 getting to order. And our, our valiant leader, Helen really is hopefully having a wonderful time with family out on Lake Champlain herself. So we are very fortunate to have such wonderful resources and opportunities to find relaxation not too far from home. So I am acting as chair in her stead. And I will do my best. So the first order of the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. And I'm, I know that when we're online, we normally skip that. So, Jesse, I see you agreeing with that. So we will all know that we are here for a purpose, and we will continue on then. And, and thank you soon. I believe next month, we will be able to be in a room with a flag, and we will be able to give the Pledge. All right. Next order is the agenda review. Does anybody have any additions, deletions? This conference will now be recorded. Or change the order of the agenda items? All right. I see none. Very good. So the comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. Is anyone here who would like to make a comment? Hello, I would. Thank you. Nola. You know, Scott, the name that we see on your screen. Yes. My name is Nola Scott. I'm a student at the University of Vermont. So I'm all red in the face. I just got off of work. But I wanted to make some comments about the environment and what the city of South Burlington is doing right now for them for it. I kind of came into this a little late. I don't have much kind of prepared in my head, but just that I am very worried and scared about how my life will be affected by the environment and that's selfish. But based on how things are going, I think it could get really bad. I think it is already getting really bad. I'm scared from the future of my life, the future of my friends, my family, future generations, I'm sure most of you probably feel the same way because we're all humans on this earth and we all have to deal with the environment. We're all part of the environment. And I would like to see the city of South Burlington and Burlington as a whole doing more because this is my home now has been for a year and I see it being my home for a lot longer as well. And I care about it a lot, but I also care about the entire earth. And I think we can do a lot more in the local area that will make a much bigger difference everywhere else because individual action, I don't know, I've struggled with this a lot of trying to be vegetarian and be vegan, compost, use like beeswax wrapper paper and all of that is good and great. And obviously not everyone has access to do those things. But to have the city that we live in, say we live in the country we live in to also be addressing that but on a much larger scale is really important. And just, yeah, there is a quote that I would like to read. That is by far the biggest obstacle we are up against is hopelessness. A feeling that it's all too late, we've left it too long, we'll never get the job done on such a short timeline. But the truth is that there are tens of thousands of people who have been quietly building local models and road testing policies for how to put justice at the center of our climate response. Now we protect forests, generate renewable energy, design public transit and much more. And that's from on fire by Naomi Klein. And I think that's just a quote that kind of exemplifies how important working in your locality is and the way to make big changes to start at a small level. And yeah, thank you for letting me speak. And I hope that the city of South Burlington will continue to work for the climate and work towards more climate justice, maybe not paving over meadows, planting more trees, not cutting down as many trees. There are lots of things. So thank you. Thank you, Nola. Very much appreciate your comments. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak before we start? All right. Well, seeing nobody else and that was really well said too. I want us to move on to the announcement and city managers report. And I will see Matt there who's on vacation on South Hero. Maybe you have other things to report. Other than you look relaxed. I have nothing to report. We the GMT meets tomorrow morning and I'll have something to report the next meeting though. Fabulous. Thank you, Tim. I don't think I have anything. Thank you. Just say I went to Sobu night out on Thursday and it was a great crowd, great music, great time. Really love seeing those continuing. I think I saw you in the distance there, Tim. So I just love Sobu nights out as much as I don't like Sobu. I love the Sobu night out. So it's good stuff. I attended the kind of soft or sneak peek opening, I guess yesterday, for donors to the South Burlington Public Library and heard from Jay Pasacau, who's the president of the Library Board of Trustees, in addition to Nancy Simpson, who spoke on behalf of herself and her husband. And of course, Jennifer Murray, our library director, all of them gave really moving moving just test testimonies about the long journey it's been, but to a really great moment. And I think it was Jay who said that he was, I think, repeating comments that Emily, the Children's Librarian had had given to the press about how with the reopening of our community here, hopefully it will remain moving positively after this long 18 months period of being closed in that this is a really good time for us to open our library. And I thought it was a really, really nice event and made a town send our house rep, our house representative did a very nice job and seeing there. So I just wanted to report that to all. I encourage everybody to head out to the library. And the grand opening is this Friday, beginning at 430 lasting till eight, it's going to be community party. So after Sobu night out on the Thursday, we can head on over to the library and they're going to be blocking off Market Street right there in front. And there will be all kinds of events there as well. So with that, we'll hand it over to Jesse. I know she's got other things to to announce. Yes, thank you, Megan. So a couple of updates on my and starting with some logistics for the council. Well, first, it was a very exciting day for city staff today, we officially moved into 180 Market Street, the library has been moving for a few weeks, but planning and zoning staff city clerk staff and and city hall staff moved over today was a great day of unpacking getting our internet our office setups up to speed. Thank you, Council for your patience with some email connectivity issues in the last few days as the servers moved over. But we're really excited. We're really excited to fully move in and welcome everybody to the grand opening on Friday, as Megan said. Just a quick again, logistics for the council, we will have a special city council meeting on the 23rd, right before the grand opening at four o'clock for the purposes of approving the warrant, and setting the municipal tax rates so we can get bills out into the mail, given the reappraisal timeline. Additionally to that, I would ask that you come in a few minutes before that to sign the resolution that you previously approved for Jennifer Cochman so we can hang it in the library with your actual in person signatures for the grand opening. I'll put that all in an email, but one to remind you of those things. We are optimistic that the August 2nd council meeting will be held in the new auditorium at 180 Market Street. We're still fine tuning the commissioning of the AV system in there. So there is a chance that we will be in that building, but not in that space. So more to come. We're really excited to show off that great new space. Onto other city updates. Want to remind the community and the council that the Muddy Brook culvert replacement project is moving forward. That is the Kimball and Marshall Ave. Huge culvert. Most people think it's a bridge connecting over to Williston. That will be closed starting Monday, August 2nd. We do have signboards up now advertising that. It is a very aggressive construction schedule, and we are really hoping to have it done this construction season to remove that bridge and put in the new very significant culvert. And we will be doing pretty significant press push on that early next week. If folks are interested in more updates of that project along the way, they can go to the stormwater website as borlstormwater.com. And then there's a Muddy Brook culvert replacement project page there. We will be pushing that out through all of our media as well. I shared with the council but want to share with the community as well. On Friday, the UVM health network submitted a conceptual certificate of need, a CON as they call it to the Vermont Green Mountain Care Board, asking the board to allow them to proceed with planning for a new outpatient surgery center. My understanding is that surgery center would be at Tilly Drive and would add a lot of access to health services within South Burlington, not to mention great economic job opportunities. Obviously much more to come on that, but we are excited about their investment in South Burlington. And then finally, I wanted to give the council a quick update that Andrew is doing first round interviews this week for our next city attorney. We've gotten some really amazing candidates and we hope to finish first interviews this week, second interviews over the next two weeks with the goal of making an offer by August 6th. So more to come on that front, but wanted to give you that update. Thank you very much. Very good. Quick question. Yes, Tim. Jesse, when will the big LED signs go? Will they put a big LED sign up at Kimball and an airport? I mean, Kimball and Kennedy, like they did when the bridge washed out, but like warning people that it will be out August 2nd. Okay. Yes, those are actually up now. I noticed them driving over here at 19 Gregory Drive tonight. Thank you. There are also just so folks are aware. There are also similar signs right now on Market Street announcing the closure of Market Street Friday night, just so folks are aware of that detour as well. And there was a tweet by the public works today that they were closing the bridge as well. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Well, thank you very much, Jesse. And we are now going to go on to our consent agenda where we have a whole slew of minutes from three days, March 29th, April 5th and May 25th of this year. So if there's somebody who would like to make a motion to approve those minutes, don't jump in all at once. So moved. I make a motion to approve the minutes as in in our packet. I was on move second. Very good. And any discussion? All right, very good. All in favor, please stay die. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, nobody abstained, right? I think everybody voted. I didn't hear Tom, but I thought I saw his mouth move. All right. Very good. And now we're going to move on to item number six, which is the resolution for policymaking to reduce carbon emissions and counteract climate change. And I am going to be leading this discussion. As you all know, it was two meetings ago, Helen really brought forward an amendment, and we did some work on it actually during the meeting. And it hasn't, I don't think changed much since then, other than the energy committee instead of being the committee tasked with this would like to be one of the committees considered as we make a new committee to task. Paul Connor also addressed the the process, and this is in one of the therefore clauses, I believe it's the last one. And where sorry, it's the second to last one. No, it's the first one, I'm sorry, the second, the second be a further resolve clause. The city staff and the council will immediately task a committee. Paul had talked about a committee that would have a broad base of representation and there would be more than one staff member staffing it, as I recall. And so this is something that we would take up at a future council meeting. We also have the important work of taking actions based on the climate action plan with the help of this advisory committees. And of course, that goes into all kinds of branches of our work, whether it be preparing and adopting regulations, preparing capital budgets and annual work programs and forming citizen committees as needed. And finally, we would be reporting annually and this would be city staff on the progress that the city is making on enacting the climate action plan. And that as we all know, the four of us and Helen as well, it's always good to measure exactly where we are, if we're making progress progress and if we're meeting our goals. So that's an important part of this resolution as well. And so I am opening the floor here for some discussion. I know we have received some comments online and I'm going to first hear from you all, but I'm prepared to talk about what I've heard from some community members as well. Any discussion? I can start us off, Councilor Emory. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Go ahead, please, Tom. So again, this is important to so many community members and I think it's worth our time. I will say this version is moving in the right direction. I have two comments and I would offer that the last be it resolved and this somewhat connects with what we heard from Marcy. She commented that we need more clarity as to who's reporting to who and I would propose that for the last be it resolved that the city will annually report on the progress that the city is making. What if we ask the chief sustainability officer, which I believe is still Paul Connor to report to the city council that gives greater clarity and we have annual reports. We hear from our auditing auditor. We hear from all of the non profits. So I think it makes sense to give a specific task to somebody that has been designated that responsibility. The other comment I'll make and I made this the last time we discussed it and it's not a showstopper for me but in the second be it resolved, I just they involve all members of the community to participate. We can't get all members of the community to vote. So I just like that that phrase keeps keeps I keep stopping my toe on the involve all members of the community to participate. It just doesn't seem feasible. But again, it's not a showstopper for me. I just I don't see how that could ever possibly happen. Those are my comments. What what if I'm sorry. Oh, yeah, please Matt. What if it were I sort of implied that involved met invite meeting inclusive of all not not denying the ability of anyone to contribute to the discussion would invite Tom make Thomas make more sense than involve or I don't know. Well, I think with the I'll let Tom respond. But with the public process, it is open to all members of the community, right? So we by having those meetings are involving all members of the community. They can choose to participate or not. But we are involving them by holding public meetings. So I'll just add that on to Matt's comment. And now, Tom, if you have Yeah, again, it's not a showstopper. But Matt, I think I like invite invite makes more sense to me. I just I don't see how we can involve everybody. But maybe it's just we're semantics. I have a different definition of involved in my mind. Helen's not here to say whether or not it's a friendly amendment. Is that sound like a friendly amendment to you, Tim? It does. