I think that it would be reasonable for you to slow down and take a little bit more time thinking about some of these things. Thank you very much. I have a question for Michael. Yes. Last time I asked a member of the SBBA board when they issued a statement, whether or not the members had voted on that statement, the answer was no, why should they have? I've been in communication with members of the SBBA who do not agree with the SBBA statement. So my question to you is, did the members vote on that statement? So the board of directors of the South Burlington Business Association did vote. And I'm forgetting exactly what the outcome, what it said, I don't have the piece of paper in front of me. So the board did vote and expressed concerns. People on that board, Michael? They're 15 to 18. It's a pretty good size board. And how many small businesses did you mention? Well, there are approximately 100. So we didn't go around and do a head count. And, you know, as well as I do, on a good day, if you solicit your membership of any organization, what kind of percent are you gonna get that's gonna respond? People would fall all over themselves if you got 50% to respond. But I have no doubt that, you know, we're a good-sized organization. There's diversity in our organization. And I'm certain that there are a number of people in our organization that are on board with these LDR changes. But our board felt that there were concerns that merited further study. And that's basically what we attempted to communicate to the city. Thank you. Thank you. Noah Hyman, good evening. Hello. Hi, good evening. I'd like to just share a couple of things real quick off the top of my head. The SSBA is a very small organization as a small business owner and a medium business owner. I know many people that just don't even bother to join that group. A couple of other things I'd like to say. I keep hearing that we're in housing shortage in South Burlington. We're in affordable housing shortage in South Burlington. We are in a housing shortage nationwide. I was recently in Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, West Palm Beach, and Atlanta, Georgia. And there's a housing shortage everywhere. It has nothing to do with South Burlington. It has nothing to do with our laws, our codes, and what we're trying to do. We are running out of land and we are destroying the environment, period. And the statement, it's inarguable and every single scientist agrees with that fact, period, and the statement. I also, it's very hard for me to hear that people are still arguing that affordable housing or the business community, it's a bona fide fact that this planet is being wrecked, period. There's no argument to that. That's not come up in this entire discussion. Please focus on the facts of where we are. We can't solve the country's problems and we can only help what we can help. We can save some space for ourselves, for ourselves, for our children, for our friends, for our family, and the fact that the rest of the country and the rest of Vermont were all facing the same problems. Lack of materials, lack of housing, lack of affordable housing, lack of jobs, lack of... We can't fix that here. This is about this one thing and I please pray that you will all vote to conserve some land. I wish it could be another way. I wish there was a way to do it where I could build whatever I wanted to build one day. But all we have is this. And if this doesn't work, then we're back to the Wild Wild West. Please vote for this. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, did you want to make a comment on the LDRs? We're talking about accepting or not accepting the land use regulations. That's the vote we're talking about. It hasn't changed from the last time I told you that. Okay, so... Could the speaker use the microphone for the people at home? We can't hear. Okay, well, the vote if we take one will be on the land use regulations. Okay, thank you. The next person is Chris Jensen. And there also was another person online who said they wanted to speak, but neither Jesse nor I caught their name. So if you could put your name in the chat, we can call on you. But for now it's Chris Jensen. Hi there. We can't hear you, Chris. We can't hear you, you're on mute. Delstrom. Chris, we can't hear you. Your little microphone needs to turn green. Nope, at the bottom of the screen, if you tap it, it should come up or to the left. Sometimes you just need to connect your computer audio. I think she's spoken before though. Now he might, there's been a change. Okay, oh, you just had a green, now it's red again. Now it's green. See if you can see. Am I not? Yes, we can hear you. Oh, I wonder, I am so sorry. I have done this before and I thought it worked. So I apologize and I won't take up a lot of your time. But I work with the Larkins, we represent them. I'm a lawyer in Burlington and they own a couple of parcels that are gonna be significantly potentially impacted by the proposed LDRs. I recognize a lot of work by a lot of people has been done on this project. And it is, I think impossible for me to actually identify specifically how they will apply to my client's parcels, but I want to add my voice to those who are concerned about the foundation on which the proposed regulations rest. I started following the process during the open space committee meetings and I was concerned back then and I actually remain concerned that what we are doing here is starting out with a result, which is to prevent development on a few selected large parcels of land in particular. And we have sort of bootstrapped away to get there. I'm not, I have concerns about the legitimate basis of the foundation for the regulations like the Arrowwood study, for example, the Habitat Blocks. Then someone earlier spoke about Mission Creep, the Habitat Blocks expanded to buffers and I'm not sure that this is a rational basis for regulation, so I would encourage you to really consider whether the proposed regulations are rationally based and are actually going to achieve the stated goal that some have proffered, which is to prevent climate change, promote open space. I would suggest to you that South Burlington is a city in Burlington's, in Vermont's most populous county and this is the place where development should occur. So I would really encourage you to consider the basis for the proposed land development regulations. Don't rush this process, this is important. Thank you for your time and I will sign off now. Thank you. Rick Dallstrom, Dallstrom, I hope I'm not, did I pronounce that correctly, Dallstrom? Your microphone appears to be on. Yeah, Rick, your microphone looks like it's on but we can't hear you. Now we heard a, we heard a, it's connecting maybe to your computer audio. Yeah, if you go under settings. We could move, Rick, we can come back to you when you figure it out. Is that okay? I can't take, Rick, I'll call over right now. Did you just say something? Would you please be quiet, Mr. Vermeer? Cause I'd like to hear him. Yeah, would you please be quiet? Cause your voice makes it hard for me to figure out if our speaker is connected. Thank you. No, I don't think he is. Can't tell if, okay, thank you. Yes, you could. Why don't we move on to Barb's service? And we'll get it. I just talked to Rick. He's trying to connect can you give him one more minute, please? Oh, who said that? He's trying to connect right now. He's trying to connect right now. Okay, thank you, Noah. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak? Thank you. He's gonna restart his computer and then come back if you could get it back in line. Okay, why don't we move on then? Thank you, Noah. Why don't we move on to Barb's service and then we'll come back to Rick when he gets back online. Hello, Barb. Hi, Helen. Thank you. I did not intend to speak tonight. I came just to listen, but I heard a number of things that gave me pause and one is the whole discussion about we haven't given this enough time. Last I heard we've been talking about this for about three years. I am impressed by the fact that the planning commission didn't always agree, but they came up with a document that they did agree that could come to the city council. And I think that we could talk about this forever. And we could each find a study that supports our position. And none of these things, while they are going to be permanent, they are not going to be in stone and there would be room for change, but we need to do something that moves us forward. I don't live in the Southeast quadrant, but many of you know that I am a fairly long distance walker and it's the only place in my town where I can go and find a little bit of outdoors. And the other thing that I hear, I keep hearing people talk about affordable housing. And when someone mentioned what happened on Kennedy Drive, I am equally concerned that this will happen again and that we will see the same thing happen, which is we're not going to see affordable housing built there. We're going to see homes that started $500,000. We're not going to see the wonderful work of Habitat happening in that particular area. So I think there is a disparity there between talking about the development and talking about affordable housing. So I would suggest that we move forward with these proposals, that we allow for the fact that there will be probably some changes in the future, but if we don't move forward and do something we haven't talked about climate change, we haven't talked about real affordability of housing and we need to have those conversations and they need to be prevalent, but let's move forward with these and then continue to have those conversations that are important to the future of our community. And we do not have to provide housing for everyone. We also need to provide that open space that allows people a place where they can play, where they can find some serenity where they can walk their dog, where they can take their kids and their grandkids or they can just walk by themselves to find something that isn't $500,000 home. So I would hope that you will pass these regulations, recognizing the fact that there will be change in the future. But let's move forward and have some progress. Thank you. Thank you, Barb. So Rick Dahlstrom, let's see if Rick is back on. We still can't hear you. Rick, we still can't hear you. Call, what's the phone number? You could keep your camera on and call the phone number. I have it here. If you have your phone, Rick, are you ready? All right, it's 1-872-240-3212. And then when it asked for the access code, just look at the screen and I'll give it to you. Do we wanna... Chris Trump. Can you read the number one more time? Yes, it's 1-872-240-3212. And once you get a voice that will prompt you for the access code and the access code is 342-108-109. Is he... Do you think he's dialing? I don't know. I don't know that he is. That one is, if you wanna address the council. We're waiting for someone who wants to speak to us. Who are you waiting for? This gentleman that you see on the screen here, he's having difficulty with his microphone. Have you heard of a South Bronx