 All right, so I've got 6.01 p.m. Monday, November 7th. I'll call to order this regular meeting of the Winooski City Council. Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance led by Deputy Mayor Jim Duncan. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Agenda review is next. Any concerns, comments about the agenda? Anything from members of the public? We have public members? We do, okay. Public comments is next. This is a chance to speak on topics not included in tonight's agenda. If you're here for an item on the agenda, please hold until we reach that item. Is there any public comment this evening? And if you're attending via Zoom, you can use the raise hand or chat feature. Seeing no public comment, we'll move on to our consent agenda. We have our council minutes from 1017. The accounts payable warrant from 11.3, payroll warrants for October and subsequent to pay out for September and the Inclusion and Belonging Commission appointments updates that we discussed at our last meeting. Any questions, comments? Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Motion by Bryn, second by Thomas. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Council reports. Thomas, would you like to start? Sure. My report is really just on the Halloween celebration that went fantastically well. I believe Meredith and some other staff noted that it was the most people that we've ever seen turn out at the pumpkins, which kind of continued throughout the weekend, which was really great. But I specifically want to take this time just to thank everybody who volunteered to either pick up pumpkins, carve pumpkins, light pumpkins, it was really a city-wide volunteer-led effort. So thank you to everybody who helped out and I'm excited to do it all again next year. Jim. So the Housing Commission met on October 24th and started its review of the public building registry related to housing quality and how we do inspections for life safety and health issues in the city for rentals and commercial properties. So we had a pretty extensive walkthrough with Chief Audie of the checklist that they use for property complaints, so all the different aspects of fire code, electrical code, Vermont rental housing code, and other items that are checked on the rentals or a property inspection for compliance. And talked about some of those that might need some updating or work here by the commission. So it was a good long conversation on where we can use enforcement, where we might need education, and that conversation will continue over the next couple of meetings. At the next meeting, the Housing Commission is going to focus on what happens when a violation is found and what tools we have in ordinance to deal with an inspection, or sorry, a violation after it's been discovered. So that'll be a good opportunity to dig into that side of the supports that the city has for rental housing in the city. Because of the Thanksgiving holiday, the next meeting is moved to Thursday, December 8th at 6 p.m., which is off cycle from our normal fourth Monday schedule that we usually follow. So Thursday, December 8th will be the next Housing Commission meeting. And the only other thing I'll report is we did have a very nice conversation at the Winninsky Housing Authority by one of the senior housing buildings that they run on Barlow Street. It was great to meet a couple of residents. Thanks to Paul Sarn for also showing up to help with an ARPA listening session at the same time. Had a good discussion on sidewalks, rows in general, and some good questions raised about what's going on in the city. And just great to see folks out where they are and coming to those kinds of meetings. So I look forward to doing more of those this coming week. Thank you. Planning Commission meeting is this Thursday at 6.30. They are starting to talk about to review parking regulations and make adjustments there. And I am gonna raise a question about when we should engage housing and municipal infrastructure in that. Since our last meeting I was able to attend. So we had the joint meeting with the school board. They shared they were having a community meal about recruitment and retention efforts. So they had a community meal on that. I think they're having a second event in the future. But the information is on their website about their recruitment and retention efforts, which I'm gonna try to include in my mayor's update for members of the public who haven't caught that already. And then I'll just also say briefly that Brandon and Elaine and myself and some members of the school board were also able to attend a Somali community meeting recently, which was appreciated for the connection building there. Great, thank you. Chinatown Salt Waste District Materials Recovery Facility, also known as Recycling Facility, is up for their bond vote tomorrow during election day. If you haven't already received that, please make sure you request your ballot by coming into the senior center between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. So if you've already sent in, mailed in, your general election, that's okay. Just come into the senior center and ask specifically for the Chinatown Salt Waste District Bond Vote Ballot and we'll make sure to get your vote counted tomorrow. The Municipal Infrastructure Commission will meet again on November 17th. We anticipate that being a joint meeting with the Finance Commission, mainly looking at capital project priorities and other infrastructure priority expenses as it relates