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, my video is fritzing out again. I'm going to go get another laptop. But I can talk for now. But at the last meeting at the end, I think I lost my microphone as well. You know, that that's Yeah, I have a I understand Tom's issue, because it's hard to to, to sort of, you know, measure how you're going to involve everybody in the community. If there was some way to phrase that in a way where it seemed inclusive without making it mandatory, or somehow, you know, imply that, you know, every, every person has to be pulled or whatever. The the other issue is that it says to reduce electricity use and I mean, if that's part of energy usage, but the problem is that if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, sometimes you have to convert over to heat pumps, and you will be actually increasing your electricity usage for a while, at least until something else comes along. So I but but I get I get the sense of what it is, which is trying to reduce all energy usage period. But that that's not a showstopper for me. Anyway, I just I wanted to point that out. I'll I'll add here that there's also I think a really good comment from a member of the community. And the third, be it resolved that when there is the reporting from the Chief Sustainability Officer, I am in favor of that as well, that it's just the last clause to reflect this mission, that that reflect this mission would be followed by by using standard tools and metrics that there would be just a way to measure whether or not we're meeting those goals, whether or not we're we're meeting, you know, the kind of the steps that we have set out. And this is something that I think is really important for any organization is to give themselves goals and then just kind of put, you know, into place markers so that we know how to reach those goals. And are we making those goals? How can we calibrate? How can we I think it's it's useful just to have that kind of precision that there will be, you know, perhaps graphs, perhaps, right, something that we can we can see. Are we really needing those goals? Is that something you all could live with? Sure. For me, speaking for myself, I appreciate the work that Helen put into, you know, crafting a sort of a compromise resolution. It hits all the points that I think that I was trying to make in previous meetings and it tightens things down and becomes, you know, action oriented. So I appreciate her work and anybody else that contributed to it. Thank you. Because you turned on your camera, so please feel free to speak. Yeah, no, I didn't know if you were ready to public yet. I can still I don't want to miss input, but let me just go you folks keep going I'm going to grab into the laptop. Are you ready for the public, Megan? I don't want jump over the council. Yeah, I think Tim said OK. I think he might have said that he wanted to hear you too. Oh, OK, OK. Yeah. Oh, what I asked some of this is just grammatical on in the first be it resolved, it says you'll seek a committee to work with the CCRPC and the Vermont Climate Council, the Vermont Climate Council's Climate Action plans. I don't think you want to work with plans. I think you want to work with people or maybe you are thinking you're working with the plans or line with the plans. It just seemed just a strange wording. But I think it's to implement them. So so it's the to work with. That maybe it's the verb that it says to work with the CCRPC that makes sense and the Vermont Climate Council's Climate Action plans. And then the next is the involved which I actually I think invite all people there's a better than involved because you can't possibly involve anybody. But but it's it's working with the plans is if that was the intent OK. But I it seemed like you're working to the group of people in the region. It makes sense. You would want to work with the state entity. But maybe that's not what the intent is. I you know, I don't I don't want to be a grammatical horse here. But yeah. Well, we could we could certainly say to task a committee to work with the CCRPC and the Vermont Climate Council on the Climate Action plans. Right. If that's I mean that's just yeah I would think you want to work with the council. Yeah. And the other word smithing that which I'll just throw in and then I have a substantive comment. It's in the second be it resolved. And it says that with the help of its advisory committees will strive to take action. I hope you'll just take action. Not strive to take action but take action because actually that means you don't have to do anything. You're just trying to do something. So that's I'd make it more action oriented. Yeah. And I don't know if Tim is back but I can hear you. Okay. All right. So here's my substantive comment. And it goes up to the first whereas which I totally agree with and that is the number of key projects reducing our energy and carbon footprints. That's the whereas and then adopt the reduction of South Brontons carbon footprint as an extremely important effort for sure. This is my comment. There's two halves to addressing the climate crisis. One is to stop putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And the second is to stop destroying the parts of nature that absorb the carbon dioxide. So I know you were sent an article I read it myself. It's called the costs of delay. But in that and this is something I had learned when I read this and it says I'm just going to read a short part. I hope you all read it. But if you didn't, here's what it says. It said until recently natural carbon sinks which are primarily oceans and plants absorb much of our CO2 admitted into the atmosphere. And it talks about 25% of the CO2 is dumped that we dump in the atmosphere absorbed by our oceans and another 25% is absorbed by plant and vegetative matter like trees and grasses and soil. But it says without these carbon sinks, the atmospheric CO2 levels would rise almost twice as fast as they have since the dawn of the industrial age. But as the world invits more CO2 these sinks are becoming saturated. And that means that I'm reading this that even if our CO2 emissions remain constant, the growth rate of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will continue to rise because the trees and the grasses and the soil can't take any more carbon. So if we're cutting down and mowing and paving over these things, you're compounding it because you're reducing the elements of nature that take the carbon dioxide. So I urge you to look at the other part of it, you know, in the medical term, first do no harm. First stop cutting down trees, paving over meadows because we need those vegetative matters to absorb the carbon. So that's my substantive comment that I hope you would incorporate and maybe the committee will incorporate it, but I think having it in the language would make it more powerful. I think the Paris Agreement, the Paris Agreement, which we all have seen and we signed on to in 2017, includes the sinks and the reservoirs. Oh, I think it is implied in that first whereas clause. OK, all right. I just wanted to emphasize it. Thank you. Other community members. Wish to speak up. OK, so I saw Jesse, I saw you writing. Did you catch all of the comments that were made to kind of the words missing there where instead of in the first, I guess, the second, be it further resolved clause that instead of involve, we would say invite all members of the community. To participate in creating a plan with specific actions for South Burlington, etc. And then be it further resolved that the city staff and the council with the help of its advisory committees. I think we'll strive and I. I can certainly say we'll act if you all want to take Roseanne up on. I like the word strive. I think it makes sense. It also implies, you know, that this is this is where we want to go. But it doesn't if failure doesn't mean we're legally culpable. And I I think that by bringing in the measures, we'll know how well we're we're acting. And that will, of course, invite the public to to to encourage us to to to strive harder or to act harder, right? More more deliberately. So we'll strive to take actions based on the climate action plan. Um, I think I forgot. Sorry, under the first be it further resolved, that city staff in the council and back up to the first be it further resolved that the city staff and the council will immediately task a committee to work with the CC RPC and the Vermont Climate Council on the climate action plans because they each have one. All right. And then the last bit further. No, so then under be it further resolved, we'll strive to take actions based on the climate action plan by preparing and adopting regulations, preparing capital budgets. An annual work programs and forming citizen committees as needed to reflect this mission by using standard tools and metrics to account. For greenhouse gas emissions. So far so good, Jesse. I'm sorry, I jumped around there and climate impacts when making any significant decisions. And then the final be it further resolved that the city's chief sustainability officer will annually report on the progress that the city is making on enacting the climate action plan and will verify that the city appropriately factors climate impacts into all applicable actions and decisions. On that point, Councilor Emery. Yeah, I love what you just said. I would just also say maybe that the chief sustainability officer will annual report on the progress to the city council that the city is making on enacting the climate action plan. I just think that was the specificity Marcy suggested and that seems to make sense. Very good. Very good. All right. Did I catch them all? Thank you, Tom. OK, and Jesse, you've got all of those two. All right. Very good. So one of the councillor. Yes, I'm not sure you can see me, so that's why I'm speaking up when I raise my hand. I think councillor Barrett mentioned the third whereas is something about the pursue energy efficiencies by it's in whereas it is in the city's best interest to pursue energy efficiencies by reducing fossil fuel and electricity use. And or through electricity use is an and and or through. Does that address your your point, Tim, that as we reduce fossil fuel, we might see an increase in electricity use and that's not necessarily a bad thing. So adding and and or through electricity use maybe. Can you hear me? Yes. OK, so maybe we could try to get my camera to work, but I'm on a different machine. Maybe we could just. Shorten it to reducing. Well, just to fill the void here while Tim thinks of the I think the intent of the and I'm not sure where originally from, but I think the intent of it, whether it was Helen or Megan, is is it's particularly when you're looking at thermal that you know a third of the wasted energy is because the homes aren't weatherized. You know, so the idea that even if the homes are electrified and they're all electric heat, you still need to do work to weatherize them in order to reduce energy consumption, be it electricity or natural gas or oil or renewable fuels of our wood. So I think that I think that's the what they're the intent of the language. So I understand the intent. I'm not sure. My proposal would be to modify it slightly and say it's in the city's best interest to pursue energy efficiencies and reduce fossil fuel consumption. I like that. That leaves it open, right? Yeah. Is it OK with everybody? Yes. All right. And trying to get my camera. And Jesse, just kind of the mechanics of this, can we also sign this on Friday when we meet to go over the warrant and sign Jennifer Kokeman's resolution? Is that something if we vote on it tonight? Could we could we sign the amended with the word smithing that you're doing there? Could we sign it on Friday as well? Absolutely. Megan. Yes. Hi, this is Marcy. I don't have much signal, so I can't put my camera on right now. But I just like to mention two other things if this is a good time to do that. Sure. First of all, I think it's really important to put perhaps in the second resolved adding something like with the goal of completing the city's climate action plan within one year from this date. Otherwise, if we're waiting for the legislature and other external parties to get their plans together, this the plan could be years down the road and we really do need to act more quickly. So I think it would be helpful to have a goal of having the actual plan completed within one year and then implementation could start after that. But I would suggest for that is that that could be in the committee's charge. So when we task a committee, we would give them a charge and we would give them, you know, a date. Which just like we did with interim zoning, we gave the planning commission a date. Right. And then that was part of the charge that was part of the motion. I think how does that sound to you, Marcy? Yes, that sounds that sounds good. Thank you. And secondly, I just in the second whereas I know it mentions quality of life. I think it's important also to just, you know, to emphasize the seriousness of this to also add the effect on quality of life, health and economic well being as well as safety. I mean, climate change can have if it continues as it's going would have effects on all those things, health, safety and economic well being as well as the quality of life that's listed in the current resolution. Is that something that the members of the council? I certainly acknowledge that. Thomas says yes. Yeah, that's fine. I just and I agree with your first response again as well. I just want to put I thank Marcy for all of her input. I just want to push back on waiting around years for legislature. There's going to be a Vermont Climate Action Plan on December 1st of 2021. It's required by law. So I don't I don't think the state is going to be laggard in this process. But but I appreciate the comment, Marcy. Thank you. So so you said quality of life, health, economic, quality of life, health, safety and economic well being safety and economic well being under that second whereas class. OK, and Tim, you're OK with that too? Yeah, that's fine. All right, well, I would be looking then for a motion to adopt. This resolution. I would make a motion that we adopt the climate change resolution as amended tonight. Second. Hey, Megan, Jesse, just a friendly suggestion. Obviously, it's your prerogative to approve