Police Chief, Sonberg? That's not on topic, so we're not gonna talk about the police department. This is a public hearing on the LDR, so if you would kindly take a seat, I would appreciate that. Sir, if you're interested in our process and city council meetings and what we're talking about, my name's Jessie, I'm the city manager. You can email me anytime, I'd be happy to sit down and talk to you about this process and how you can learn about it and how you can contribute in the future. Great. Let me come give you my email address and you can call me or email me and come in and meet with me and learn about the process. How about that? I'm gonna go do that. Okay, thank you. Good. Yep, why don't you get... So is Rick connected yet? No? Rick, do you have your phone on? Rick, do you have your phone on? Oh, caller, yeah. He has his phone. Okay, okay, here's the number, Rick. Call this number, okay? Call this number. One, eight, seven, two, two, four, zero, three, two, one, two. I'll repeat, that's one, eight, seven, two, two, four, zero, three, two, one, two. What caller can I speak? Well, why don't we... We're right in the middle here. Can you just give me your name, Rick? And then I'll get back to you. The access code, ready? Yes. Three, four, two, one, zero, eight, one, zero, nine. So that's nine numbers. Three, four, two, one, zero, eight, one, zero, nine. I'm another caller and my name is Ray Gonda and I would like to speak. Okay, Gonda. Excuse me, Ray, we've got Chris Trumblay before you. Hopefully we're going to get Rick on. Okay, I'm on my phone. Rick, great, I think that's Rick. Yeah. No, that's Ray, isn't it? Yes. That's Rick. Yes, I'm on my phone. Okay. So, Rick, well- I apologize. I don't know why my computer microphone doesn't work. Okay, so what do you have to share with us? Okay, I had earlier said that I have talked at the last meeting and I presented my case. I haven't seen any changes, so I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. I just wanted to add that, again, you were trying to make about 95% of my property into NRP, which is a little bit of an overreach, I think. And I just wanted to say that according to the Constitution, and specifically the Fifth Amendment, there's a takings clause that the government shall not survive, shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. And also, property taken through regulation, which is what this NRP is, is the same as property taken through physical seizure. That's called a regulatory taking. Property is the foundation of every right we have, including the right to be free. America's founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation, not only of prosperity, but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law and the Constitution, they protected property rights, the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property. And also, when government acts not to secure rights, but to provide the public with goods like wildlife, habitat, scenic views, or historic preservation, and in so doing, prohibits or takes some otherwise rightful use, then it is acting in part under the eminent domain power, and has to compensate the owner for any losses. The principle here is quite simple. Public has to pay for the goods it wants, just like any private person would have to. And that's all I have presented by case, and hopefully that you can, I don't think it's a thumbs up or thumbs down for the LDR, generally speaking, the LDR is good, but it has some really serious flaws, and I hope you can adjust those flaws. Thanks for taking the time to listen and putting up with my microphone news. You have a good night. Thank you. Thank you. I think next on the list is Chris Trombly, followed by Ray Gonda. Hi, Chris. Hi, Helen, thank you. A statement that'll always stay with me for a long time, and I talked to folks about housing from all different perspectives, and just the one that really stays with me is, I don't see homes being built for people like me, and it weighs heavy. We've received public comment through the duration of these conversations, and I think it's fair to have our elected representatives on the City Council to give this some more air. It's a fair conversation to talk about the kind of city we're building in for who. These are a long time in process, but there were concerns that have gone unanswered. I'm not asking that we postpone the implementation beyond IZ, but I think there's an opportunity where we can respond to those concerns and is this the right move? So thank you, and that's the end of my statement. Take care. Thank you. Okay, Ray Gonda, and Ray, I think, is just on the phone. Ray, if you're on the phone, I may have muted you, so I think you press star six to unmute. Yep. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can, thank you. Okay, good. I can see you guys on the internet, so I signed on, but apparently I need to be admitted. I'm guessing, and I haven't been admitted, but nonetheless, that's not important. My testimony is gonna be pretty straightforward and it's a response to the things that I've been told that Jeff Nick said tonight. I have read his environmental consultants report on the wildlife there, and it essentially says that it's not wildlife habitat, and so I'm sure that's what Mr. Nick is depending on. Several of us went down there about over three or four days during the early part of the snow season here, just beginning of January. Every day we were there, we found the kinds of predator tracks, fox, coyote, fissure, and a deer carcass. We found those tracks and we photographed them. I have written the 900 word commentary that didn't make it into this past week's top, and I'm hoping it will make it into this coming top in print, but it lays out and shows some photographs of what we took, but I have many more photographs than that, proving that that area is wildlife habitat. There is plenty of prey there, rabbits, squirrels, turkeys. There's no reason predators would not go there. We have the proof. Furthermore, I made an appeal on Front Porch Forum for people who may have seen wildlife there, and I got eight responses, and all of those responses indicate exactly what I'm telling you now. So that's all I have to say. Except I hope you support establishing these LDRs at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Are there, I don't believe we have any other people who wish to comment, so I would entertain a motion. Oh, Sandy, I'm sorry. I forgot you wanted to do a follow-up. Just two things, whether you vote now or this evening or later, I expect even if you explore some more changes so that you wouldn't be able to explore all of the things that have been raised in public comments before the end of interim zoning. So I really believe we need, the citizens need guidance or the residents and the planning commission on which of the concerns that have been raised resonate with you, especially I think the Affordable Housing Committee would like to know if none of those changes get incorporated in the short term, are they dead on arrival or are there changes that the Affordable Housing Committee has proposed that you want the planning commission to revisit? I would say they didn't get full consideration because of the compressed timeframe. I looked at the calendar and there were numerous, I forget how many listening sessions on Article 12. There was nothing comparable to that regarding the changes outside of Article 12 with regard to the PUDs and the things the Affordable Housing submitted. So it wasn't a comparable process. And so I think time was a real consideration in how much the Affordable Housing Committee was able to give to, the planning commission was able to give to the Affordable Housing Committee's proposals. So what fixes are needed in your minds and what's the priority for them? Where are we? As I said, are our recommendations dead or are they live? Or are some of them dead and some of them live? My only other comment is, I think it's fairly common for boards to speak for organizations. I happen to me being a longstanding member of the South Browington Land Trust. I do not always agree with their positions, but the board, Sarah and the board speak for the organization. I am a member of many organizations and except for the things that in the bylaws require consultation with the members, it's pretty common practice for boards to speak for organizations. So I just wanted to make that clarity. So if the counselors want the South Browington Land Trust to pull the members on their positions, or if they want the business, the South Browington Business Association to pull their members, they should also ask the South Browington Land Trust and any other organization that presents positions to pull their members. Thank you. Thank you, Cindy. So if there's nobody else, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, I want to thank everyone. I appreciate you're coming out again. I appreciate and have read all of your comments and they have become certainly part of the record and the thinking, at least I've given to this topic and I appreciate them wholeheartedly. We'll move on to item nine, which is a discussion and possible action to adopt the proposed amendments to the land development regulations. Helen, I would like to move that we adopt the proposed amendments to the land development regulations. Is there a second? Second. Okay, is there further discussion? Yes, I'm happy to discuss. Yeah. Yeah. I, oh, I'm sorry. Paul, I'm sorry, I didn't see your hand. I'm sorry. Tom. So process question. I'm going to say to Sandy Julie's points, which I think are quite valid. This might be imposed, but mostly to you, Paul. I understand that we have an obligation to wrap this up by, I want to say April 6th, if you can confirm that date when I finished the question. I was wondering to Sandy's point where I agree, we need more time and we should address some of those 22 issues that Councilor Coda raised at the last one. I wonder if the sequence of a possible process where we could have more council discussion and articulation of our priorities and thinking about where our values intersect with some of these rules, could this in fact, these regulations be voted on by this Council, not tonight, but before April 6th and conformance with IC and during that time having another special meeting or two where we could, as a Council, look at, for example, I love what Sandy Julie's sent out this afternoon. These are six very modest changes, which really were when back and forth, or actually, I'm sorry. I don't think they were considered that much by the Planning Commission, but we could have as a Council a meeting to discuss those six items and then set forth a separate regulation, a separate land development regulation outside of this during this time window before we approved this big block where we could, without playing games and keeping these rules, we could warn changes addressing the affordable housing committee's concerns as well as others. I love what John proposed from the Economic Development Committee that could be going in tension as well. But if anything, we are not forced to