to the upcoming tax fiscal year. I met with Vermont Works for Women Executive Director. She's very, very much looking forward to opportunities to co-promote public commission meetings that we have that may be of interest to their clients and customers, as well as looking forward to an opportunity to co-host an event. So something that they may already be planning on that we can attend and share city updates on kind of a broader scale. And they also offered to read and review any job positions that we may be posting as well that we're looking to advertise to a more diverse audience. So it was a great conversation and we plan to have another in-person meeting in about six months, but to stay in touch in between now and then. And I believe the next meeting with the Congolese community will be this Saturday from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. So looking forward to connecting with that with the Winooski School District. And want to give a major shout out and congratulations to the Winooski Boys Soccer Team who won the state championship this weekend. And let's see, that's an awesome win for them. So very excited to share that celebration with them. So the next State Healthy Committed People Meeting is actually tomorrow. It is going to be virtual, so over Zoom at 6 p.m. This is the next Inclusion and Belonging Commission Meeting will be in December on the 8th. And this month the commission members will be serving in their ambassador roles by attending the commission meetings of the commissions they are ambassadors to. On October 26th, Elaine and I went to the Ideal Kickoff which you just get, I brought in info sheet just in case all the counselors or folks want to look at it. And this is the Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Action and Leadership. We're going to be one of 14 municipalities and kind of a first cohort to work on equity and inclusion statewide. Those are my updates. Thank you. Elaine, city updates. Thanks. So a follow up on Halloween. I also wanted to thank Council, many if not all of you who's supported from carving to placement to candling. And also again to downtown Manuski, this staff and board would be hard to pull this out without them. And usually I'm not supposed to do these types of things but for this event in particular, I feel the need to call out the city's community services department and public works for picking up the pumpkins after which I feel like is often kind of an overlooked unsung important part of this event. The general election is tomorrow. Thanks to everyone who voted early and to the Secretary of State's office for getting all of the ballots for the general election out directly to our residents. Again, the CSWD ballot is separate and that is open to all resident voting. If you're voting in person, we'll see you at the Manuski Senior Center on 123 Barlow Street between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. That's when the polls are open. Please note, if you have a completed ballot still at home, please bring it to the Manuski Senior Center tomorrow. Do not bring it to City Hall. Speaking of the Senior Center, we are hosting a blood drive at the Senior Center on Friday, November 11th from 12 to 5.30 p.m. Blood donations are always in critical need. Please visit redcrossblood.org slash give and search by our zip code 05404 to schedule an appointment to give blood. Manuski City Hall will be closed on Friday, November 11th in observance of Veterans Day. Items for the city clerk's office can be left in the drop box right outside the entrance. While we are enjoying some unseasonally beautiful weather, our annual winter parking band reminder went out on all channels on the first. Please do remember to sign up for a winter parking band notices by texting Manuski to 888-777, 888-777, or by visiting manuskibt.gov slash parking for full details. To recap, overnight street parking is prohibited in downtown Manuski from 2.30 a.m. to 6 a.m. from December 1st to March 31st. For the rest of the city, winter parking bands are made on a case-by-case weather dependent basis or for area-specific snow removal where overnight street parking is prohibited from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. And finally, the Manuski Housing Trust Fund site has been up and running. Anyone looking to learn more about the Down Payment Assistance Program, the Home Improvement Program, or the Affordable Housing Construction and Rehabilitation Program should visit manuskibt.gov slash housing for full details or simply visit the Manuski Branch of Opportunities Credit Union to learn more and to apply. Thank you. Thanks. So we are onto our regular items and up first for discussion, we have Charlie Baker, Executive Director of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission here to present. I believe here, right? Yes. Yes. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you for making time on your agenda. I know you have a lot of business. So I think you've got the report in your packet. I'm just gonna briefly review it, but this is mostly a customer service check-in to see how our services are for you. If you can do anything better. Oh, sorry, thank you. You're just loud. But the first page of the report really gives you some background on the Regional Planning Commission, our board membership, a little bit on our finances and how we budget your local dues to bring in state and federal funds. At the bottom is your representatives on our board. And I think Mike O'Brien is going to be plugged in there. Maybe he is somewhere. I'm not sure if Abby has plugged in, but Mike is on the executive committee as a past chair and a very active member also on our equity advisory committee. Moving on to the second page, our specific projects that we worked on in the city in FY22, that are reviewed all of these, but traffic coming and parking and water quality, some ground fields work, and just other data and other information, including a little bit of help to get the raise grant here for your big bridge. So that'll be exciting coming up. And any questions or feedback for me on any of those projects or efforts? Michael O'Brien is on. Sorry? Michael O'Brien is on. Okay, thanks. In the middle of the third page are the few projects that you have in the state's capital program for transportation that are also in our transportation improvement program. And the Windows v. Bridge is going to be added to that very soon. So that's coming. And then now at the bottom of that and now to the top page four, the things that are in this year's work program that we're working with you on or starting, I think the Windows v. Bike Head Master Plan probably one of the big projects coming up in the next few months. And then the last few pages have a lot of different things that we do without regard to any specific municipality of regional activities, including the legislative briefing coming up. December 8th, if you have issues that you'd like to have addressed with legislators, please let us know or let Mike know to let us know. We continue to work on equity issues that are getting our equity by the committee or somewhere between the stormy forming stages. And building those together, we had a press conference a week or so ago, but there's a lot more there. Happy to take any questions or feedback on that. Appreciate your annual visit to us and this nice recap of all the work that we were benefiting from from the planning commission. I don't have any questions. I feel like I've seen a lot of these for a while, but do other folks have any? I mainly want to thank you for the thorough update. I think it's something that, it's the type of summary that I always look for. So just wanted to say thank you for the depth of detail in terms of what services actually are paid for. And the degree of collaboration for the city. So I thought that was really excellent summary. I didn't necessarily mention too many upcoming projects. It seems like a lot of it might be ongoing. I was curious if there's anything else that isn't contained in the summary that you would want to highlight as far as things that you're looking forward to. I kind of mentioned that the bridge project is probably the biggest thing coming up which is going to be on a super fast timeline for VTrans to get that down in the next few years. But other than that, I can't think of any other things all over the, I'm sure there are other things that are coming up. I guess I'm on the conversation of housing. So in addition to the support of new developments, does CCRPC play a role at all in housing quality or in coordination of resources for the county? Yeah, in terms of housing inspections or anything like that. Yeah, yeah. The limited amount that's done is done at the municipal level through a rental code if you have that or a building code which I think is really all in kind of Burlington, Munozki, maybe Colchester has a little bit of building code action, but so it's pretty limited. That's been a state house conversation about whether there should be a statewide rental code or at least registry. I expect that's probably still gonna come up at the state house, but we are not directly involved in that other than it's kind of encouraging that effort. And any, so not necessarily any rolling in terms of best practices for ordinance language or? No, I don't think we've gone to that point. All right, thank you. Yeah, I think if that was something, we are, I guess this is also a good time for me to let you know that our application for FY24 projects will be kind of hitting your table around Thanksgiving time. We tried to get it out before Thanksgiving and applications are due January 20th. So if there was something like that that even you might have to look into, best practices around the country or what's happening in Vermont, I think that's a great time to let us know. Okay, thank you. And for those who are unfamiliar, we do look to, we have looked to the, oh gosh, great zoning for great neighborhoods, is that what it's called? Sounds right. Something to that effect, which the RPC has supported communities with that. So helping adjust local zoning to support better housing, which we have implemented some recommendations from there. Absolutely. We have a previously an unselected grant for the bylaw modernization fund that was submitted around, I think implementing some of those great zoning for the great neighborhoods. That's what I'm gonna call it, since you caused that. Some of those lower hanging fruit for the city too. So that's a helpful document. Yeah, keep in mind as you get one of those state grants that that can be used to match some of our funding. So that can be the local match. So you can leverage that. That can provide the 20% and we can provide another 80% on top of that. That much of an effort you were looking at doing. That's good to know. Thank you. Are there any questions, comments from members of the public? Again, you can use the chat or raise hand if you are attending my Zoom. If you're