if you want tonight. If you wanted, you could direct me to enter in all these changes and then officially approved on Friday night for Helen's signature on the resolution. If she doesn't vote to vote, she will not be in the resolution. Yeah, will be there on Friday because she's speaking there. OK, that's kind of good suggestion, Jesse. Yes, I I like that as well. I would draw my motion or do we have to withdraw the second table? Could we just table the motion or just leave it open? Sure. We have our motion in second and we will we will vote on Friday and will it be public? Jesse, will members of the public be able to go and see this occur? Yes, I anticipate we will have this meeting right out in the front of City Hall and public and before the grand opening. So folks will be able to to attend and watch. Additionally, I will have this resolution as edited linked to the agenda that goes out later in the week so folks can see the final version as discussed tonight. And I and I think that this answers what Nola Scott, the person who spoke to us during the public comment period, is getting at. I think this really does inspire people with hope. When people act, I think that that is the best way that we can move forward and do it with hope. I think it's important, just as she said. OK, well, thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Let us then move on to item number seven, and this is our consideration of a grant agreement. And we are early, but Travi is here early. She's been here all along and funding source to support the Trinity Education Center's proposal to start the Infinite Center, a daily youth drop in center and after school program. And Jesse, you can lead us. You have a resolution put together, I believe. Yes, so thank you. I'll kick this off and Dr. Childs feel free to jump in as well. So per your direction at the last council meeting, staff went back to figure out the logistics of how to provide the seed money as requested for the Infinite Center. We recommend doing that through a grant agreement for the for fiscal year 22. That's grant agreements in your package. Dr. Childs has seen that grant agreement in that grant agreement. It outlines the allocation of $10,500 is a one time up front payment to Dr. Childs and has some shared expectations about what the city would do and what the center would do. Again, as reviewed by Dr. Childs. And since that time, they have received an updated quote for insurance. And that quote is $500 more than we had previously thought. So I think the request for tonight and Dr. Childs correct me if I'm wrong is to actually up that grant agreement from $10,500 to $11,000 even to accommodate the intent of the council to pay for those related insurance costs. So that's the first part for your consideration. Do we award the seed money through a grant agreement? The second part of this conversation is how to this is an unbudgeted expense for FY 22. So where to locate those funds and where the council could allocate those funds mid fiscal year. So our recommendation would be to take that $10,500 or $11,000 from our fund balance. It would leave a remaining $1.2 million in fund balance. So it's a very, very small hit to that. Alternatively, you could take it from your budgeted FY 22 community services fund. But that would be a very significant hit to those allocated dollars, which would mean not funding other community services. So those are the options we came up with. Obviously, it's the council's choice. Our recommendation would be to allow us to enter into the grant agreement and to allocate the funds from FY 21 fund or FY 20 fund balance. Dr. Childs, did I miss anything big there? No, you did a great job. All right. So we have the amount that's being requested, which is $11,000. We have our city managers recommendation that we take this from our general fund balance. Is there any discussion among? No, she's asking us which but which fund we would want to take it from. I think that's up for discussion, right? And Thomas has his hand up. Tom. I'm not sure, council. Everybody can see my hand or not. So I'll start speaking up when I want to speak. So I wasn't at the last meeting and I just want to make clear that as a South Burlington alumni that got into a fair amount of trouble at the U Mall, I fully support support of bringing standing this program up. So I think this is exactly what the community needs. And these are kids and these are community members that are youths that are not at school. So I think it falls on the city and I just wasn't at the last meeting and I want to say thank you to Dr. Childs for doing this. And I think it's a great thing as for where the money comes from, I'm inclined to go with what is recommended by the city manager. So that's where I'd go. But I've not seen clearly enough what the tradeoffs are in pulling it from the community services funds. I'm wondering if that just means as those funds are needed, we would have to pull those from the fund balance. But again, I'm inclined to go with what the city manager recommends. Tim. Yeah, so I think that from the general fund is my preference because I want to leave the community funds intact because we have recipients that we've designated in the past. And I kind of want to we had a discussion about this a few meetings ago about how to handle those donations. So I and I want to leave that intact. So from the general fund is great. And I'm OK with the $11,000. And I think this is an excellent thing to finance with a grant. And I wish Dr. Childs all the luck in getting this program going. And I hear there was some painting going on already, too. Boom. Yes, soon it will be. Any other comments? I thought you nod, Matt, and you have some. I concur with the previous comments, 11,000 general fund and best wishes and good luck, Dr. Childs. We support you. Jesse. So one other thing I did, I should have drawn drew your attention to not draw your attention. Suggestion Dr. Childs made for the grant agreement, which I think is a great one, is there is a shared expectation between the city city council, specifically city leadership and the center to collaborate and and engage leadership at the council and city staff level with the young people who participate in these programs as part of the leadership development portion of that of the programming. So just want to put it out there that you all will be invited to participate with the young people as well. And certainly city staff is very excited to do that as well. Just want to have a city council meeting there when it's done. I think that's fabulous. I think that it is something that we've already seen in our youth that desire to be active participants in local government, that we have 17 year old on one of our boards. I think that they really do want to participate. And it would be great for us to, I think, be familiar to them and for also our programming to be able to somehow cross pollinate with what Dr. Childs is going to be offering. And I just want to recognize Dr. Childs generosity. This is a job. This is, as we all know, as parents, this is a big job. And she is very willing to take this on. And that is an act of generosity. And so we do wish you well, Dr. Childs. And we are as community members here to support you knowing that this is a nonprofit, just like all of our nonprofits that are local, giving so much to our community. So we are here also as a resource. So just wanted to say that. Very good. And as long as everybody feels good about that, that agreement, I, that ninth, number nine, I certainly hope and expect that there will be no issues. So is that, is that a usual clause that we have in our contracts? OK, very good. I just wanted to make sure. OK. All right. Well, I am looking for a motion to approve the use of $11,000 from our general fund balance and to enter into an agreement with Trinity Education Center and their proposal to start the infinite center. So moved. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK, I think that was unanimous. And again, a big thank you. And we'll all be there checking in and wishing you well. Thank you, Dr. Child. All right. Now we have item number number eight, which is the council consideration and possible approval of an amendment to the old post approved entertainment license to allow for outdoor music. And we are very, very early here. I do see one person, two people, few people I know wanted to speak. I'm curious if we should wait just a little bit because I know that this is something that has a lot of public interest. And could we go on to perhaps the ARPA or are we throwing everything off by looking at item number nine? How do how do people feel about that? You can table eight, go on to nine and come back to eight. Does that sound OK? Just to get a good idea. So again, we're going to be hearing this time from Andrew, our deputy city manager and listening to him speak to us about the American Rescue Plan and how we will be incorporating new, I'd say, replacement hires or we'll let Andrew explain to us but using the federal funds in order to gain back some lost staff. Sure, good evening, counselors. At a couple meeting a couple couple of times ago, a couple of meetings ago, Jesse talked with the council around the possibility of using the one point eight already allocated federal ARPA funds towards possibly refunding at some of the seven unfunded positions that the city has for FY 22. These positions include city planner, parks, labor, benefits administrators, deputy finance offer officer, a firefighter EMT, police officer and administrative assistant at the fire department. Jesse and I had a few conversations with various department heads as well as outgoing city manager, Kevin Dorn and deputy city manager, Tom Hubbard and determined that probably the best, the most immediate needs would be to fund city planner, parks, laborer and sort of do a hybrid position for deputy finance officer and benefits administrator. And so we are coming to you with a proposal of funding those three positions immediately with ARPA funding. The cost of those alone is $257,872 and 28 cents estimated salary and benefits. And in order so that does not be a significant hit at the end of the five year term that we have to use ARPA funds. I've created sort of a spreadsheet that shared with you in your packets around how that might work. So it would slowly be rolled in. The concept being that the general fund in year one, since it's un-bedjeted now would there be zero hit in FY 23, 20% and escalating all the way up to 100% for FY 27. This makes the average annual general fund increases only around 60, 61, $62,000 a year. And so that is the general proposal recommendation. If council agrees with this path forward would be to approve this allocation and via motion to assure that our we've taken proper action pursuant to ARPA requirements. Thank you, Andrew. Is there a discussion? I'm looking at Tom because that's true. I don't see your hand, Tom. I don't see his hand. Matt, did you have something you wanted to say? I would just say that I agree wholeheartedly with the need to bolster our planning staff. Coming from the development review board I know how hard they all work and overworked sometimes. So I'm supportive definitely of that, of that piece of the, give them some support. I certainly agree there. Sailing street, this agenda, Jesse. All right. This one's all. Sorry. This one's all Andrew. I take no credit for this. Sailing through this item. So. Yes, Tom. I will move to approve the allocation of ARPA funds as presented to refund three city staff positions beginning at FY 22. Second. And then we're just gonna do this every year or is this doing the whole five year plan? It's just every year we'll go through, okay, very good. So this is just for year one for three positions. And I, first from Tom, second from Matt, right? If I can just clarify on that, Councillor Emery. So with this vote, you are approving this plan to use the ARPA dollars this way. In future fiscal years, you will see that reflected in your budget, your annual budget approval, but you won't necessarily revote on this plan. Very good. Very good. Thank you for the clarification. All right. Any other comments? Okay. So all in favor? No. Aye. Aye. Aye. That was all of us. So I think that was unanimous. Thank you very much, Andrew. Thank you all. So I think that we don't have very much cushion. I think we're gonna go on to item number eight then, go back to that. And we will consider an amendment to the old post-approved entertainment license to allow for outdoor music. I know that we have some community members here. What I understood was that someone from the old post was gonna be here. Is that person here, Jesse? To my knowledge, Kim is not here. I don't see that name on our screen. If Kim, if you are here, please unmute. I know we do have some folks on the screen who are residents who may wish to be addressed. And then I did include in your packet a brief memo for the council outlining where in our ordinances you do have some rights to put conditions on such a permit. So if the council was interested and is requested by the residents, you could limit the days of the week or the hours of operation for this entertainment permit. That would just require a vote by the council. Very good. And maybe before we get into that, there was some concern about violation of the city ordinances. Do we have any word, any update on that? So we don't have a good update on that. The police, after the last council meeting when it was brought to my attention that they had been operating, the police, our enforcement mechanism did go and visit the establishment and inform them of where they were in the permitting process. Since that time, I believe some folks may have called the police department, but we don't have, I didn't receive a report on that. And there was certainly no formal enforcement action taken at the establishment. Councilor's been able to look at the entertainment ordinance and the public nuisance ordinance. Are there any questions with regard to that? I have a question. I'm trying to wait till Kim gets here. Yes, Tom. So just to clarify, we can put a, we could if we wanted to put a restriction on outdoor music and so that outdoor music could only play until 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday, when that would not affect any indoor music, which I understand from the email threads has not been raised as a concern as they've done indoor music for some time. Is that clear, is that correct that we could have an outdoor restriction? That is correct. It's also, I want to clarify that this is specifically about outdoor live music. That's what falls under the entertainment permit portion. They still have a deck and could still serve outside other days of the week. That's already been approved through their liquor license