take action tonight. We have till April 6th on this comprehensive list and I think during that time, this Council could charge, for example, new LDRs to adjust exactly as Sandy proposed, reforming and revising the conservation PUD requirement, changing the 70% to 50%, addressing some very valid concerns that we've heard very thoughtful testimony on that it would be possible to, during this time, craft those LDRs, re-warn them so that they would still take effect separate from this. Paul, I don't know if that question makes any sense, but if you could confirm the date and ask if there is a path where we could approve this bundle, while during that time, until that date, develop an alternative, another set of changes that would effectively revise some small tweaks to this total bundle that would go into effect when we vote on it at some point before the April 6th. So there's two questions in there, Councilor Chitin. And the first question is a timeline. So you are correct that the draft regulations are in effect pending Council's action until, I believe it's April 6th, it might be April 7th, it's right around there. The City Council has the authority to act on the rules after that. However, if it does not act by April 6th, any applications received during this time would revert to being reviewed under the old slash presently adopted regulations so that the quote unquote protection afforded by warning the hearing would expire at that point. To your second question, procedurally, I'm not sure I completely understood, the Council has the authority to make changes that it elects to, to these draft regulations. If it makes changes, it needs to warn a new public hearing. It would have a vote to adopt whatever it ultimately is chooses to do. If it adopted the regulations, let's say, as presented and then decided to make changes, that would have to go back to the Planning Commission, to the beginning of the Planning Commission because the Council's action would have been to adopt the rules. However, if you were to say, I want to change page 16 to say something different and not adopt the regulations in the meantime, so you're just making a change, that's fully within the Council's authority. Does that make sense? So procedurally, it's the question of whether you adopt what's in front of you first or not. Can I just ask you, Paul, my understanding is that the Planning Commission has continued to work on many of the issues that have been raised. Including some of the other work that interim zoning has requested. For example, we had hoped that all of the PUDs could have been completed, but we ran out of time. So you're working on some of those now, as I understand it. Yes, the Chair, Jessica Luizos is here as well virtually, but the Planning Commission is presently working on creating what they're calling a general PUD. This would apply in all the parts of the city that don't have the ability to have one of these new PUD types. And also to address some concerns and comments that were raised about how does one change an existing PUD. They decided to prioritize that and have expressed strong interest in having it in your hands early this spring. So that's their first priority. And then of course, there's many other projects. Afterwards, they did not specifically take up the list that was considered at your meeting a couple of meetings ago that I believe Councillor Cota put forward, only because the vote was not to give it to them instantly. I think at such time that the council expressed interest in them looking at those subjects, they would more than happily do it, but they didn't wanna confuse the process of taking up items that were not given to them. And just so I understand that, those, this generalized PUD and some of the other topics you're working on, certainly, well, I'm asking could they also include the development of affordable housing? I mean, I think everyone has focused on, it almost sounds like the only place you can build affordable housing is in the Southeast Quadrant. And it seems to me we have many other spots, places, infill, redevelopment outside. In fact, you included the Hill property, which is not in the Southeast Quadrant, but there are other properties, probably not that big, but where affordable housing could be built. I think that I might, Jessica, if you're online, I might put that question to you as our policymaker, but I'm also happy to answer the question, but I think maybe I give first track at that to Jessica if she's on. She's on. I know. Wrap up that thread. I promise not to talk long. I just wanted clarity, because if we make changes at this stage, it requires another public hearing. So if we waited til April 6th, that would give time for this council or the planning commission to work through some additional changes, which would be queued up and taking effects early after. With that, I'll stop. Thank you for letting me ask that question. So Jessica. Paul, do you want to address that question of the public hearing? I, so the council can, could choose to have to make changes or to ask the planning commission to make changes or to ask any other group to make changes between now and April 6th. Ultimately, or after that, ultimately you as the council would need to say, these are the changes we are putting to a new public hearing. You would hold your new public hearing and then you'd have the option to take action on them after that hearing. And potentially if there are two new council members, they would be forced in April to vote on, I don't know how many pages it is, of LDRs and hopefully would understand them, unlike the five of us who've been working on this for three years, or some of us, not all. Okay, yeah. I just want to respond to this notion that the council should come to a consensus. We have a committee structure in our local government. And just like Sandy said, there are boards where the board of directors simply speaks for the hundreds of members. My point was that you should not speak for those hundreds of members, you should speak for the board. Here, we have a process where we had seven member board, a commission that has also got a fiduciary responsibility to the city that also has our planner and our attorneys working for them. They have consultants and they have come forward after three years of tough discussion, negotiation, deliberation, looking at things. I've sat in on enough meetings to know that we have chosen the best people to do this job. And my gratitude runs deep. They were not political. They didn't know who's parcel, they didn't want to think about who's parcel, the parcels belong to. They were simply looking at this from a planning perspective. And in my view, that is the best process. And I will defend that process. I have read all 534 plus pages and I believe sitting through several discussions and explanations of them that they have reached that balance. They have not downzoned the Southeast Quadrant. They have made more compact settlement possible so that we can conserve very significant natural resources that will help us address the flooding that we know is coming our way, that will help us address our crisis in the lake and pollution. And we can't even go swimming in the summer sometimes. And this is Vermont, pristine Vermont. And more, we know that the cost of food is gonna go up by 30% by 2030. Wouldn't it be nice to have some lands that in the traditional neighborhood development or in the conservation PUD, they could farm and have those gardens, those public gardens for them so that they have fruits and vegetables. I find that the care that has been given to both the housing crisis and the climate crisis has been immense. They had a planning commission member who spoke here tonight who was dedicated to the affordable housing question. And I know this member, she is an excellent member. You were well served. Your questions were reviewed. Now to answer the questions with regard to what I would accept and what I would not accept of Sandy's notes here and the affordable housing committees notes, I would like to look at the parcels less than four acres. I do believe that with the housing crisis and the climate crisis, we need to build more small energy efficient homes. We need to use that land more efficiently just like these land development regulations are promoting. Now with regard to the conservation PUDs, they were determined because there are at least 50% of those parcels that contain natural resources. We received information stating that the 3070 split was based on the fact that the same number of homes would be built if it were 5050 as it would be under 7030. It's just that the homes will be more compact on that 30% of the parcel and the 70% would allow for the habitat. And that's where we get to our lake. We get to our impaired streams. We get to our ecosystems, right? As Declan McCabe in one of the letters that we received said, let's not be a raccoon and rat town. Let's be a bobcat and fisher town. That's a healthy ecosystem. A thriving ecosystem is the term that my daughter's learning about. Now, I also wanna get to this Vermont Climate Action Plan. This document is completely in line with the notion that we should promote compact settlements in order to reduce fragmentation of our natural resources. This plan in no way prevents us from developing affordable housing. We have heard here tonight and something that members of the Affordable Housing Committee looked into as well, that Habitat for Humanity is willing to work with us as a partner where they could invest in land and provide the materials and to sell homes for $125,000 to new homeowners who can build equity and enter into our market. And then turn around and do it again and again and again simply by us providing that initial investment through our ARPA funds. I want to go in that direction. That is the way that I see in terms of bringing affordable housing to every part of this city. And as far as going above and beyond what is our current build out, and that's where the Planning Commission is now turning, looking at infill and commercial, I think it is so essential that we look at our already developed areas. Everybody who knows anything about housing and about the climate would say that. And I would like us to consider the same that we are in the Southeast quadrant with the PUDs, that there be parcels for gardens, that there be an attractive green space so that those residents could also have that quality of life, that we all value here in South Burlington. So I just want people to know that I believe that the PUDs are very important to us I believe that the crisis will not be over in 25 years. So I don't want these parcels to be up for grabs again in 25 years, they serve us well up to $240 million in 20 years according to the Earth Economics Report. Just imagine seeing our homes washed out as we saw in other parts of Vermont with Tropical Storm Irene and the amount of funds that we would have to give in order to rebuild. But not only funds the human lives that will be devastated just like we have seen in our state and in other states and in other countries throughout our