in person, you can raise a fiscal hand. Is there anything staff wanna add? Go ahead. Can I just ask a question I see and hear going back to public engagement and racial equity that it sounds like your policy outreach the public participation plan is going to be updated in FY23 and I was just wondering a little bit about that process. That was probably a little wishful thinking before we formed our equity advisory committee. That does need to happen at some point. At the moment, I don't think it's really a highest priority for the equity advisory committee. So we'll have some more conversations as they're kind of working on their priorities and we're working with them to see if that does come up. And there may be some components to it like we have a stipend policy but that may be something that they targeted early on. So I don't know, I'm gonna say FY23, FY24. At what this point before that gets updated? Are you able to share what some of the other priorities that have arisen are? There's some of them are very basic like just having some sort of DEI statement as an organization or a code of conduct. And the other priority I think that the committee members of Rural Monetary is to work with us on how we do community engagement and try to improve some of those processes. So that's my early sense of priorities could change. Thank you. Okay, anything else? I thank you for your leadership in those areas too. Thank you for coming in. Yeah, thank you. All right. So we are on to item B. This is on for Discussional Approval of Political Sign Procedure, Elaine. Yes, give me one minute for the, maybe that mic is not meeting. So, hopefully that does it. So, yes, the current political sign and actually any signage policy in the city is in ordinance section 12.02, which reads, it's very short, don't worry. No person shall post any show bills, advertisements or paper or paint any signed advertisement or notice or post any political signs on any public building, fence, posts, stone, tree or walk or on any other natural or artificial object within a public right of way within the city except as maybe permitted by the city council. And if you're not familiar, right of way usually means right by the road. There's slightly different widths for every road, which is confusing and not helpful, but that's how things are. So, for historical reasons. To the best of my knowledge, the city council has not provided any general approvals for signs and council did express interest in considering such a, you might call it a blanket approval. I would, based on some feedback I got today for requests that you actually not make a decision tonight because current candidates are rather preoccupied tonight and might have wanted to weigh in and aren't able to tonight. But certainly, if you'd like to have a discussion in the council packet, I'd provided some possible ways to consider if you did want to approve what conditions might make sense. And I'll add that, oh well, I have another piece of input to add to the mix once you've gotten going. Thank you, Elaine. I also wanted to share just for historic context. When I ran for mayor in 2018, 2019, that mayor before me and the one before had shared that this ordinance, like don't put your signs in public areas, but that historically, it had kind of been ignored for the two weeks leading up to the campaign. But there had never been like any formal thing saying like we can or can't. Saying that you can. There has always been a formal thing saying that you cannot. I think, I also know that several years ago, staff were removing signs in accordance with the ordinance. My assumption is that has kind of fallen off because of the staffing capacity we have in priorities. So I think we saw a lot of, if you fell for it before with a lot of comments on there, I think that it's been applied, it feels like an inconsistent application to people, but it's, that's not. On purpose. Right, and I will say a staff said that in the past, the staff would remove at the direction of the city manager. So given that you've had an interim for, had an interim for a year, that was probably not high on the party list. Oh, can we bring over Michael Bryan, please? He is one of the former mayors I mentioned. Good evening, Mike. Bear. Good evening. Sorry, I had to. I can't hear you. You can't hear me? Can you hear me now? Just a moment, Mike. We have to fix our speaker. Okay, try again. Can you hear me now? No. Let me see. Mike, it's not you. We can all hear you just fine on Zoom. There's an in council chamber speaker that may not be picking you up. Just give it just a minute here. Sure. Can you hear me now? Great. So yeah, thanks for letting me speak. I noticed you strategically had me on mute while Charlie was on, so I didn't say anything during that one, which is fine. You're right, Christine, but I think historically what we've kind of said was the weekend before the election, leave them alone. Not so much two weeks. I'm not sure there was really a time span, but my recollection is it was pretty much the weekend before. Just let them put the signs out and don't worry about it. But up until that point, yeah, we didn't allow it. And I wouldn't say that we were aggressive in removing signs because I think most people understood that. It's mostly, I guess, the statewide folks who maybe stick them in the public rights of way. And I would suggest that you continue with that kind of policy. Let the signs, if they go out the weekend before, that's fine, because it's only a few