permit. What's really in question here is the ability to have live shows. So you could limit that to days or hours or both. They could still use their deck, but not for live music. But the noise ordinance limits the hours to 10 p.m. Is that correct, Ashley? That is correct, yes. Still within those ordinance, yes. Right, so I have a question. Have they ever had concerts on that deck before? Is this something totally brand new? So my understanding is that they built the deck. Sorry, this was before my time. So sometime in the last year, I think this winter into spring got their liquor license to serve on the patio, which they have been doing. And then submitted, there was some misunderstanding about needing an entertainment permit to hold live music events. So that permit request is a new request issued in June. And I see Kim now on the phone as well. Andrew, is that the one that's- I cannot hear you, Kim. We see your mouth and we see you are trying to talk. There you go. They're standing outside the door at where you told me to go. Deb told me to go around the back of the police station and nobody's answering the door. Oh, if you want to come in, you go to the door that's labeled Community Services Vet Center at the front parking lot. Oh, okay. And I am upstairs in the second floor. Okay, all right. Great, the police station told me to come around back here. And so I guess I'm gonna go there. Okay, I'll be right in there. Thank you. Okay, I'll be right back soon. Okay. Well, we wait, I just wanted to comment. We did receive, I'm sure everyone received it, right? The email chain with the back and forth where they got permits for to build the stage from Delilah that got, you know, they got an okay from the SBPD and the SBFD. So we weren't, we're certainly, city wasn't surprised that this outdoor venue was put in place. No, I think the surprises is that they hadn't applied for the actual entertainment permit. So that was the surprise. And I know that we all want to hear from Kim. So we'll wait for her. It looks like she's getting to the right door. And I think that the concerns that were, I'll just go over the concerns that were highlighted by the residents who attended our last meeting was that it was seven days per week. It's listed from Sundays through Saturdays and that it could happen between 12 noon and 10 p.m. So that is a length of time. That's 10 hours per day, seven days per week that where there could potentially be concerts and unwelcome noise. That's the definition of noise for people who live in the surrounding areas. And I think that is a valid concern. And I think that it does depend on, the finding a reasonable time length as well as perhaps days that this would occur. We know that there are children living in that neighborhood who would be attending schools. And so having music Monday through Thursday up until 10 p.m. could be of concern. Now, this is for the summer, of course children aren't attending school, but yet they're young children who need their sleep. They're growing. And so I think that we could think more about what time of day and what days would be appropriate. And I do see that she's in the room now, Jesse. Is that right? Yeah. Hi. Can you hear her? Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Hi, I'm Kim. Nice to meet you. You can look at, yeah, wherever you want. We can hear you fine. And I know it's kind of odd. Not weird. I'm sorry, I'm standing out in the back for quite a while. Oh, I'm glad you found me. But anyway, yes, what concerns did you have? Yes, the concerns from the residents and they spoke to us. There were two residents that attended our last meeting and they were very concerned about the seven days per week and potentially 10 hours per day. Yeah. The only reason I put that on the license was just so I never did anything wrong. If I had a wedding on a Sunday afternoon, I'd be covered. Basically, it's gonna be Friday and Saturday night from seven to 10 and then a few events in between. But, and we've only got a short period. You know, the summer months are short. So, so that's. Would it also go into the warmer early fall months? It could. Yeah, it could. I mean, I'd like to keep it near around just in case I, you know, I was thinking about having a nice bar and, you know, just different things out in the patio if I can't. So, so. With entertainment. You need to talk what I know. But with entertainment, yeah, like, you know, I was even hoping like on a Sunday afternoon, once in a while having karaoke and, you know, just different stuff. And, and of course I did have one event before I was aware that you guys, this didn't go through and it went well. I mean, it was the neighbors I had gone over and talked to quite a few of them and they said they couldn't even hear anything, even though I'm sitting outside. So it was, it went pretty well. And as one gentleman said, you know, he could vaguely hear something over there. You knew that something was going on, but he also said that, you know, he went inside and he couldn't hear a thing, so. Yeah, you had a question. Yeah, no, I just wanted to point out, this is Matt Kota, hi, Kim, city counselor. I just wanted to point out that, or I want to comment on your comment, which is you were trying to get as wide as latitude as possible under the entertainment permit. We're interested in, I think there is some interest in putting guardrails to understand, you know, further define when outdoor entertainment can occur. But I will say, I happened to be on Friday night, grocery shopping around eight o'clock at Hannaford. Yes, I live a glamorous life. And I drove by and I rolled down my windows and listened to a little bit of Neil Diamond playing, Sweet Caroline, and saw people in the apartments next door sitting on their patio, listening for free, not purchasing anything at your establishment. And I really thought, well, this is exact, you know, we sit here and we look at rooms and meals declined because of COVID and local option tax. And this is a local business that is really trying to get back into it. And I appreciate that. We're also interested in making sure that the neighbors that aren't listening on their patio have some assurances that they'll be, they won't have music from noon to 10 o'clock, seven days a week, 365 days a year. That's not going to happen. I don't think that's going to happen, but we're here to make sure that it doesn't that we narrowly define when it's most appropriate to have these beds. I guess I should have put more on there. I just kind of did my open actors on the, the first application that I put through, I was pretty sure that it covered both areas. And just to make sure I went into City Hall and I think it was Deb just said, just give us, just fill this out. And if it's, you know, if we need to add the extra on the outside, then we will. And I have to give it on the money for it. So, yeah. Are you the owner, Kim? Are you the manager? Well, I'm the owner. How long have you been the owner? A little bit, four years, November 7th. How many years, sorry? Four. Four, okay. Yeah, I was thinking that it was under new ownership. Okay. And any, Tom or Tim, did you have any comments to make? And I think before we start thinking about those guardrails that Matt referred to, this is perhaps an appropriate time for us to hear from the members of the public who've come. Okay. Well, I just had a quick comment, Megan, if I could. Hi, Kim, you can't see me because my camera's not working. I'm sorry, I'm Tim Barrett. I'm also a city councilor. Nice to meet you. Hi, Tim, nice to meet you. I have on previous occasions been known to karaoke at Franny O's. But I'll give it a try at your establishment at a future date, if the songs are good. The song choice. But, and so you do have some speakers out on the deck now? No, no, I've got speakers, but they're not permanently out there now. Oh, so Matt, when you heard the music, where was it coming from? On the stage or in the patio area. These are the band's speakers, Tim, I would assume. This is not permanent setup. This is just the guitar squad who brings out their amp and stuff. Oh, you heard, so Matt, you heard some Neil Diamond, but was it from a band or a person or is it from just a recording? No, it was people. It was people, but were they outside or inside? Oh, they were outside. Oh, okay, all right. And was it acoustic or electrified or? No, it wasn't the energy. It's a band, it was amplified. Okay, and you have a roof over that structure, right? No. Oh, it's an open air deck? Yes. I just haven't been buying a while, so I couldn't remember, but okay. Yeah, so what I'm concerned about is, I'm one of these people that likes my quiet space. Wherever I am, unless I'm someplace that's supposed to be noisy. And so I'm sensitive to neighbors' concerns, but I also want your business to thrive. And so it's a waiting factor back and forth between who's affected the most and how far your sound travels and how loud it is. That's those are the questions, right? So. So as I said, yeah, right? So I'm also very concerned about that because I would not want to disrupt anybody's life or anything else. So I took it upon myself to literally go to the only neighbors that I have and asked before and after, and they were just all excited. I mean, every single one of them that I spoke to was very excited and couldn't wait until just sit outside and watch it if I did have something outside. And it was just, you know, and then afterwards I took it upon myself to go over again and ask the number of people that I could, you know, what they thought if it disrupted them and they couldn't hear it. They could not hear. They're like vaguely hear and you could tell something was going on, but you couldn't, there was, and if you went inside, you couldn't hear anything. Where did you go, Kim? Was it the apartment building across from the old post? Yes. The other sign is the animal shelter. Are you able to talk to people who have children or do you know what kind of households you were talking to? Yeah, I don't know of anybody that has children in that building. They're basically a lot of single, just working class people, but I'm unaware of any children in there. And I'm very open to hear any, you know, anything if there is children in there I would love to hear, you know, what they had. I'm, you know, obviously the ordinance is 10 o'clock. So we would stop playing anything by 10 o'clock. Tom, do you have any comments based on? So Kim, yeah, Kim, tell me, it would it be, it seems to me that the Sunday through Thursday with neighbors hearing this and what I have seen of the concerns that maybe 9 p.m. would be a more reasonable cutoff time and maybe an additional restriction that might say something. Since you said you really looking, you're looking at Friday and Saturday nights and then an occasional other night. Yeah. If we put a restriction to ensure the neighbors will have seven days straight. What if we had a limit where no more than one day or three days total in a week would you be playing music outdoors? Are those parameters that you think you could operate within 9 p.m. stop by Sunday through Thursday and then no more than three days a week would you have outdoor music? Well, night during the week, stopping at nine. Is that what you're asking? On Sunday through Thursday. On Friday or Saturday. Oh, absolutely. You know what, to be honest with you, I honestly, my honest opinion, I'm not probably gonna have any more than one and that's if it's not raining like on a Friday or Saturday night. So yes, that would be very reasonable. I mean, like I said, if I have a Friday one possibly a Saturday night, the only other thing I would do, it would be like a special event or it would be like, you know, karaoke in the afternoon on a Sunday or something like that. But yeah, it's not gonna be more than two or three times a week. As a quick follow up I challenged Councillor Barrett to karaoke. I do a pretty mean Jimmy Buffett. Just let me know what happens as long as you've got Jimmy Buffett on there. We're gonna pick you up on that. We stepped on a pop-top, I knew it. I have another question for Kim. Kim, which side of the building is the new deck? Is it on the east side facing that residential apartment building? It's on the opposite side. It's on the animal shelter. Oh, it's on the animal shelter side. Oh, okay. It's right in that little crevice in between the new Hanifers building and the old, but used to be the old grandiose, but you know, right there. It's kind of stuck right in there in that small little space in the back. So it's on the south side or it's on the west side? It's south. So if you're a Hanifers, well, I was a Hanifers and you know that bank that gets you up to the new Hanifers, which used to be the old K-Mart. Yeah. And you're looking down, you're looking down right into the. Oh, okay. From the right-hand side. Yeah, so there could be a bunch of people that could see it visibly from there. It's not, there's not walls around it or. Yeah, yeah. Right, right, right. I just, yeah, the Google view, it's to the pictures too old, so I understand. So I'm just trying to understand the acoustic dynamics of what would go on there. And there is a retaining wall that gets up to about eight feet high at the highest point right where Queen City Park Road comes into the T, I think, but other than that, I mean, the road, you can used to be able to turn onto it from there. So, so it's actually, there is a partial protection to the apartment building and it looks to me like acoustically, it probably, it doesn't reach the Humane Society because it's blocked by the Hanifers building, right? And your own building probably buffers the noise, excuse me, the music from penetrating towards the other neighborhood that's across Queen City Park Road. But, yeah, I, let's let the neighbors talk or whoever's here. Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to say that I believe this, what's on the screen now is for the next agenda item. So hopefully, okay. I just wanted people watching to know that that this had nothing to do with the old post. No. Okay. And just a one question for clarification, Jessie. So this would be a one-year permit. Well, I would hope that it would be a yearly permit, you know, after that, but just for this year, yes. Yeah, this one is just for this year and you'd have to come back in every year. Yeah. Same with liquor licenses. And so if we were to approve it in July, it would be good through next July or was there a start date of July 1st or is there another start date for permits? So traditionally they're done by, I believe they're done here by fiscal year. So it would be through this June and then with the liquor license renewal next spring, likely Kim would reapply at that point. And I would also like to open this up to residents who have come here to speak and just turn on your camera and I will recognize you and then you can speak. Okay, Lauren Smith, I think you were, Laurie, you were gonna speak? Ah, no, it is Laura Waters. Very good. Hey, hi. Yeah, sorry, I was not very good at the camera. Hi, well, yeah, so I have a couple of questions that don't relate to the music or the noise, but I'm just curious about the parking. I know somebody had seen something on Facebook about announcing that there would be parking up in the Hannaford, the overflow parking. And so I'm curious about how that's managed. Is there an agreement with Hannaford if there's overflow parking? Is there any way to keep cars from just parking up that little road where the bikes go or behind the apartments that are right there across from the building? Has there been any assessment or evaluation of what's gonna happen when you're attracting so many additional people to that site? Cause I know it's a super popular place and even without the outdoor music venue that parking lot gets really full. So I assume that it's gonna get pushed out a lot. So that's one question. And then does the city ever implement sanctions if somebody goes past the 10 o'clock, a limit as far as music and noise and things like that that are in the regulations. So those are my two comments, questions. So, Lori, is that your name? Laura, Laura. So there are enforcement provisions in the ordinance that come with fines that is the, and they're escalating fines based on offenses and those are issued by the PD. So that's the enforcement answer to your question. And then I will turn it over to Kim to talk about parking. Yeah. Well, I, Jennifer's parking lot, as anybody would know that lives around there was closed for a long time. It was fenced off. And yeah, there, you know, as many people that can park in the parking lot come in there. I do not have an agreement with anybody as far as anything else, as far as where people park or what they say on social media, I have no control over. Anybody else? Would like to speak? I see Almi Landauer. Yes. And we can't hear you, Almi. Not the camera, but not the mic. Thank you. Now we hear you. Okay, great. So Kim, I appreciate you coming to the meeting tonight. I feel somewhat reassured by the information that you've shared with us, but I still have some questions and concerns. I'm wondering, you know, my feeling is that the guardrail, so to speak, should be in the permit, and not just relying on, you know, somebody saying what they're gonna do, because I have concerns about, you know, what happens if it's a new owner? Does the permit carry over? From my understanding, there's no decibel limits in the South Burlington Ordinances. So what if, you know, the owner gets new speakers or the band brings in their own sound system with big amps? You know, how do we know that in the future, the decibel levels aren't gonna go, you know, way up compared to what they are now. Kim, you know, letting us know that she's talked to some close by neighbors and they haven't been disturbed by the concerts that have been held in the last months, including last Friday, even though there was no permit yet. So those are some of my continuing concerns that I think should be addressed in the permit by the city. And then I also, I'm not a policy walk, but I did see the 10 p.m. in the noise ordinance, but I also saw 12 p.m. somewhere else in, and I didn't write it down, but it was in somewhere in, it was maybe the entertainment permit section of the ordinances or someplace else. So I was a little unclear as to whether the city limited outdoor noise to 10 p.m. or to 12 midnight. And I'd like that clarified as possible. Thank you. Okay, Jesse, yes. So, Almi, thanks for coming back. So the guardrails, I think the discussion the council is having now is whether they would put guardrails into the permit. So if they were to approve the permit, they could put guardrails or conditions in that permit. It does not transfer with the owner. A new owner of the facility would need to get their own permitting. You are correct. There are no decibel limits in the ordinance currently. And I believe where you, I would want to double check where you saw the midnight. I believe what that is referencing is if there is a city sponsored event that the city puts on and approves for itself, we have some flexibility, like if we do a firework show or something like that to go past 10 p.m. But that's not part of the private business entertainment license. Okay, thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. Hopeful. Thank you, Jesse. And Tom. So since we have a new city manager and I also find repetition works, a comment I've made previously over the last six or seven years is something that I would certainly still support. And as we deal with a variety of sound related issues, my uncle, Leo Nato, a South Burlington resident used to be the chief of police in Essex. And he had on his police force trained decibel readers. And when the fairgrounds would have a concert, their police officers would take out their decibel readers and get measures so that they could capture true data so that they could regulate that to some extent with the bands that would go through. So I would encourage us as we build up our capacity and skillset within the police, I would encourage the South Burlington Police Department to be capable of capturing decibel readings. I think that could be a separate discussion from this, but it's something that I think is feasible that I'd like to hear more about our ability to do so. Yes, Matt. I have a question for the chair or for Jesse. Do we have to convene as a liquor control board? Or how does that work? No, you actually don't. The entertainment permits are solely within city ordinance and they're actually within under the city manager purview, but past practice in South Burlington has been to bring them to the council. So we were airing on the side of council approval through ordinance. Andrew, I said something wrong there. Okay, great. I just want to make sure we're doing all right. Thanks. Sharon. I see Sharon O'Neill. Hi, thanks. And thanks, Kim, for coming to the meeting tonight and answering questions. I'm not going to go over my concerns that I listed last time, but I do have a question. If you do put some parameters in place, is there, once the permit is issued with or without parameters, is there any ability for the public, the neighborhood around to revisit this if what's in place isn't working for the neighborhood? Hi, Sharon. So I believe, Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong here, that the ordinance does allow for a revocation of a permit if that became a concern in the future. Is that what you're suggesting? No, I wasn't suggesting or thinking revoking, but just putting additional, what were you calling them, guardrails or stipulations? Like that, because I certainly want this, I want Kim's business to thrive as well. And I see that they're doing creative things to build the business. And I intentionally moved to this part of Burlington because it's probably the quietest part of Burlington. And so I'm just saying, if you do put some guidelines in the noise is disruptive, I'm not thinking revoking, I'm thinking adding additional stipulations or guidelines. Andrew, would you like to answer? I do see that there are approval conditions in the entertainment ordinance, but maybe Andrew wants to. Sure, yeah, you can certainly revoke, there is a four cause standard in it. We can also pursue injunctive relief just on the enforcement side. But as far as re-issuing, I think that would have to come under the application. I think that would, again, either come before Jesse or council, I think that could be stipulated in whatever decision the council has as far as what the conditions are. It can be a conditional approval in some manner that requires some type of check-in. I don't think that that's outside of council's purview here. Thank you. Any other members of the public who wish to speak? All right, if you choose to speak, I think we're still gonna be discussing for some time. I would like to just read the approval conditions. They're not all of them, they don't all apply. But we've already discussed one, establishing specific hours for the proposed show. The second one, and this has to do with what Tom Chittenden spoke to with regard to decibel readings, establishing noise limits. And I don't know if there's any way to establish noise limits other than having a decibel reader. Is there any other way to establish noise limits? I mean, to enforce them. We could establish them and then we need to be able to enforce them, right? Right, the way I've seen that, Andrew, do you wanna? Yeah, I would just say, traditionally we've done it based on decibel levels. I will say that there is some language already, I think council's seen it before, performance standards in our land development regulations that certainly could be referenced as a standard, if necessary. That's an average, as opposed to a peak decibel level, am I right, is my memory correct? Yes. Requiring the provision of traffic control personnel at no cost to the city. Requiring the provision of crowd control and medical personnel at no cost to the city. It goes on to firefighting, talks about trash and litter, restricting or prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages in connection with any regulated activity and then the sale of admission or seating tickets. I think what we've heard from the neighbors here is the hours and the noise limits and the traffic. And I don't know the appetite of the council to impose conditions. I think some ways it can put everybody at ease when there are conditions and it would give people just an assurance that Kim, you're a fair player and we will all move forward and know what we've been using the word guard rails, but what the parameters are. And as long as we all enter into that freely that we can have confidence going forward. That that will be respected. Since this is a new thing for this neighborhood, I would be in favor of putting those conditions on simply to allay those concerns and then let people go forward with confidence. Kim, you sound like a very responsible business owner. You sound like you're sensitive to the people you did that extra act of going ahead of time and notifying and then afterwards in order to make sure that what happened was within the norms that the people living close to you could live with. And I find that to be laudable and that also raises the confidence level. And we heard that from, sorry, just a minute. My computer, no, I don't want to do that, stop. My computer is telling me things that I don't want to do. So what I would suggest is that we talk about the, did you say Councillor Chittenden, Tom, Sunday to Thursday till, I don't know if you want to do from 12 till nine. That's still a lot of time. We could think about the number of hours up until nine, perhaps. And then Friday and Saturday, perhaps, again, the number of hours up until 10 and then Sunday, the number of hours. Does that, go ahead, Tom. I believe it was sensing out Kim's receptiveness to also limiting to no more than three outdoor music events in any seven day week periods. She seemed amenable to that and that seemed to conform to her plans. And I think that would give neighbors a lot of peace of mind knowing that there won't be a band coming and playing for five nights in a row or seven nights in a row. Very good. And I'm always there. So if anybody at any time, any of the neighbors that have joined or anybody else ever has any questions and you can always either come and see me personally or call me and just talk to me and let me know your concerns. I am always there. So, and I'm not sure if you were at your house on Friday night, but I'd love to hear if you heard any noise as well. Feel free to turn on your cameras if you wish to respond to her question. Anybody who's here, Almy, we can't hear you. Sorry. I was not aware there was a concert Friday night and I was watching a movie with headphones. So I didn't hear anything, but I don't know if I would have. I'm probably of the resident that are at this meeting and probably the farthest away too. It wasn't this past Friday because I was told by Deb, I believe, from City Hall that the permit didn't go through yet. So I did one where I thought it was okay. And then this past Friday, I told the band they couldn't be outside, which I did lose a lot of revenue from it, but they played it aside but it was the previous Friday, not this past Friday. Oh, I apologize. Sorry about that. No problem. Thank you. Thank you, Kim. And again, I really appreciate whenever a business owner approaches a new situation of uncertainty with that openness, I think it just bodes well for the future. So I just wanna thank you for that. So, Councilor Chitney, you talked about three nights per week. Is that correct? Three events per week, three events per week. So that could include Friday and Saturday and then allow for a third event if there is something on Sunday or something during the week. Okay. Tim and Matt, how does that sound? I mean, that's okay. I'm more open to like having fewer restrictions, actually. I mean, it sounds like Kim doesn't have a band planned for every night of the week. And the 10 o'clock stopping time is that's a good, that's a good stopping time. And that goes with our ordinance. I'm not hearing a lot of opposition from neighbors about noise at this point. I mean, maybe what we should do is not have any restrictions and then revisit this in a month or two months and see if neighbors have issues with it. I saw Matt's hand and then Almy, I will recognize you, Matt. Yeah, I tend to agree with Tim and not Tom on this one, which is the issue with restrictions is say a business down the street then decides to hold something. It's like we're creating policy, we're creating precedent. I think the owner, Kim, and the owners of the old post, they're under pressure now. They understand that if this is gonna be a successful venture that they need to work with their neighbors and every year, this is gonna come up. And if they don't work with their neighbors, this is not gonna be a continuing business venture. So they're not gonna be able to have live music outside. So I'm in favor of fewer restrictions. We have the 10 o'clock stop time. They violate that, they get a fine, they violate it again, they get another higher fine. And if this continues to be a problem, we can revisit it. And if a year goes by and there's numerous problems, then we can revoke it. We cannot let out how to have it again. So I'm in favor of passing this entertainment license now that we've had this conversation, but not imposing any significant restrictions. Almy, Landauer, and we can't hear you. I would be very disappointed if you did not narrow down those days and hours, I think that- You cut out again, Almy. Yeah, we cannot hear you. Almy, can you hear me? Because we cannot hear you. That sounds like she doesn't have audio or the speaker. Okay, Barb, I'm gonna write to Almy, if you could- I wouldn't do that. So for it to be something that is, has an intermediary of a city permit, I think is important. We missed about a minute of what you had to say, Almy. Oh. Your sound cut out. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, what was the last thing you heard? I don't wanna repeat myself. Well, we heard just the very beginning and then just the very end about the permit. Okay, so I guess I'll try to be briefer. I would be disappointed if there were no conditions in the permit, because I think that what Megan said about some reassurance and some backing from the city that the neighbor's concerns are important, is critical, at least for me. And I personally would not feel comfortable walking into a bar and asking to speak with the owner if I had concerns about the noise levels. I think having an intermediary that has the power to enforce things is important. Thank you, loud and clear. Thank you, Barb. Actually, Megan, I'm not sure that I need to say anything. Almy said it very well, but I would support the concept of compromise. And if this is a successful year, then the business owner can come back next year and maybe ask to extend it a little bit, but at least I think it is a nice, I listened to what the homeowner said at the last meeting, and I think they raised some significant issues. And I hope that the council will find a nice sort of middle ground in terms of this initial permit because it does support a business that we want to be successful, but we also have homeowners that we want to have some peace. Thank you, Barb. Anybody else would like to speak up? I go back to what I said, I think that it does instill this relationship with the confidence. If we do simply put in some conditions that are reasonable or are allowing Kim to have a thriving business and to just put the neighbors at ease because I think it will just get that relationship off on a really good foot. Having seen relationships sour simply because of lack of trust I think is setting the old post up for failure and I don't want to do that. And I think that it just creates clarity. And I do want to just say I saw on Facebook that there was a bridal shower at the old post. It looked wonderful. So I know that this is not just gonna be out and out unleashing the nightmare that people could imagine on the neighborhood, but I simply think that what Tom Chittenden had to say is reasonable. Kim seemed to agree that it was reasonable to have three events per week and to have the Sunday through Thursday cutoff time be nine o'clock and the Friday and Saturday cutoff time be 10 p.m. I like that. I think it's a nice condition that everybody can rely on. Yes, Matt. Meg, and I think you've stated it very well and I would support that as you just described. Can we ask Kim if she thinks that that's a fair request of her business? Of course. Of course. Go ahead now. Yeah, sorry. So Matt and Tom, thank you very much for doing that. I honestly don't see me doing even three. So I appreciate that. I would like to have the neighbors feel as comfortable as possible. That to me is extremely reasonable. And I'm even willing to give myself a number for all me or any of them so that they can call me and not have to walk over. That's great. So if they have a paper and a pen, I would love to give them my number. So it's 802-363-4540. Yes, is that Michael, did you? I just wanted to bring you up to date on this matter because I know of your concern about it. The United States got a message from Khrushchev which said that he would withdraw these public ones the next morning, and she said he would do that if we withdrew off Turkey. Yes, he could even use that one. Get into that deal. Just kidding, Matt. Sorry about that, folks. OK, yes. That's just part of it. That was a geopolitics big discussion in the middle of a bar park. At least it wasn't Warcraft like it was last time at the school board meeting. So Jesse, are we at a point of making a motion or where are we at? I think there's just the question of parking that another resident, Laura Waters, raised. Is that something? I'm not worried about parking. Sorry, say that again, Kim. I'm not worried about parking at all. That was never raised as an issue. And I think that even if that became an issue that could still be dealt with after we approve an entertainment permit, is that correct, Jesse? Yeah, OK. All right. So I think we have arrived then at maybe the time for a motion. So Jesse, get ready for another deletion because there's a person called FDR. And I don't think they're probably gone. Yeah, sorry. You're going to have to be vigilant. I'm sorry, go ahead. I would make a motion if you wrote down what Megan just articulated three days a week, Sunday through Thursday, shut off time, 9 PM, Friday and Saturday, shut off time 10 PM. I believe that encapsulated what you said, Megan. That would be my motion. Second. Is there a second? Is there a second? Oh, go ahead. Go ahead, Tom. I think seconded. OK, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. And I saw Tom's thumbs up. So I believe that's unanimous. So that would be through June 30th of 2022, Kim. And we do wish you a very successful year, almost. And we also look forward to seeing you back and hope that everything goes well. Thank you for your time. That's why I just can't thank you, Kim. All right, have a good night. You too. That's you too. All right, very good. Our next agenda item. Now, I believe we have a let me just move back to the agenda. We have a presentation. This is item number 10, Council consideration and possible approval of a letter of support to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board for the Affordable Housing financing application submitted by Summit Properties for their development at Hillside at O'Brien Farm. And Jesse, our city manager, will be leading us in this discussion. Great, thank you. Yeah, I'll do a little table setting. Andrew, if you can help, if any of those folks come back, keep an eye out, that would be helpful to me. So just by way of table setting, we have Zeke from Summit here, as well as Tom Getz from Summit here. And I think that's all. They are the developers. This is a perpetually affordable project as part of O'Brien Farms. They are looking for low income tax credits from the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board. And those are very competitive tax credits, and therefore a letter of support from myself and the council is helpful during that process. So that is what we are asking for tonight, is your approval to co-side with me that letter of support. Tom can walk you through the project if you are interested. I will note, and I have been learning so much, that on May 25th, the Affordable Housing Committee actually passed two motions supporting this specific development at O'Brien Farms. So they are in support of this effort as well. And I will leave it there and defer to the council if you would like a summary from Tom Getz on this project. Yes, I would like to know more about it, because I think we all, at least I should say, I am interested in seeing more affordable housing in the city. It's one of our goals as a city. And tell us more about what you do and how you do it. All right. Thank you for having me tonight. And sorry for almost hijacking the meeting by sharing my screen earlier. I'm not sure how that happened, but I wasn't trying to jump my turn in line. So yeah, Tom Getz and the CEO of Summit Properties, and we're based right here in South Burlington over our offices at the Pines Senior Living Community. We are developers of affordable and mixed income housing in Vermont, New Hampshire and upstate New York. We currently manage about 1,400 apartments in those three states, almost all mixed income are affordable. And good portion of that is senior housing like the Pines here in South Burlington. And in recent years, our focus has been more on the mixed income, non-age restricted family properties. And that is what we are proposing here in South Burlington. Our most recent, we have two recent properties that are gonna be very similar to this. And they're actually both in Winooski, our last two that Jesse knows very well, right? If you've driven into Winooski recently on East Allen Street, 39 unit Cassavan Overlook is on the left side. That opened up last year and we're finishing up on the north side of East Allen Park Terrace Apartments, which is 45 units of mixed income housing, which will be opening in September. So this project in collaboration with the hillside at O'Brien Farm community, we have two buildings on lots 10 and 11 and I can share my screen. I'm sure everybody here is very familiar with the hillside, at least the city council, the hillside at O'Brien Farm community. But okay, thank you, Jesse. So this is the hillside site plan. And here at the bottom, where my lots 10 and 11, it's probably a little tough to see on the screen, but it's these two buildings here, which are gonna be the next phases of hillside. And it's gonna be two 47 unit kind of sister buildings, four stories, underground parking. And they're both gonna be basically identical unit mixes. It's gonna be mixed income. So there will be in the total community, there's gonna be 79 affordable apartments and 15 market rate. And the affordable apartments will break down. There will be a mix of 60% so units targeted at folks earning less than 60% of area median income. And then 33 of the affordable apartments will be affordable to very low income folks earning less than 30% of area median income. And through a partnership with COTS, who we've worked with on our last two Winooski projects, 18 of the very low income apartments will have supportive services for the homeless and at risk. And this is a model that we've used at our last two buildings where we get referrals for COTS. They help us identify residents, it's folks that they think are ready to make the transition from homelessness or at risk into permanent housing. So there's no transitional housing here. It's all the intent is to find permanent solutions for those folks that are getting the supportive services on site. So that's kind of the overview of the apartments. It's perpetual affordability. So as Jesse mentioned, this is gonna be partially financed by low income housing tax credits. That's through the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. The actual immediate application here with the Vermont Housing Conservation Board is for their ARPA funding. So it's something that city council you were talking about tonight, another component of the ARPA funding is to support projects that include mixed income and specifically the homeless targeting piece. So that is the application that's being submitted this week is the ARPA piece, but the tax credit portion is another critical component of the sort of the financing stack that makes these projects work. So this letter of support, this immediate one will go to the Vermont Housing Conservation Board of the city council feels it's a project you all want to support, but would also be relevant for the future tax credit application. That's the big picture. So I don't have renderings to show you, we're still close on the design phase. So I don't have the architecturals, but what I can just quickly, and I guess it's important to note that the support we're asking for tonight has nothing to do with the permitting. We still have to go through final plat which we're working on now. We're gonna be submitting this week all the design elements that totally separate process. So we will be going through that final plat and hoping to get our permits application final submitted within the next month and timeline wise. With that in place, we would be hoping to break ground on this by April of next year. And then at 12 to 14 month construction period opening in the around June of 2023 would be the target. Thank you. Could you describe or explain the tax credits and how that works as an incentive to build mixed affordability housing? Sure. Yeah, so almost all new construction, affordable housing in Vermont and nationwide really, at least some component is the low income housing tax credit program. So there's two ways that that program works. There's essentially it's a grant program, if you want to put it in the most simple terms where we apply for the tax credits, which are then awarded to the project, which we then find investors who need tax credits and will pay us cash, which we use as equity for the project in exchange for getting the federal tax credits to offset their tax liability. So there's two ways that those are doled out in each state. One portion of them are is a competitive allocation process. And that's for the, they call them the 9% tax credits, just in simple terms, the most valuable tax credits and then there's the portion that we're proposing on this project, which is 4% tax credits, exact same deal. They're allocated by the state. We sell them to an investor who gives us equity to build the project. Those tax credits are actually currently undersubscribed in the state. So they're at that part is not a competitive process. Those are essentially automatically awarded to the project, but it's a much, much smaller component of the equity you would need to develop the project. That's why to fill the gaps, things like this ARPA funding are critical. If you can get one of those very, very valuable 9% tax credit awards, highly, highly competitive process, you've essentially gotten around 70% of the resources you need to make it happen. And so those, when you get those awards, it's much simpler. If you're not getting those awards, more resources are necessary, like this ARPA funding. Are there other questions before I dive into all my questions? I simply had that follow-up to his presentation. Yes, Megan, this is Tim, just a quick one. Can you just orient us quickly because the map is kind of small on my computer? Is that Kennedy Drive at the northern top of the? That is Kennedy Drive, yes. And is that the curb cut that is, it's not really there now, but it's visible as you're driving down Kennedy Drive? That's correct, yep. That is the 2B constructed curb cut on Kennedy Drive. Okay, and could you just circle around where the building is? Or is it two buildings at this point? Two buildings right here, lots 10 and 11. Okay, those two buildings, okay, thank you. And I can just drag over, you can see that one. Now here's a little more of a close-up. Right, right. This is the intersection, it's these two buildings right here, lots 10 and 11. So, I'll bet Megan's gonna ask some questions about the efficiency of the buildings and the, especially