world. This is smart planning and I am embracing this 100% with a few minor tweaks that less than four acres I want us to use the land efficiently and to think very carefully about what size our new homes should be and how they should be situated. I would also like us to look at the natural resource the natural resources conservation committee's recommendations to have an independent wildlife biologist or ecologist review any suggested alterations to a habitat block or a habitat connector. That is what our technical review requires in our land development regulations. It's the same that we're talking about the official city map. It should also be an independent review. I already talked about the community gardens that I'd like to see as part of our civic space. And I also think that it's important for us to consider what the master plan I want to understand that more for people who simply want to build one home out of what could potentially be more homes that a future landowner might build. And I would also like to really put our heads together for the TDRs. I think we have to think very carefully about how those TDRs are going to be regulated and the management plans for the conservation beauty. So that's my list of six topics. These are not showstoppers. These are not reasons for us to not approve these land development regulations. Therefore, I am very good conscience and with taking great pride in our city and in our volunteers and gratitude, I will gladly vote yay. Can I just ask, with those six items you listed, are those some of the priorities that you would want the Planning Commission to dig into at some point? Yeah, at some point, yes. Tim, did you want to? I just have a few brief comments because we're getting to 8.30 and we have other agenda items, so. We have until 8.45. 8.45. So I just want to point out some facts here. And one of the facts is that we went for three years in interim zoning. Please don't forget that three years that the Planning Commission worked on this and also worked on some injected inclusionary zoning changes that interrupted the process of trying to create the conservation PUDs. But now all that work has come to fruition with a 7-0 vote, a 7-0 vote of the Planning Commission in favor of these land regulation changes. And to me, it's like there are a lot of competing interests in this city about this subject, right? You have housing developers, landowners. You have affordable housing advocates. You have conservationists. You have climate change activists. And some of these people overlap with each other, right? And the fact is, if you went and pulled each of them, they would say, I am not happy with these changes. They either go too far or they don't go far enough, right? And to me, and I've said this before at previous meetings, that's almost the achievement for a compromise that seems to be well balanced. And that means we've probably hit it right on the mark. And I give the Planning Commission a lot of credit for that. Because you got to ask yourself at the end of the day, what is it that makes South Burlington desirable? Desirability can mean different things to different people, but if we don't strike the right balance for desirability, it won't be desirable anymore. And one of the big elephants in the room has got to be those two words, climate change. We need to maintain those forest blocks and habitat blocks that Vermont was before people got here. And also then interleave with it the housing that we need. And don't tell me there's a housing shortage. I mean, let's talk about rise not finished. Hill Farm gets a zoning change for housing, a lot of housing. O'Brien Hillside Farm, hundreds of units. Sider Mill 2 of the roads are being built, hundreds of units. Spear Meadows is being built now. They got the roads going in like almost 60 units. And the long property will probably developed as well. There's no shortage of housing developments going on, but the demand is outstripping the supply because people are coming from out of state because either they're fleeing the pandemic or they're fleeing what they perceive as climate change pressure. So we have a lot of competing interests and these regulations strike a nice balance for it. So that's why I'm in favor of this. And I'm gonna go ahead and vote to accept them as they are. And there will be time and opportunity for changes afterwards, which we need on which Paul has said that we need some work on the generic PUDs for specific applications within the city. So I'm entirely happy. The only other person that's happy is UVM because they got a clause in the regulations that kind of exempts them according to 42 PSA 4413. So, and I'm unhappy with that. But I think that this builds the whole framework of the fact that what we have in front of us is doable. And let's do it now because we've spent three years waiting for it. Thank you. Matt, you wanna say something? Sure, thank you. I just wanna acknowledge the incredible amount of hard work that volunteers and city staff have put into these land development regulations. I am not unaware of that and I am very appreciative of that. And also the work that volunteers who weren't part of the planning process and the committee process, but contributed their time to sit in meetings, to listen in, to offer comments. I think we all do appreciate everyone's civic involvement in this. And I'd like to acknowledge one of the planning commissioners who was in the room who have come to know over the last few years in respect to Mike Mittag, when we talked about no one was talking about climate change mitigation and he was right because these land development regulations do talk about climate change mitigation and Mike was right to say how people weren't talking about that. When it comes to climate change, it's not about emissions reductions though. These land development regulations don't focus on emissions reductions. Quite the opposite. If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you build where the jobs are. You build housing. You want to reduce gasoline consumption. You build housing where the infrastructure is. That's what the climate action plan says. It doesn't say clear cut Hinesburg but leave South Burlington untouched. Not far from it. We have the infrastructure. We have the jobs. We need the housing. And this takes away much of our housing. Well, the truest statement said tonight was we need to save space for ourselves. I understand that sentiment. I just don't agree with it. We need to make space for neighbors, for people across all economic spectrums to be able to live in our city. So we're not an exclusive ritzy suburb but we're inviting all people to our city. And we can't do that unless we have affordable housing. I heard a comment tonight concerned about the pines on Kennedy, but how they were tore down and how making room for houses. It's a beautiful neighborhood. I have friends that live in that neighborhood. It's a beautiful neighborhood but it's not to make way for rich houses. There we approved two buildings. Permanently affordable. 75 units. Yes, we missed the pines. But thank goodness there's a place for South Burlington residents, new South Burlington's to live of low income and modest means. I came to South Burlington in 2013. I volunteered because I fell in love with the city right away for the planning commission. The city council thought differently. They appointed me to the development review board. While on the development review board, if anyone who's on the development review board can all acknowledge people come to you and say, why is it this way? Why shouldn't it be that way? And we explain you're in the wrong meeting. We interpret the land development regulations. We don't write them. They're written by the planning commission and they're approved by the city council after a robust debate. Well, I thought we could change some things. I didn't. And then I realized, oh, I have to run for city council in order to change things. So I did. But now that I'm here and I see the land development regulations given to us and I come up with 22 suggestions, clarifications, edits, possible amendments, not that I expect to win every vote, not that I expect everyone to agree, but at least a discussion, at least a forwarding to the planning commission and say, review these, tell us which ones are workable, which ones aren't. Tell us which ones are larger policy discussions that you should have the five of you and which ones that we can implement right away. But that didn't happen. That didn't happen. So I know I'm on the losing end of this vote, but I'm a patient man. I look forward to working with the planning commission in the future. Thank you. Tom, do you, yeah, you get your hand up. So I think voters need to know where their elected officials stand on these things. And I just want to say, I agree with everything councilor Kota just said. And I don't think I can say it better, but it's important for them to hear from me why I'm going to vote no on these regulations. We have an affordability and a housing crisis in this region and South Burlington is just south of Burlington. This is where housing should be. I would accept these arguments and many of these conservation PUD mandate requirements and many of the changes or the things in these rules that conserve land. If we were talking about Shelburne or Heinsberg or Milton or areas that don't have municipal sewer and infrastructure water as well as broadband services, this is where a housing can occur. And what I did, what I raised, what I, as soon as I heard in September that the conservation PUD mandate was being approved by the planning commission, I raised my hand and I raised my concerns to both the council with a couple of emails as well as to the city manager and as well as many of the planning commissioners. And so as soon as I heard that it was going in this direction, I wanted it known that I think a mandating conservation PUDs with an arbitrary 70% is not smart development. That is forcing conservation on land connected to municipal services with Virginia's clay where you can't do much with Virginia's clay. I grew up in the Southeast quadrant. I know what this land is good for and what it's not. This is a good place for housing when the ecology allows for it. So I don't support these regulations because I don't think they struck the right balance. And similar to what councilor Kota just said, those 22 changes, which were so thorough and some of them were just easy low-hanging fruit, we have time. And if we had acted the last two months ago, we would have had time to take solid thoughtful changes to these regulations well before the April 6th. So I think this is a flaw in the process and I don't know why we didn't charge them to pursue these things. And for those reasons, I can't support this because this is going to exasperate our climate crisis. This is gonna spread our infrastructure, force redundant infrastructure and have people have longer commutes and electric cars requiring more roads, more services, more plowing, more public transport or harder, more expensive public transportation. We need to