days. But as you saw in the traffic circle, all the signs that went out was, to my opinion, was kind of crazy, but anyway. So that's kind of the history. We had talked about it a number of times and never felt it was appropriate to change the ordinance. Thank you, Mike. I knew it was a short window, but I couldn't remember quite what I had heard. Yeah, and again, my recollection, it was like the weekend before, but I think there was a little flexibility there. All right, thanks for that. Yeah. Do y'all have other questions? Not questions. I mean, I think I've heard a variety of different opinions on this from Port Form to Twitter to in person. I do believe that putting up a political sign, even though however many politicians myself included think that they're probably a waste of money and bad for the environment. People buy them and a lot of people want to see them. And it is a way for some candidates to get their name out. Not everybody is good. Some people may be very civically minded, but they're not necessarily good at knocking on doors, for example. Personally, I think that the two week or the weekend before Mark could be something that's appropriate for a campaign season. I do like the idea of limiting how many signs each person could put up. And I also feel like there needs to be some more understanding over what is a public right of way. Like I know one person had a sign removed from what technically is Winooski city property. They have a yard, there's a walkway, and then there's more grass. They've put their sign there and that got removed. I can see how somebody would consider that their yard. I don't really see the city needing probably to use that patch of land in which a sign couldn't be there. But it is a way that people express themselves politically. Thanks, Thomas. One consideration I have is for two weeks that we'd bridge over the Halloween weekend event. So I would say November 1st at the earliest. I don't remember. I think we want to backtrack a date because the elections can happen at different times of year. So what is that? Like a week before, I think. A week before. Yeah. That's what you're suggesting. Essentially wanting to avoid the Halloween event weekend that we feature and host. So however that plays out. Or we could just say the Rotary is off limits. In that designation, if we were to do something formal. Yeah. That could be an easier option. Because there will be week square Halloween would be the week before. Not only in terms of safety, that might be a good idea too. It seems timely then. There was one idea to ban all park property altogether including the right of way around a park. So I'll share my thoughts on this. I think these, I see these signs all the time. They blow off, those spikes get left behind and it's dangerous. And when we're having signs put in the public right away when you give someone a sign, someone volunteers to take your sign, they take on the onus of monitoring that. When they're being put in the public rights of way nobody's responsible for that. The onus then actually comes to the city because that's our land. We don't really have the capacity to take care of that nor should we. So I think that I find challenging. I am also not a fan of, I think to what Elaine shares in the memo or the cover sheet tonight, this conveyance of endorsement. But I also personally think that if you want to put signs out there then you should be willing to go talk to constituents in your town and get supporters to put them out for you. I think allowing people to put signs all over public spaces, sure it gets your name out but I think it does a disservice to incentivizing people to actually talk to their community members. I can be swayed on something but my two cents are that. There's any other thoughts? I think again thinking about the historical context some of what I've heard is yeah, it wasn't so much of an issue until the last couple of years which is why it hasn't necessarily risen to the level of really being put in front of the council. So yeah, I don't know if that's just like our current political climate too which is what it is. Yeah. I'm also a fan of the suggestion to not make a decision this evening to give one more chance for input. We're gonna add something Elaine. Yeah, so the fire chief and the police chief who have been here among the longer of our employees remember a time in front of the school when it was extremely populated with signs one year. So it hasn't occurred at least one other time. Gotcha. Yeah. I guess my one other thought is kind of tied to the like the 15 feet which is just yeah, thinking back to their some houses or... 50 feet? 50 feet. Okay. Sorry. 50 feet between each yeah, thinking about some houses slash multi unit buildings who might like their yard is in the public right away. So I don't know, maybe some of that could be and maybe mine's more of a question is like, what you said it's different for each street. Is there any like summary of kind of what that looks like in different places? Yeah, there was a suggestion among staff to publicize a like a map of where exactly it is. And it could be not very intelligible but you could blow it up and maybe see your street. And yeah, the map already exists. So I'm sorry, the data already exists. So it's a matter of mapping it which shouldn't be that big of a lift. Okay. But yeah, given that it's not the same, I think that's important. So people are not, people are provided clarity if they do wanna make sure they're following what the