the energy. Go ahead, Tim, go ahead. So, in lieu of the fact that we just passed a climate action resolution tonight, do you have anything to say about these buildings in terms of how they'll perform from a CO2 perspective at all? I don't have any of the data on the CO2 perspective. All of the, the heating will all be electric with mini splits. So that's the same model that we've used at our last building at Park Terrace. So every unit will be electric heat with the energy efficient mini split units. All energy star rated appliances. So in terms of utilization of fossil fuels, it's well minimized, but I don't have the data for you on the CO2, which is one that I can definitely get. In terms of the energy efficiency, that is part of the review process. There's an energy efficiency checklist that is submitted with our application for housing credits. So that that is, but that wasn't one of the questions in terms of the actual emissions calculations. So that's not. Is there any solar that's planned in bulk for the hillside besides individual, I know that they made arrangements for individual homes to have solar, but what about these large collective buildings? Is there any plan for that? So that, I'm not sure if Evan Langfeldt is on, and that is one thing that I should make clear. Evan at O'Brien, we, these two buildings are, we have under option agreement, and these would be our, you know, the ones we're constructing, the greater hillside at O'Brien farm, that's still under their purview. And if Evan is on, he can speak to that, but I'm not sure what the status is. I am on time. And hi everybody. Yeah, so on the hillside residential neighborhood, we are facilitating solar and encouraging it, but we're not mandating it. And same thing on the larger multifamily buildings, we're still assessing whether it's viable to have rooftop mounted solar arrays. The, you know, the challenge on this site is that it is a pretty dense site. So there's not really a good ground array location for it, but we're definitely looking at whether it's viable on a rooftop mount. We certainly encourage it. That is something. And we do see, I don't know, I'm assuming that the roof will be south facing, southward facing, just thinking with that beam, that center beam is going to be, that that it is. These will be flat roof. It is a flat roof. Yeah, they're all flat roof buildings. Yeah. So if they're flat roof, there really is no impediment to putting some type of solar on top at all. There are other mechanical systems that go on the rooftop. So I mean, for the systems you mean? That's where your compressors go. I understand. I understand. And they can't have anything above them. Yeah. Yeah. You know, listen, I mean, what I would say to you is if we can fit solar up there, we're all for it on the buildings that we're going to be doing. And I'm sure that the Summit guys probably have a similar perspective if they can make it work, I would think that we're all for it. Which we do, yeah. And it's definitely something we'll revisit. We tried to on the, and we got with the flat roofs and the amount of roofs top space that was left after the condenser units for the mini splits, it was so minimal and not efficient on the buildings that we just completed that we ended up deciding not to, but it is definitely something we'll be willing to revisit because we do have it on some of our pitched roof buildings. We do have solar units in order. It's great. Particularly for rental units, it's not something that a new owner would have to, I know that there's an issue with getting a home equity loan when there is solar, that this would not be the case when you have rental units. So it could be, yeah, something that would, I think be quite attractive. And more than attractive, it would be responsible. It would be. Yeah, in our Vermont portfolio, we have quite a bit of solar that offsets most of the electric usage for our about 300 of our Vermont apartments. And some places where we couldn't make it work, whether there was a shaded roof tops, we ended up building a solar array to help offset that usage offsite. So it's really looking at whether the, given the space and the efficiency of the rooftop units, if they make sense to do it on site, I love it. And similarly with our properties across the street, the country park, senior housing property, we just became an offtaker of a solar project as well. Other questions. Tim, did you have more? No, that's all I had. Thanks. Yeah, yes. I would just add as my former life on the development review board, we reviewed this project to preliminary plat. And I can't tell you how happy it makes me to see it. Cause one of the discussions that we had was, we wanna make sure that the affordable housing projects weren't last in line, that the market rates weren't first and affordable housing last. And hearing that there is a possibility that we could break ground in April 2022 makes me very happy. So anyways. Tom, do you have any questions? I do not. I had a question about the number of bedrooms is one to two bedrooms with the majority. It's almost twice as many, more than twice as many one bedroom apartments. Is that a market study that led to that? Cause one to two bedroom apartments is, I would see that for a certain segment of our society, but not necessarily for families. Yeah, no, that is a good question. And it is based on our market, market studies and recent market experience. We actually went through two or three years ago and the Vermont Qualified Allocation Plan, which is how they give out tax credits. There was a big emphasis on two bedrooms and larger over one bedrooms. And so our Casavent property in Winooski, we ended up going with 22 two bedrooms and 19 ones. We went with the majority too. And what we found was that despite thinking that that's where the demand would be, it just wasn't Lisa was difficult and the demand for the one bedrooms was incredible. So at our next project, Park Terrace in Winooski, which was 45 units, we kind of did a more even mix, slightly targeted more towards the studios in one. So about two thirds of the units there were the studios in ones and about a third two bedrooms. So that is more of the mix we went with here. And we're in the middle of that Lisa process right now and we're finding that is repeating itself with the demand for studios in one bedrooms for family housing. It may seem counterintuitive. And it was for me when we first did Park Terrace, I was expecting the 22 or the two bedroom units to be highly demand, but there's still a very large demand for those one bedrooms and studios. So that's how we came up with that unit mix for this one. You know the profile of the, is it student? Is it a young professional or a retired or? There's a wide mix in our recent communities. There are some, not as many retired folks, mostly younger working class middle folks that make $30,000 a year for a family. And there's also, there's such a wide mix of unit targeting for rents in terms of the profile between the folks in the units that are supportive services for the homeless versus those restricted to less than 30% area meeting income. Those restricted less than 60% area meeting income and then market rate. So you've got a, there's no sort of one size fits all or it's a pretty wide range of both income levels and tenant life experiences. What is on the south side of those buildings? What will be there? Parking a lot of areas or where you are on past our, what I see two brothers drive and then south of two brothers drive is that, I'm just curious what would be, what they'd be looking out at. So what you have out to the, to the upper left of the, the drawing is, it's a stormwater management area, but it's, you could actually go out there now and see what we've done with it. So it's, it has a path network and we're going to be putting picnic tables and pavilions out there. It's landscape. It's actually a really nice area. You see residents of the existing hillside neighborhood walking their dogs and you see kids out there. So it's, it's actually, you know, it's, while it is an act of stormwater management area, it's actually turned into a little bit of a park space as well, which was what it was intended for. Is that your land south of two brothers drive there? Is that something? Yeah. And what will be on there? I see proposed lot 15 or 16, 7.3 acres. So I'm sorry, I guess I need to zoom in here because I can't see. The bottom right hand side. Oh, the bottom right hand side. Yep, your hand is on it. So to the, to the bottom right hand side, you actually have a pocket park. So there's a park there that's going to have a natural playground. So we're working with Wagner Hodgson, our landscape architects to design a playground there that incorporates, there's a treehouse concept we're working on with a natural slide feature and then, you know, variety of logs that are stacked in kind of creative ways. There's a tree concept that we're working on that has kind of built in features to it. So immediately adjacent to the properties that we're talking about with Summit, there is a park, which is nice. And then to the immediate South and so that, that's actually to the North and East on the bottom right. So to the, to the Southwest, which would be the upper left hand side, you have another park, which is that stormwater management area. The Southwest is the upper left hand of that picture. The Southwest is the upper left hand of that picture, yeah. Oh, it got turned around. Okay. Where is Kennedy Drive again? Kennedy Drive would be at the top of the page. Okay, so wouldn't that be the Northwest then? The upper left hand side? So the North would be to your right. And West would be right, like North is kind of like this way. It's sort of, yeah. Okay, okay. We've had that confusion. What side, what side to call it? Whether to call this the North side or to call this the North side. That's North right there, I think. Well, I'm confirming that confusion, I guess. Okay. So to adjacent to lot 11 would be that pocket park with the natural playground features. And then to the left of lot 10, up against Kennedy is where that stormwater management area that has the path network. There's lot 11 again. Can you put your hand on it? Okay, so I did understand. Okay. Okay. Very good. I guess it was on the strong. And Summit is a for-profit or a non-profit? We are mission-driven for-profit developer. Mission-driven for-profit, very good. Okay, okay. So Jesse, what do you need from us? We've gone through our questions and you need for us to- Are you going to hear from the public at all, Megan? Of course, of course. But I just want to make sure that we've exhausted what she needs from us before I move on to the public. So in your packet is a draft letter of support that is with your approval would be co-signed by the council and by me, and then submitted on behalf of Summit to the financiers. All right. So the question before you is do you submit a letter of support for the project or do you not? And with regard to support, what latitude do we have with regard to having solar be part of the project or all of that? Is that in our prerogative or is that something that would be seen more at the developmental review board level or I just want to know before we hand it over to the public to comment? So that's a great question. And I may defer to Matt as I am not incredibly well-versed yet in the land use regulations, right? The question that I intended to bring to you was do you want to submit a letter of support for this project for financing? There are many hoops, the developer will still need to go through to get permitting for the project at the local level, at the state level, et cetera. So right now, I would, my recommendation would be to focus on are you supportive enough of the project as presented to allow them to move forward with financing and then go through the permitting project or are you not and let them see if they can get financing without that community support? So I would stay out of conditions on it and let that be part of the permitting process. Thank you. Question I wanted to ask, and Andrew, did you want, it seems satisfied. All right, very good. Councils want to say anything before I hand it over to the public. Okay, very good. So if you'd like to speak, please turn on your camera and you're all very little right now, but I will do my best to recognize you. Okay, Roseanne, Roseanne Greco. Yes, thanks, Megan. I understand what Jessie just says and I understand that the way this development will be designed goes through the DRB. However, when a city council writes a letter, it has power and it has direction. If you say something that your expectation is that this development will be net zero and that we have the technology to make net zero buildings, it doesn't have regulatory power, but it certainly has the power of influence and it certainly says what you just talked about in your resolution, that you're going to look at everything with a climate crisis focus. 