accept our geographic proximity to the largest city in the state and allow for the housing where we had infrastructure already laid in the ground that all of our taxpayers have paid for and are paying for. I want South Burlington to be an inclusive welcoming community that allows housing for everybody at every income level, taxes, good schools, good rec paths, good parks, a great new city hall, a great library and walking distance to our new city center. These regulations sadly don't achieve that. And I, for one, like support all six of the very well articulated small changes that Sandy Dooley sent to us in an email this afternoon and I as one counselor would love to move that those six changes be considered by the planning commission as soon as possible and if not enacted. With that I'll say I'm gonna vote no and I hope the voters understand. I need to push back a little bit on the emissions and the infrastructure and I'm sorry, Helen, I hope you will recognize me. As I said, there is no down zoning occurring. I think that the hope was there would be a lot more up zoning occurring. Where that up zoning could occur are in places that might make more sense which is close to our employment centers in our schools on our developed already developed parcels. And where are our students living? We know that they've been living in single family homes on East Terrace, on My Street, Myers Court, on other streets like Pine Tree Terrace. We need housing for individuals and students and people who can enter the workforce being able to rent or to purchase a condo and live close to their places of employment. They do not need to necessarily move into the single family home when they are a single person moving in for a job. So that is the kind of housing that we are lacking to be quite honest in addition to affordable housing. I don't think that developing more developments like O'Brien's throughout the Southeast quadrant would solve the emissions problem. I think that we can develop more smartly that would solve it even more by having it be on those bus lines. And that's what I like about the Hill Farm property being up zoned to have up to 500 homes. We'll see what ends up because people have been saying for many years since I've been on the council that Tilly Drive and that medical, those medical facilities there that how it's just, it's too bad that there wasn't a bus that could bring people there. Well now with these new residences there we're giving a, we're giving the, you know the ride GMT a reason to happen in that part of our city. Wouldn't that be a bonus? And talking about infrastructure, if you look at the map where those PUDs are gonna go that's where our infrastructure is in the Southeast quadrant. They are not avoiding infrastructure. They put those PUDs specifically where our infrastructure is. Now with regard to the 22 amendments in the process the six amendments that Sandy brought forward are all verbatim almost within mats. So he, you know, clearly was reaching out, right? And we've already been through them. Number one, sending out changes to landowners. That's been addressed. We don't do that. Number two, the footprint lots our planning and zoning director address that at our January 10th meeting. Number three, I could keep going talking about the change from 1.8 acres to four units. I agree. Let us take that up. That's a minor change that can happen is should not hold up these land development regulations. Right? Remove NRP zoning designation. I disagree. And I believe that that has been discussed already by the planning commission. The steep slopes add methodology for determining the slope. I saw the planning commission's discussion on this. There is methodology for determining the slope. Habitat block overlay district strike the habitat block. That's, that's I'm not going there. Habitat connector overlay district. Let's strike that. I'm not going there. Let's keep going wetland protection standards. Let's conform to state standards instead of being a leader like we have always been. I'm not going there. Let's lead. Let's keep going. Strike all these amendments about setback provisions, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This has been gone through. And as we resume, sorry for the echo, as we have heard, this is a web, a very carefully constructed web. We have seen these, these ideas. I attended enough planning commission meetings in order to know these ideas have been discussed. But as has been said, there is a web, a careful balance. And I, I do not find these amendments to have a life. They have a pair of legs. I think they have been discussed. And I think it is a quite unfair assertion that this process has denied the opportunity for us to review these. These have been reviewed. I've looked at them, I've read them, and I've rejected the majority of them. As has our planning commission. And when I go door to door and talk to neighbors, they too reject these amendments. So I find these land development regulations to actually have the people behind them. And I've been speaking a lot. Okay, thank you. I guess I'm the only one who hasn't spoken and I plan to vote in favor of the LDRs. I am also in favor of encouraging and supporting the planning commission to continue completing their work on the various PUDs. I agree we need to look at the TDRs. So we had a subcommittee. I think Tim was on that committee, weren't you? And those need to be considered. I truly believe that there was some creativity and work with current underutilized developments within the city. We could find some really exciting ways to develop affordable housing on all different levels that where there are services, where there already is transportation, where there is the ability to potentially work, walk to services. I don't believe all parts of the Southeast quadrant are the place for massive development. I think the LDRs have identified smart growth and concentrated development. And I think that addresses that. There will be a lot of new housing in the Southeast quadrant. I don't know what the prices will be, probably more expensive than the population Chris Tromblay was talking about, but I guess we need housing on all levels and it will be pretty dense. So I agree with the comments that it is really vital to have a city with some open space. People need that for all sorts of reasons. It just so happens that as the conversation and recognition of climate change as a crisis finally made it to the front page and to most people's consideration that some of these regulations and planning do help us address that. I just can't imagine if everything was as densely developed as people would like, you take away the habitat block, you do this, you do that. And we have the weather, we have an Irene but it's in Chittenden County. The impact of that on the infrastructure of our city and those surrounding is phenomenal because this is where the jobs are, right? This is where we need to have people earning a living, providing healthcare, providing higher education. Well, if the roads get washed out and the homes get washed out, great. But the effect on those businesses is pretty intense. If we can achieve thoughtful, dense housing, conserve important parts of our city that are undeveloped now and look to working creatively with businesses that are defunct now or they're half empty. I mean, maybe some of the banks might think about, well, we really don't need three levels of offices because no one's coming into the banks. They're doing it online or zooming or whatever. Maybe you can have housing on top of businesses, buildings that already exist that have already been built and need to be refurbished. There's so many things that we could, I think, work on and they're doing them all over the country. We're not inventing anything. We just need to identify some pretty good ideas and develop the cooperation and the collaboration to make that happen. And not until we do that, just destroy what I think can be the saving grace of this community. So I'm strongly in favor of them. I think we need to continue and complete the other parts of IZ, not under IZ, but we certainly had some studies done that I think helped identify some of the critical issues and how to address them. So I am ready. Can we call the vote? I am ready for the vote. So I think you should do. We have to do a roll call. So the motion before us is to approve the LDRs as presented by the Planning Commission with the slight amendments that we made. With that slight amendment that they agreed to. Do you want me to call? Yes. Do I do it? You may do it. Megan. Yay. Tim. Aye. Matt. Tom. Aye. Ellen. Aye. He said, did you say nay, Tom, or aye? Nay. Aye. Aye. So you're voting in favor? Nay. Oh, nay. I'm sorry. Like a horse. Maybe yes and no would be a better. So I vote yes. So it appears this is a three to vote. It passes. It passes. All right. Thank you. Let's move on to... Can we take a three minute break? Okay. We will take a 10 minute break. Three minutes. Three minutes break. The South Burlington City Council meeting of February 7th, 2022. And we are at item 10 on the agenda, considering an extension of the mask mandate currently in place. So Jesse, you gave us some update. Sure. Just as a reminder for those on camera or on go to meeting, the state statute that was passed requires councils to revisit this mandate every 30 days. So it hasn't technically been 30 days, but it's 30, it will be more than 30 days at your next meeting. So we have including your packet and extension of the mandate we currently have in place. It's always also your prerogative to change it or to do whatever you would like with the mandate under associated state statute. Okay. And what you did say is that our numbers are down a little. Our numbers? Well, our numbers as reported by VDH are down significantly. 250 to 95, I think, is that right? But the challenge is everyone's doing home. Right, so the data, while I very much trust the data collection systems, those are the PCRs that have been done in the state, when the city, it does not necessarily consider those who may have tested positive with an antigen test and not moved forward with a PCR test. Is the state administering as many PCR tests or has as many sites as it's had in the past so that people have access to them? I believe so. Okay. But they also have access to the boxes that they may have ordered from, say yes, was it say yes, Vermont? And then also the feds might be. Yeah. And the school and childcare centers are administering them. And I was just in Walgreens getting something at four o'clock and they had. 23 dollars a box, right? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I didn't buy it. Well, no, I'm just saying and in Vermont has mandated that interns companies cover those starting December 1st. It was retroactive to December 1st, not January 15th as it's been advertised everywhere else. So if any of you have purchased a Binax test, antigen test from any drug store after December 1st and your insurance company rejected it, submit it again and appeal and put a comment in there that Vermont is requiring since December 1st on. And I do know that the masks too, I call these respirator masks that they are also, we're receiving them in the mail from the federal government, from the state. And my husband also found N95 masks at our neighborhood drug store. And the science says that as we learn to live with this virus, these masks for people who do not wish to expose themselves are quite efficient. At protecting. I think that's important for us to consider as well. I have to just jump in here because I've given this thought too that I am prepared to remove the mandate citywide. The question I have is with regard to the public library and our city employees who are serving the public. That is, if I were a business owner, in my business, my employees would be wearing a mask. It's just, it would be customer service. So I see it as a customer service question. I think that in addition to the sickness and the disease and the deaths that we have unfortunately been having to deal with, there's the mental health crisis that the pandemic has begun. And we see it on both sides. We see it on the sides of people who do not want to have their freedom to choose, their behaviors taken away from them. We see it on the side of those who feel that their mobility is being reduced because people do not want to wear masks or get vaccinated. And so it's on both sides. And this is something that we are as a society gonna have to continue to really think about and discuss. But since these masks that at least three of us are wearing here are available, I feel that for those like myself and my daughter and my family who really do not wish to catch COVID that the masks do protect us. I truly do believe that as much as people want to send me emails saying that they don't work, I'm sorry, I accept that freedom is important when we have other options to ensure public safety. And I think we have those options. So. Okay. Other? Are we, we're not. So before us is the, if we wish to continue requiring the mask mandates in public buildings that are not owned by the city, but just in general businesses, then we need to vote in favor of the resolution that's on our, in our packet. Because that's the one that's in place right now. No, I don't think so. I think that's Tom's original resolution. No, it isn't. I remember we had this problem the last time and I had to have it reprinted from your office. Where is his language? I read it a couple of times. There were three options and Tom's had the exception for the children under two and about 30 other little health things. And that was not in the original. Andrew, help me out here. No, I think it was. Yeah, it was the under two and people with health reasons were always exempt. Yeah, Tim, my change, my version just had the one opt out for this. Okay, okay. So this is not yours, Tom. This is what we supported. This is what is in place. I stand corrected. Okay. I apologize. So, you know, what is your pleasure? Well, what is, was Williston lifting theirs yet? Is Burlington lifting theirs? Burlington renewed theirs. They renewed it? Burlington did. And Williston, we don't know. All right, so the- You never had one I learned. I've been having an email interchange with somebody who's a nurse at the medical center that lives in South Burlington. And we've been arguing back and forth politely about, you know, facts and figures and studies. And it kind of all boils down to, I think, is if somebody has the correct or the best, you know, PPE that they can obtain that it's readily available, are the, so can they get it? Are they wearing it correctly over the nose, good fit, pinched, you know? And are they wearing it at all times when they need to, and in this case, in indoor public environments, right? Because the, what we're trying to do is to suppress transmission of a communicable disease due to aerosols that travel through the air, right? KN95 is one of the better masks that you can use. A simple cloth gator mask is not very good, but they have to be used correctly and they have to be used when you're around other people because A, you don't know if you're asymptomatic or not. You could be giving it to people, not knowing it if you're not wearing a mask. And then likewise, if you are not and you don't wanna contract the disease, you would like to have some inhalation filtering to remove it before it gets in your lungs, right? So, and Omicron is extremely infectious, much more so than the Delta. And that's why so many more people have been in the hospital and so many more people have died is because it's infected so many more people. It's a simple population problem, right? So, I mean, I feel like we shouldn't relax it yet out of an overwhelming, prudent amount of responsibility towards the citizens that shop in South Carolina to make sure that they don't get infected with a disease that could kill them. And we don't, I mean, we don't have control over this yet. Yes, the numbers are falling, but I don't know when the next variant's gonna come along and get around it and cause another surge. And I hope that doesn't happen. Personally, I will be wearing a mask in a store for many months to come. But I, what I did, last thing I wanna do is go into a store and see somebody that's not wearing a mask who maybe is asymptomatic, who's spreading the germs everywhere, you know, the virus. So, I think we gotta be very considerate. And there is this argument about personal freedoms, but, you know, there are a lot of personal freedoms that are kind of contained by our legal environment for society, such as you can't just drive a car without a license, you have to wear your seatbelt. There's a bunch of them that constrain us, right? And there's something so simple about wearing a mask for 30 minutes while you shop in a grocery store or a market, it's not a huge inconvenience, right? And you might be saving somebody's health by doing that. So, I think I'm in favor of just another month, you know, just leaving it alone. We'd have to pass on the resolution to reinstate it, right? We do. That's my reasoning. And so, it's out of concern for everybody. And I hear that. But Tim, with this mask, unless you stand for a very long time talking to someone who is contagious, you're protected. So, grocery shopping for 30 minutes, wearing this mask, that person without the mask will probably not infect you. And I say that saying, this is me just, you know, hearing what I pay attention to. So, don't hold me to it. So, I am not Dr. Levine. But I truly do want you to know that I have taken this very seriously. I have constantly been wearing a mask. Every time they said, well, now here's the next change in our understanding of this virus, here's what we need to do. I followed those. I've got the three shots. My daughter is vaccinating. And it's not because I'm an automaton. It's because I truly do believe the science. And I do know that the people who are vaccinated are not dying at the rates that unvaccinated people are. Those are the facts. So, I hear you, but I think that there are options for us to live with the virus as it is currently. We heard Dr. Levine use those words last week in their press conference, that we all need to live with the virus. We need to learn how to do that. It's gonna be endemic now. It's not gonna go away. So, I have a concern though, if we keep going this month, you have to wear them. Next month you don't, because the numbers are a little bit down. And then they shoot up. I mean, you look at states where they've taken the mask mandate away. And the numbers go bonkers because lots of people think, oh, okay, now it's okay. I don't have to wear it. So, I'm concerned with this going back and forth and back and forth and, you know, if the businesses are annoyed now, they're gonna continue to be even more annoyed if it's yes, no, yes, no. It's like playing stoplight. Tom. So, I wanna say a couple of things. One, I agree with you, Chancellor Armilla on almost all your points. I've gone back and forth on this. And one point I wanna just speak to that Tim Barrett raised, Councilor Barrett. You said it's not a big deal to wear a mask for 30 minutes while you're in store. The argument that I heard from Healthy Living, Eli Lesser Goldsmith, it's another thing if you have to wear it for eight hours. If you're working the front line, if your mandate is to wear that mask. So, I think we should all wear masks. And I definitely take the, I agree with the points Councilor Emery made about how the vaccines are protecting those that chose to get vaccinated from this virus. And this really is a pandemic or most serious for those that are choosing not to get vaccinated. And that's their choice and that the masks are available. So, I could go either way, but to the last point I heard you just say, Councilor Really, Chair Really, this will not go past April 30th, if I'm not mistaken. So, this will not go on forever. I'm inclined to definitely keep it in city buildings to set the example. Cause I want businesses to continue to wear the mask, but I still go back to that one little carve out so that the healthy livings or the bread and butter farms, they really want to just allow vaccinated individuals to not have a mask. They can put signs up and then they can choose to opt out for the next 30 days, giving that healthy living the ability to accept and live with the virus and allow their employees who have to work eight, nine, 10 hours and not have to wear the mask around the years, which honestly drives me nuts when I'm wearing it all day and for four to six hours. So, I support that original carve out. I could go either way on this right now, but I agree with council memory that we need to start to just accept that we have to live with this virus and accept the certain risks that come with it. Okay, and I'm sure Matt, you have changed your position, right? We can't force it. Everyone get vaccinated, get boosted, wear a mask. If we're in the city building, absolutely, we can enforce that mandate, but we cannot enforce a mandate in private businesses or ask our clerks and our storekeepers to become police and the police aren't gonna enforce it. So, how can we pass a law that we're not gonna enforce? I will vote against any attempt to extend this mask mandate, but I would support it within the city. Have there been any situations with the police over the past 20 days? The police are not enforcing this. Right, but have they received calls? Have they? I've received calls. You have? Yeah. They didn't call Tom, because he said, call me. Why don't you just forward them? Not like four, they're calling. And have you had trouble with, I mean, there was one issue in the library. I mean, Matt, you say we can't enforce it out there, but it's okay to enforce it here without the police, because what? We're a city hall and people are gonna just listen to us. The police work for us. So, we can, so Jesse can call the police. So, we are not doing that. We are enforcing solely through education and friendly conjoaling, I would say, in our buildings. You heard from the chief at the last meeting, enforcing mask mandates are not how we, I think we as a community have decided that we want