role is. Right, cause I could see if there was say someone whose property was or what they thought was their property but was actually in the right of way and their neighbor and say both of them put the same sign out but it wasn't 50 feet apart. This, that potential proposal could have an adverse effect for someone who wanted those signs taken down for whatever reason. Right. So I think that was my one concern but overall I think these are reasonable for both public safety reasons as well as not overburdening city staff. Jimmy, you had something? Yeah, I do wanna support. I think we should find a way to allow this and to formalize it and to say what is and is not allowed. I think it's a public square and that we have, this is one way that people can speak in that square, especially since we as a city don't convene or haven't in a while convened candidate forums in the public that provides access on an equal footing for all candidates. And this for city council races, we used to do that. I think it's just another access to the public forum. I think it should be time-bounded and really clear what you can and cannot do. Even thinking about right of way is on streets that don't have sidewalks. It's very unclear where your yard ends and the public right of way begins. So I think it'd be great to see what feels workable to the city staff to explain to residents and what feels good in terms of timing. I think if we can make it work for some period of time, proceeding in an election, I think that's worthwhile. And I also agree with your sentiment mayor that folks who wanna have their name out there before that window starts, really, there is a way to do that. And it's talking to neighbors and asking for them to support you through adding the sign. And I think that's a hard thing to ask the first time because it's easier after that. And it's something you gotta do if you're gonna campaign. Or represent people. Are there any more public comments? I had a question about the enforceability piece. Is that something that would make sense to discuss now? Do you have a recommendation? Enforceability. So that's where the 50 feet came from because I was thinking about, or we were discussing, well, the 50 feet and then there's an and in there. So for the public's benefit, proposed condition was if we receive a complaint that signs are less than 50 feet apart. Because it's not reasonable for us to just drive around constantly and measure. That's just not enforceable. But if someone calls it in, there's something very specific staff can use to say, okay, yes, these are more than 50 feet apart or not 50 feet apart. And then that was a sense of like, then that block. So they're not just going all the way down the street. A block seems so unmanageable in the city. So as proposed, that seemed to be enforceable to staff. But of course, open to other ideas. We did not think of everything, I'm sure. We have a public comment. If we could bring it over to Ian, please. Can you, can you ask me? We can, yeah. I just want to say that I disagree with what was signed on public rights away. I don't think the city should be willing to comment on freeing and stuff. I think that I'll just like it and know it is much better. I think if you want to be lenient in an informal way, it seems like it has been in the past. That seems like a bad way to have it and changing it and then making all these fine, you know, maybe you will still do the first set. But yeah, that's not a two cents. Thank you. Thank you. Clarification. So my understanding or my impression is that we're more or less creating a procedure that the staff would follow rather than changing the ordinance. Is that accurate? Yes, that's what I was suggesting. Because the ordinance provides for with approval, it does not say specific approval for each candidate at each election. So in my mind a blanket approval that lays out procedures that we wouldn't just then follow administratively is managed, you know, that was manageable. That would be a way forward. Okay. All right. Well, it sounds like we will revisit this maybe the next meeting or one after future meeting. And we can either consider these recommendations from staff with some of the details that have come up tonight or not changing anything or something else. Is it possible to issue a fine for any signs that are left over in terms of enforceability? We actually could. So this is, this will be a civil offense. Chapter one of the ordinances provides for fines. So if it, my feeling is you would leave it up to staff to decide whether, you know it was a number of times and it was egregious or like somebody was told in a previous campaign and kept doing it, then we would start talking about, well, you know, we can assess fines for that. Based on the past, I wouldn't anticipate us needing to do that and it feels very sketchy for us to venture down that. But if it got to a point, you know, there is that ability to go back to chapter one with the civil offense of fines. Okay, everyone good with tabling for next? I just have one question. Rules for signs for tomorrow are different at the polling place, correct? Yes. So we'd be following the Secretary of State rules for signs around polling places. Okay. Let's move on to item C. We actually have some guests here today. The Lot 9 Manuski hotel group here to present a product overview. Some of our members, I think, what was it February 2021 last time that we had you folks in so we have some new members here. We don't have enough seating