10 years ago, we argued that we ought to put in our zoning regulations the requirement to use renewable sources of energy, but that was voted down or lobbied down by the developers because it cost them more money. In the long-term, it saves the occupants money substantial enough. And if you're talking about affordable housing, it will make it truly affordable. But just to encourage or hope or wish has not worked for the last 10 years or so, look at the hundreds of houses that have been constructed because we didn't require it. You can have energy star appliances, but if you're still using fossil fuels, even if your house is well insulated, you're still using fossil fuels. So I really encourage you to put your money where your mouth is. You just talked about reviewing things with a climate crisis in mind and to punt this off to the DRB who is only going to follow what the zoning rule says is to pretty much be silent. So considering this development took down an entire forest, the least you could do is have them put solar panels on every roof. Doesn't have to be perfect, but they'll get energy. And I really encourage the council to do that. The question I have though, is that a requirement that we can make in this letter? This is certainly a requirement, but it is an expectation. You don't have to require it. You can say our expectation is it will be environmentally responsible and will be net zero and will use renewable sources of energy. It has no regulatory power, but it certainly conveys a direction. Anybody else like to speak? Okay. All right, so we heard from one member of the public and we are of course very concerned that future actions must be taken keeping in mind that our resources are precious and limited and that we should move forward in order to reduce our carbon footprint, not just while reducing our carbon footprint, but in order to that there is an intention in that step that we take forward. That expectation is certainly there. Counselors, would you like to have that line added to the letter prepared by Jesse? I would not like to have that line prepared to the letter to Jesse. What we're asking here is we're making a letter to VHCB, to Gusty Lake saying that we support financing to get this critically needed affordable housing project moving in order to secure the final product project moving in order to secure the financing to get this ahead of schedule. This is a great letter and I would make a motion that we prove it as written. I would second that, but this is Tim Barrett. I understand what Roseanne is saying and whatever we put in that letter, if there's an additional sentence, you know, sort of making the notice that this project should take every possible opportunity to make itself as efficient and as productive of solar energy as possible. I think that tells the applicant and it tells the financing agency that we are looking at this through the lens of climate change. It might not have any regulatory effect on what actually happens on that building, but at least it puts the words in there and we just did discuss all this earlier. Now, I don't know if Roseanne heard Tom say that they're all split units. So there aren't any natural gas furnaces for these units. They're all heat pump, right Tom? That's correct. Yeah, so that they're all heat pumps for heating and cooling, which is a significant advantage. And I don't know if there will be any natural gas combustion going on with the buildings in some other part. I'm assuming that your water heaters are also heat pump, is that true, or do you know? As of now, the last building we did was gas for the hot water and heat pumps for all the heating, both common areas and units. Yeah, are the water heaters, are they tank water heaters or on demand or? Tank. Tank, okay. So I mean, there is opportunity here and I think it's up to the council to at least state in the letter that we have an expectation that the developers are going to pursue the means necessary to adapt this building to what the city wants to see for climate change action. And it'll have no ill effect, I think, on the application, it just makes a statement in the letter that we're looking at this and the developer should be looking at this. And for God's sakes, the Housing Finance Agency should be looking at it as well, right? Great. I agree with Tim. I think we should just at least put one or two sentences in it and we can craft them right now and add them if that's okay. Unless... I think, oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead, Tim. I guess if you don't, or I meant Megan, you're gonna go ahead. I could just add one comment. Tim, did you finish your sentence? I thought you had and I cut you off. Go ahead. Go ahead. Please go ahead. Is it Tom? Yeah. My only concern with adding that is that I do think that it would be, I guess it depends on the language, but it could be viewed as, you know, these letters do get taken seriously by the financing agencies. And if they said, well, the city's only supports this if it has solar. They don't, no, the VHCB and VHFA don't wanna support projects that the city doesn't support. It's an important part of it. So I wouldn't wanna represent to you tonight. Yes, we will be putting solar on the roofs. We did look at it at our last building with all the mini splits up there that it just did not, it wasn't an efficient use of the space. So I guess I just don't wanna say something and make a representation to you that I'm not gonna be able to tell you tonight that I can follow through on. And I wouldn't want you to put to undervalue the importance of the words you say in a letter like this, because they do get taken seriously. And so that's my only comment on potential changes. And I will counter that Tom by saying that, you know, we're not gonna, in this one or two sentences, we're not gonna state exactly what it is that we would like to have. I think we're just gonna make a statement that we are expecting the developer to take every opportunity that they can to construct this building in accordance with our climate action plan, which we are going to have in less than a year, we're hoping, whatever that might be, right? But it does make a recognition of that fact within the letter. And I think it needs to be stated. It won't put any onus on you or requirement, either to you or the finance agency. It just makes it clear that we have an expectation of you to do whatever you can. And it gets the words in there about, you know, doing what we have to do. Could I make a suggestion? And well, I don't have the experience applying to VHCB on these applications. I wonder if maybe the language could be crafted around being as energy efficient as possible, as opposed to directing solar, because I mean, we're finding the same issue. I mean- I never said that, Evan. I was saying we should make it as we craft the sentence or two to say, we expect the developer to be as proactive or whatever, however it's worded to be as, you know, to take the actions necessary for energy efficiency, right? In order to be in accordance with South Brunton's Climate Action Plan. Yeah, I don't want to speak for Tom, but I think, you know, the directive of just going straight to solar, because if it's not viable on the rooftop, because you're left with such little space, it does become problematic if solar is referenced as opposed to- And I didn't say that we had to say solar. I mean, we've had a discussion about solar, but we're talking about just adding that sentence that zeros in on the fact that the city of South Brunton is going to have a finite action plan. We are in the process of generating it now. We have a resolution that we're going to sign off on Friday. And we just want people to understand that in this application to the financing agency, we want to make that clear. That's all. May I? Yes, Tom. So, Tim, I love what you're saying. I'm just curious. I don't want to jeopardize the affordable housing pursuit, but I wonder what we have done in the past is Kevin Dorn, our previous city manager, has testified taking testimony representing the city during the DRB process, making similar statements. So would that advocacy, that statement position, that alignment, that desire, however you just describe it, that expectation, would that better be communicated and pressed during the DRB process and not necessarily in this letter about to advocate for affordable housing? Well, we certainly can give testimony at a DRB meeting, but this letter to the VHCB is a very important letter. And it's well-worded and it states how we support the plan. I'm just saying that maybe we should say it just before the end saying, and we expect the developers to take every opportunity possible to make this building as compliant with Salper and its climate action plan as possible. And that's about as simple as I would make it. Because it does two things. It puts this application on notice as being the first one that we expect people to start to take our action plan seriously. We don't have it right now, but we're gonna, right? If I could just jump in here and I see that this housing is aligned with the city's goals, it is precisely the type of development our city wants and needs. And I think that it does behoove us to add in a sentence about it without the mention of solar, but with the mention that our expectation is that this will be an energy efficient building in line with our climate action plan if counselors are favorable towards those three words or our environmental goals within our plan since we haven't yet passed that climate action plan. I just wanna note that it is close to a bus line. It is giving people the ability to use alternate means of transportation. The article in the free press today about the color of the building in order to reflect that heat, I think is something that would all work towards what we're talking about here, Tom and Evan. So you could certainly in your application talk about the proximity to a bus line and the alternate means of transportation that all of that is in keeping with South Burlington's goals. You could think about the color of the roof, have a reflective roof, think about a green roof perhaps instead of solar. I mean, there are other ways in order for this project to just work towards a more sustainable future. And that's our goal. I don't think Tim's intention is to be prescriptive, but simply to keep it in everybody's mind that this is where we need to be going, that this is the precisely, that this is the in keeping with South Burlington's goals piece that just mentioned I think would be welcome in my eyes without being an obstacle or without being too prescriptive. Is that something, Jesse, that, yes, feel free? So I guess sitting back and watching this conversation a little, and maybe I'm too much of a compromiser, but I don't see a lot of disagreement between what the council is advocating for and what the developer is saying they're going to do. So I'm wondering if the solution to make the letter as kind of effective as possible with the financiers is a statement along, adding a sentence along the lines of the council supports the developers efforts to make this building as make these buildings as energy efficient as possible. So it's not directing, it's not seen by the financiers as conditioning an approval. It's saying the developers are articulating a commitment to building the most energy efficient building as possible aligned to the city's goals and the council supports that effort. I find that to be language that I would like to have included. Absolutely. We want to be encouraging Goss to look at this project and say the city council supports it, the developer supports it, they're going to provide affordable housing and they're going to be energy efficient. They're going to have a very low carbon output. This is a great project and it's achieving the goals of our climate action plan and of our affordable housing plan. We need a positive letter of support without conditions or prescriptive measures. So I appreciate that Jesse and I would support that. I'd like to make a motion to that effect. Tom, did you have your hand raised? Okay. Oh, good. Thank you. Would you like to make a motion then? You have a motion, you can just amend it, Megan. Okay. Would you like to amend your motion then? Yeah, I made the motion and I would amend it to incorporate the language Jesse Baker said about, Jesse said so much more articulate than I can right now but that we are working with the developer, the developer is working to ensure that it does meet our goals of a lower energy consumption, lower carbon and it's in its development. I don't know. However you said it, Jesse, it was much better. So that the council supports the development, developers goals of making this building as energy efficient as possible. There you go. That's it. Pretty simple. Yep. There's second. Second. That was Tim. Yes. Very good. All in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi, and I saw a thumbs up from Tom. And thank you. That was a very good discussion. And I think that this is gonna be a very, I think useful type of housing close to, to I think of what will turn into quite an active, an active community. And it's already an active community. So I'm glad to see this be part of it. I just want you to know that my computer is starting in two minutes without any control on my part. If could we take a five minute pause here and I will be back on in five minutes. I just wanna say one more thing to Tom and Evan that thank you for your time tonight, but I just wanna, I wanna really impress upon you the fact that every kilowatt hour in the summertime that's used to cool a building that is not recaptured by having a solar panel somewhere to generate that power is a complete missed opportunity. Just think about that for a second. Every kilowatt hour that you use to cool a building and you don't have a solar panel to capture that back is a total waste. And I hope that you take every opportunity on that hillside farm to find some space to put some solar panels, not just on the private homes but on those big buildings, especially those commercial buildings. And you better start looking really hard because that's what the city is going towards is trying to find the teeth to get this to happen on all future developments, all right? I just wanna put that out there right now. I'm all for this letter and I'm for your project but it's about time that we make the decision to put the solar where our mouths is, all right? Thank you. I appreciate your passion, Tim. I share it, yes. Thank you all. Thank you, councilors. I appreciate your time. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you. And I will be back in about a minute. Okay, I think we're all here as everyone been able to get something to eat and walk around a little bit and all right. So we're now gonna have a motion, I hope for a possible executive session to consider pending or probable litigation to which the city is a party and confidential attorney client communication for the purpose of providing professional legal services regarding the same. So moved. Taking bringing in with us who? Oh no, we have to in the second motion, right? I'll second the first motion on determination. Yeah, so the- Go ahead, Andrew. Sorry, so yeah, so the first motion would be council move that premature public knowledge of the item discussed in the agenda that you just read it, Megan, to enter into a possible executive session to consider pending or probable litigation to which the city is a party and confidential attorney client communications for the purpose of providing professional legal services regarding same would put this council at a substantial disadvantage. I'll move that. I'll second it. Good, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. And then the second motion would just be to move into executive session for the purposes outlined in the first motion. And by inviting in who? Jesse, Amanda, and myself. And city council. Yes, yes, of course. So moved. Their second, Tom, did you second? Okay, second by Tom. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. That's all of us. Okay, and we will be back in half an hour. Should we ask Sue to stay on for other business then? Jesse, what do you suggest? I don't know what your past practice is my first. Like this virtual executive session with you. I'm happy to take notes during other business and provide that to you Sue if that would be helpful. That's fine. I go watch the baseball game. Go for it. And nobody said anything for other business. So my guess is that nothing will pop up. Right. Okay. Just get me a closing time for the meeting would be fine. Absolutely, Sue.