our police to interact with our community, that it's not a productive, good relationship building exercise. So, what I have been doing and what our team here in the building are doing, and we have amazing staff who are excellent at de-escalating and encouraging people to seek alternatives are having those conversations. How can I help you? Can I bring something to your car? Blah, blah, you have five minutes and you need to finish your business here, et cetera. Here's a mask, here's a mask for your child. And for the businesses who have called me or the more often the patrons of the businesses, again, it's education, here's signage, here's why the council deemed this important, blah, blah, blah, but the police are not enforcing it. It is all education and conjoaling. But they haven't been bombarded with phone calls was my question. I've probably received a dozen and I believe that every time they're calling dispatch, dispatch is just telling them to call us, to call me. Thank you. It's my job. We appreciate your good work. Or call Tom, I guess. Yeah, he offered. And it's not just Dr. Levine. I mean, this is something that came out of Johns Hopkins. I received their public health updates. And they, we are turning a corner where we have to learn how to live with it and it will be up to people's own, what do I want to say, their comfort with risk taking. Okay, I mean, there's probably nothing more to say. Tom? Point of clarification. So, Jesse, I was listening, I swear, but when does this expire? And where I might be just to settle this conversation is not renew the city wide tonight. And if two counselors want to reconsider this and call a special meeting right before that deadline, before our next meeting, maybe we can in fact renew a city wide. But maybe that's going to thread the needle on this, give us all some more time to think about it, not renew city wide up to that date. And if we do want to act quick and continue it for 30 days with whatever changes in our minds, we can hit it and do so. I'm also comfortable with extending it for the city buildings if that's possible to do tonight. So there's two different expiration dates. One, you have a mandate in place right now that you voted to put in place on January 18th. So I think if you take no action tonight, including not repealing that one, that continues until February 19th, because it technically went into effect on the 19th. Alternate, the reason it's before you tonight is that it expires after 30 days or the council has to take it up after 30 days. So if you want it to last beyond the February 19th, you need to vote to do some set of parameters tonight. The other part of your question, Tom, is the legislature has only empowered municipalities to put these mandates in effect through the month of April. So unless the legislature takes other action, which they very well could, any mandate that you have in place would expire by the end of April. And you would still need to revisit things every 30 days. So I guess my question is, I mean, I would vote to keep it in place. I'm in the same sink, I guess, as Councillor Barrett, but- Can I just make one comment? Or do you want to, I just have one last comment. No, I mean- Go ahead, go ahead, sorry. So, but it sounds as if we have three people who want to keep it in the city buildings, I think, and allow the business owners, public buildings to do, go mass free if they wish, or they can require it in their business, but we're not requiring it. So if that is the case, we would looking at the resolution that's on our packet. I think you can just approve a set of parameters, and then basically what you're articulating is going back to the first resolution we had in place in December. So you'd put, and now therefore be it resolved, you put a period after within city owned and operating buildings that are open to the public period. What's the point of clarification, Chair McMillan? Yeah. So just to be clear, I would support, I think of their most reasonable path forward is to just to let the citywide mandate stay in place through and tell it ex-expiration on February 19th, giving us time to possibly pivot and change. And that way we're not frantically switching back and forth. People will know that the 30 days are going to expire at that time. That's where I am. I like leaving it in place through to February 19th. That gives us more time to collect perspective on data. We don't have a meeting before that, or a meeting that's on the 22nd. So then we would have like three days that's in, you know, La La Land, who knows what the rule is. Man, I think tonight it would make sense. I mean, just looking around, do most people want to keep it in place in the city-owned buildings? At least, yeah. Okay. And then it sounds like the majority do not want to impose it on privately-owned public, you know, businesses and stuff. I mean, we could include the language where that would expire, that second part. I mean, that's what Councillor Chittenden is. Oh, just that language expires? Yeah, so February... Well, no, we can just... We don't have to expire it. We just have the date of what we pass is, becomes effective on the 19th. So on the 19th, it's just city-owned buildings. Mm-hmm. That would just... I mean, on the 20th, I guess, whatever day. That's the... Yeah, so we don't have to do any action in order for that to occur, right? No, because we got to... Don't we have to include this, make sure the city? So I think if you take no action tonight, everything expires on the 19th. If you want something to continue beyond February 19th, you have to proactively approve that tonight. I think, and I think regardless any mandate, you have to revisit every 30 days. So putting something that is going to expire midway through with something that's going to continue on for those 30 days. I mean, I, is that calling to make him come up with that answer? Can you do that? I mean, I'm not even supportive of it, but it sounds like that's what the council wants to do. Can we have a motion to maintain the current one through April 30th right now? Just have a vote on that straight? No, we can't. Why not? You have to revisit it. Okay, I'm sorry. Sorry. You have to revisit it every 30 days. So through October, so you could have a motion to continue what we have now. Right. Through March 7th. Oh, March 7th, okay. Can I make that motion right now and then have it go down so we can have the other motion after that? Oh, okay. So you're moving what's on the thing. Yeah, I move that we pass the current regulation until March 7th or 7th, as it is today. And I would second that. So you're ready for the vote? Yes. Okay. So no, I have a discussion. So it just seems like we're doing this so that we can put on the record where people are. I would support that motion, Tim, Councilor Barrett, if we added out my carve out, if I would make a friendly amendment to allow for businesses to opt out so that they would effectively make the entire city of South Burlington mask required unless you choose not to. Right now, with this expiring, it's no mask required unless you choose to require it. There is a big difference between opt in and opt out. So I will vote no with this motion unless we amend it to include that carve out. I would support the carve out now because we have the masking in place. So that would only mean that the people who want to remove the mask requirement that they would have to act and everybody else would remain status quo. Just wanna remind everybody that over 900,000 Americans have died because of this disease and we were remiss in December to not reimpose the mask mandate and we don't know how many people in South Burlington became infected because of that and have added to the death toll in the state of Vermont. We don't know, but we do know that this variant is extremely infectious and we should be fooling around with it. And until we have distinct guidance from our health department to do otherwise, I think it is a prudent thing to just leave it in place until the next 30 day expiration and we'll probably keep it until April 30th. And by then, if the legislature says it's not valid, it's done and we don't have any control over it at that point. I just wanna make that point. The recommendation of the health department is if the numbers are increasing, if you are experiencing a peak, you should wear a mask. But if the numbers are decreasing, it is only recommended. And we don't know what the rate is for people doing home tests. So there's a whole swath of data we don't even have. In general, if the PCRs are decreasing, that's probably the trend and that's what they predicted would happen. So let's just go ahead and have the vote. Well, I will move to amend the motion to add in the language from the previous Tom's version that added the ability for a business to opt out. I would second that amendment. Okay. So do you understand what we're voting on? It's first the amendment. First the amendment. Yeah, I don't remember the amendment. Which is to opt. Sorry, I didn't accomplish it, man. Businesses can opt out. So we're removing the mandate on businesses and replacing it with an opt out. Tom, why don't you have him explain it? Tom? So I'd love for Colin to chime in here too, but effectively the mandate will be in place. The city of South Burlington and public places will require masks unless, and the Colin came up with some phenomenal language in the Tom's version from our last meeting, which just said, unless an organization explicitly chooses to not require masks. And how do you opt out? Or what's the signage or what's the requirement for someone that wants to opt out? Did we just, did we state that? No, that's not Colin. Make that clear. It's a neon orange sign, right? Tom, do you want me to read the language? Please, please, that would be great. I proposed the neon pink sign, but that was not in Colin's language. Oh, he, I have it here. I think neon pink is breast cancer. Okay, so Jesse has the language. So if you wanna read it, I'm gonna read it right now. I'm also gonna share it for those on computer. A location that is open to the public in the city of South Burlington may opt out of requiring face coverings inside their establishment, provided it is clearly posted on all entrances to the location in a manner that can be clearly seen and easily read by all potential entrants that the establishment has opted out of the city of South Burlington's mask mandate and that face coverings are not required inside the establishment or location. And that takes effect immediately upon passage? Well, I mean, the way we previously drafted it was the next day. The reality is we're going to need time to get out the messages to businesses. But it's not to the 19th, right? That's not the next 30 day interval. It is when we vote on it and then you implement it. It's 30 days from that date, right? Right, okay. Yep, I'm fine with that. But I think we have to vote on the amendment. All right, so we have a friendly amendment, right? Do you accept that as a friendly amendment? Then we just have to vote on the motion, right? We're going to vote on it. Pardon? We're going