however. And do you want to introduce yourselves for the full council? Sure. My name is Adam Dubroff. I'm with Manuski hotel group and this is Dave Marshall from CEA Vermont. Enough said, all set. Thank you. Thank you for having us here and before I get going I just want to congratulate the soccer team again for their victory. That's something for the community to celebrate very special to win a state championship. I'm a fan. So thank you for having us here. And so we were last in front of council in February of 2021. And there were a variety of issues that were identified that we've worked on. And it's been great to have Elaine here working, getting to know each other. And Dave met with Elaine and John Rauscher a week ago, about a week ago to work on things. So we're making progress and very excited about building in Manuski, creating jobs, local jobs and bringing a lot more economic activity to the downtown area. We'll create about 25 to 30 jobs, long-term jobs available for local residents and about a hundred short-term construction jobs. And should spin off, again, a lot of business for the community. And in your packets, there was some historic information that I shared with you that there've been multiple hotels at this site since the 1800s, the Brunswick Hotel and the Deluxe Hotel, or a few of the names changed a long way, but there's a long history of hospitality in Manuski and look forward to continuing that. And very good, again, Dave Marshall. One thing I've had the benefit of being involved with the city since 1999 on the Downtown Development Project and have the ability to bring forward a little bit of background in regards to how certain things occurred as the downtown was developed, at least in planning stages, permitting stages in construction. And there are two small lots. So one of them is the associated with lot nine, this particular application for the new hotel. Another is lot eight. So if you can see in your mind the Champlain Mill and looking from Burlington into the city, on the left-hand side, as you come in across the bridge, that's, of course, this particular lot nine. And it's a very small lot. There's also another lot eight on the northeast corner of the Champlain Mill between the Mill and Abneck Way. And those two lots were specifically created to control the size of the building that would be sighted there, specifically from the division of historic preservation of the state. They wanted to make sure that however the downtown was developed was that it was done in a way that it didn't overburden or overwhelm the historic nature of the Champlain Mill. So with that, we, the city, as part of the development program, created these two lots with specific intent that there wouldn't be any on-site parking, that there would be primarily just buildings and that supporting parking would be done at the Cascades garage across the street. So that's at least the historical context. And the types of land uses that can go in those locations are, they can be varied. Or in this particular case, the original property owner of lot nine, pizza gallery properties, had entered into agreement with the city with the understanding that it just couldn't be a standalone lot by itself. That it needed assistance, needed the resources that the city had as part of the downtown project in order for it to be successful. So with that, there were goals and expectations of both parties. And at this point, we're just trying to get over the goal line with regard to the last features that are necessary in order to basically allow this project to move forward. So with that, Elaine's been awesome. She's been great as far as access and communications. And we're really happy that she's here. It's allowed for a new light at the end of the tunnel, perhaps in regards to trying to address the last of the issues here. And I guess all we would like the city council to do is perhaps assist Elaine's efforts in making sure that we can gain access when John again has been great as far as access. But again, there are a number of legal issues. Obviously one where there's a lawsuit against the city on behalf of the applicant, just trying to get the city's cooperation in access to the city's attorney to allow for some of these items to be squared away. So I think that's really the big picture as far as how we come before you. We're very comfortable with the technical issues as far as the application. There are obviously some logistical issues between parking as well as some of the land use components around the parcel itself. Some of these are very easily managed based on perhaps templates the city's already used or it's gonna require some heavier lifting. But at this point in time, we've gotten again really nice work recently from Elaine and John and now we're just trying to get more of the city's team involved with your permission in order to allow us to get to that next level. Well, I'm pleased to hear that you're having a good experience working with our new manager and we're certainly happy to have her leading this work now. I would, so we actually have in our packet in the cover sheet for counsel's reference, there's the link to the memo from the February 16th meeting. Those are the items that Elaine and staff are working through with them. I would not comment or ask questions about any of those this evening, given the pending litigation. But if you all have questions more generally about the project and wanna learn more about that while we have the group leaders here