to vote on it. We either have to vote on the amendment or it has to be accepted as a friendly. Do you want to vote on the amendment or not? Let's vote on the amendment. Okay. Pardon me? Let's vote on the amendment. Okay, so we're just voting on this opt out stuff. That's right. Okay, so any more discussion? Are you ready for the vote? Okay. All in favor of the opt out language. Aye. Signify by saying, do we need a roll call? Yeah, we do. Okay, so Tim Barrett. Nay. Matt, Coda? Yes. Megan? Yes. Tom? Aye. That's not a nay. That's an aye. And the chair votes no. So it is adopted three to two. So now we go back to the motion with this amendment. And that is to, so it's what you have in place. If I'm following what you're doing, it's what you currently have in place plus the opt out language. Yeah, okay. So we're still in discussion? Yes. So just so I understand the procedure for when I get the calls, which will be you are going to message the business community in the ways that you did before to let them know that this is the procedure for opting out of the mass mandate. The mass mandate was not rescinded, but that in fact additional language was added to allow businesses the opportunity opt out of the mass mandate with certain signage or notification. Correct. Good, thank you. Okay. Are we ready for that vote? We're clear on what we're voting. Okay, do we need, oh, Tom? Mute. You're muted. Tom, you're muted. Thank you for that question, Councilor Coder for clarification, but we are voting to extend this for 30 days with this amendment taking effect immediately. Yes. Yes. As soon as we can get out the notice to the community. Thank you. Okay. A large second probably, right? That's our next meeting, pre-town meeting. Or maybe it's the re-organization. No, our next meeting is the 20, but I mean the 30, 30 days would be the reorganization meeting probably. Oh, and the first? No, the first is our town meeting, yeah. Usually Thursday we reorganize, right? Usually. Our town meeting is actually at 28. Right, 30 or 28. Our town meeting is virtual. Oh, our next meeting is the 28th? I thought we were going to know. That's the pre-town meeting. That's the town meeting that we do the night before our town meeting election, which is, but it's virtual this year again. Sorry, sorry. And it isn't even 11 o'clock. And it's in February. You think the town meeting has to be in March, right? Exactly, yeah. At least for us homeowners. Okay, so you ready for the vote? Do we have to do this? Yeah, we probably do because there might be a no. Okay, so we'll start with Tim. Nate. Matt? Yes. Megan? Yes. Tom? Aye. And the chair votes no. So it passes three, two. All right, so we're on to, what's the next item? Where's my paper? Yep, I got it. All right, so next we need to convene as the South Burlington Liquor Control Commission to consider numerous, I'm not going to read them all. No, read them all. I want to hear it. Yeah. No, there must be 25 or 30. Want me to read them? I'll read them. He did do it, yeah, he did do it before once. It was pretty impressive. Okay, all of the published applications. So I need a motion to go become the convene as the Liquor Control Commission. I'll move that. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, so the next motion would be if you wanna do this in total, I guess a motion to award either first and third or sometimes just first and sometimes just third. And there's also second. And second, so all the different. And the first and third sometimes for one place. The numerous classes of liquor licenses available in the city. Do you know that it goes from A to Z, Apple Beast to Zengarden? Yeah. I will just move that we approve all the liquor licenses. Second. Okay, any discussion? One quick one. Yeah. I access my box and I have not read any of these. So I'm going to abstain from this, but I'm trusting that the city has in fact, vetted all these things and this is somewhat perfunctory. So I hope it passes, but I am going to abstain. Okay. So all in favor of awarding these liquor licenses signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Abstain. Councilor Chittenden abstained. So the vote is four, zero, one. All right. Now we consider entering an executive session for the purpose of discussing a proposed civil litigation settlement agreement. Would you like a motion? That's very much. Yes, I would like a motion. So I move that the council make a specific finding that premature general public knowledge of civil litigation to which the city is a party and confidential attorney client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the council. We clearly place a city at a substantial disadvantage. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. I now move that the board enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing civil litigation to which the city is a party and receiving confidential attorney client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the council inviting Jesse Baker, Andrew Bullduck, Colin McNeil into the session with the council. Second. Okay. All in favor? Discussion? Aye. Discussion? Wait, Tim. Sorry, Tom, excuse me. I just see a comment question in the chat from Avalon. She wants to know if we're coming back and so I thought that would be useful to speak to you for me. Yes, we are coming back because, yeah. So Tim's auctioneer voice, I tell ya. Did you ever do that, Tim? Okay, are we, okay. So we, all in favor, think of our best hang on. Aye. Aye. You guys voting at that end? So this is the message. I couldn't hear. Okay. We didn't sign that one. Any votes? All right. So we now vote. Okay, do you guys want me to stay around or what? Sue, if either stay around or you can do it from the recording, either one. Okay. They shouldn't. I'll go pour a glass of wine and stay around. Thanks, Sue. That sounds nice. I have one for me. You guys. So the last Thursday's meeting for the airport rezoning task force, it was a public hearing due to the snowstorm we had to reschedule. So that will be happening on February 17th with a second hearing on March 3rd. Okay. I have a report. Matt, do you have anything from? No, not me. Green Mountain and pension or anything? We have a meeting for the impact fee scheduled later this month. I'm not sure which date is yet. Okay. All right. Well, let me report on the airport commission meeting of January 19th. It's always sort of a pain because it's like two days after our meeting. So it's two weeks later. So it's kind of old news. But anyway, a couple of good items. The infrastructure bill has awarded $4 million to the airport for each year for four years plus a million for a sustainable project. So a lot of this infrastructure money is coming home which is good. One of the things in terms of the construction what they call the terminal integration project that's consolidating the TSA to make things flow better. And where the current TSA is on the north end that will be gone. And they're going to expand seating capacity and replace it with an expanded dining and stores and stuff. What Megan was quite interested in was what is happening, I think we all are with the money for noise mitigation and 19 homes came forward and all qualified. So they apply, they indicate their interest and then they have to, and they apply but they have to be qualified. So they do sound stuff to find out if they can reduce the noise and how loud it is. And so 19 of them were qualified. So we have the money, the airport has been awarded the money to design the changes this spring. And then so actually go back to each house and say, okay, you're getting seven windows and four doors or whatever. And then they'll go to bid summer this summer and it should be completed before the end of this year. So that's the first, there's supposed to be 20 and I can't quite remember why one of them. They have a map of 50 homes and that's the first chunk but this 19 are sort of the test cases and they will, we have the money for that. If these, I guess, happen and get completed, they'll move right along toward the final 30 or 31 and keep expanding that way. They hope to be able to do this, I think, to 50 homes a year. That's what it's gonna take forever, but. Yeah, yeah. So do you know what street or streets these 19 homes are on? You know, I don't because some are in Burlington, some are in Winooski and some are in South Burlington. So you talked about a map, is that a map that we can take a look at? I don't have the map, we've requested it and we have a meeting next week where we'll probably get the map. And could you immediately send me the PDF? Because I have people waiting my phone calls. I will try to do that, I'm gonna be away so I may not go to that meeting but I can get it sent to you. And then the other thing I think is just sort of interesting with the stimulus grants for the airport. The CARES Act granted a little over $1.4 million to the airport for their local share of contribution on the FAA grants because they've drawn down quite a bit of money on different grants to do different projects and they were able to not have to go to the city of Burlington I guess or the airport funds to create the match for those projects. And then they also just received $7.6 million grant package under the American Rescue Act. So we have gotten a lot of money from the federal government to keep the airport moving along paying all the salaries and continuing in their finding. No, things keep improving. We're about parking revenues are up to like 72% the car rental in terms of money is over 100% improvement from last year but that's because they probably cost twice as much or some of it anyways related to the cost of a rental but that's income for the airport as well. And all the other revenues are getting up to close to 80% from a year ago. So things are moving I guess in the right direction in terms of getting the volume back. And the job search for the director we haven't heard anything about that. We worked on a job description but as you know, we're advisory. So we send this off and I don't know where it goes. Now, is Nick Longo being considered? Has he put his name? You know, I don't know because I don't think they weren't interested in doing a search right away. Okay, so that shows some confidence in him. I mean, he was an air traffic controller. He was familiar, a lot of experience in various airports and with aviation. And I don't know, maybe they're focusing on the police to get that search done and completed before they take on the airport since it seems to be moving along in the right direction. Personally, I think Nick does a nice job. Good, so yeah, good. Okay, any other, any new business? Tim, you always have something. All right, all righty, so entertainer, or Tom, do you have any? I keep forgetting to look at the screen. You had to start showing up once in a while. Motion to adjourn. Second. All right, all in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. And I do appreciate, even after a tough vote that we continue to smile and be nice to each other. I can see it sort of in eyes, in tone, smiling eyes. Jordan, you good to meet and close this meeting?