tonight, that would be appropriate. I will ask about these renderings because I cannot recall. Are these the same ones that we had seen previously or has anything changed about the design? This is the same. I think it's the same, yes. Can you provide a refresher on any any intent for affordable housing in this space? It's just a seven room hotel. Yeah, this one's just straight up hotel. Elaine, is there anything that you wanna add or? No, I think between what your comments and what they've provided, it sums up where we are. Okay. I guess one question I had is just thinking about potential jobs and just making sure that we'd be paying a livable wage for this area. Absolutely. Wanna be the preferred employer in the area and part of that is paying a good wage and making it a good place to work. And I will say I have experience hiring a lot of high school students, so first jobs. So we'll continue doing this. We have a couple of questions from the public. Paul, I didn't catch the order. Start with Sarah, Sarah, and I'll bring you over. You good? Hi, Sarah. Hi. Yeah, I just wanted to ask, is there written documentation going back to the statement about the lots or size that there would be no parking? So I think as far as the ability to park on those lots, it's just, it's intuitive that there would not be space for any surface parking at those particular locations. But there is written documentation as you sort of referenced there. There is nothing that says you can't park on those particular parcels. Okay. Thank you, Sarah. Did you have anything else? No, I think that's good, thanks. Okay. I'll bring over Dallas next. Hi, kind of following up on the parking thing. If you are somebody who's coming to stay at the hotel and you are driving over from the next state and they come and stay at that hotel, where is that customer gonna put their car? We would offer valet parking at the hotel and the location of that is something we're gonna work out with the city. Hopefully, yeah, sure. Be nearby. But I think that's one thing that really creates a nuance here in Vermont. We're not used to valet parking, except in very, very, very special circumstances. And most hotels you go to in Vermont, there's no such thing. But here, because specifically the design of the parcel, it doesn't allow for parking, doesn't leave room, I should say, for parking on that parcel. It basically means that there is going to be the need for some communication, whether it be somebody walking to a parking spot, whether it be in the garage of some other location. In this particular case, Adam's bringing to the fold this particular valet concept. It's one that's in old, deep city, the middle of cities that I utilize because that's the most convenient thing to do. Here, this is going to be part of the program in order to basically work best within the city's resources as far as where parking spaces are available. So it creates flexibility in regards to, again, working literally hourly within each day in regards to how to manage parking spaces based on their availability. So I think that's a dynamic that's very hard for people to recognize as part of a product here in Vermont, but nonetheless, it's one that the very design of this particular parcel really lends itself to almost requiring. Did you have anything else to tell us? No, I'm sorry, I just started coughing. No, no worries. Are there any other public comments? Quick question. From the rudder, it's hard to tell where the entrance, hotel entrance is. Like I can see where some of the vendor retail space might be, but it's difficult to. It's in the northeast corner of the building. Off the patio sidewalk area. Okay, so looking at it from the circle, it would be on. Left. Okay, on the left. Just a curiosity on the rendering. You've put, it looks like your restaurant cafe in the front, why not looking at the river? There would be some space in the lobby area that would look out that way as well. That would allow people to be indoor or outdoor. I think that's all for the questions. Is there anything else that you want to make sure you share this evening? Don't just, you know, want to create a hospitality experience consistent with what's going on in Winooski and the same kind of feel in a hospitality setting to be very well received. So thank you for having us. Yeah, thank you for making the effort to come in and refresh us as this is moving forward. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Thanks for your time. Thanks, John. Okay, let's move on to item D. This is on for discussion of approval. The 21C grant memorandum of understanding and application. Is Ray in our virtual world? I'm here. There he is. Yes, how's it going? Good, how are you? Good. Here with a proposal for MOA, a memorandum of agreement between the city and the school district for the next five year cycle of the 21C grants through the agency of Ed. This is a grant. Now this will be our third five year block that we've applied for in partnership with the school. It is a school grant that we are kind of co-applicants on and we bring match to the equation to kind of increase the amount of the city collectively can draw down to support youth programming. So hopeful tonight to get authorization to have the city manager approve this as part of the grant application process when the time comes for a signature. This grant's not due until February, so we're doing some early work to try to knock off some of the pieces that are more administrative in nature and Suzanne and I are meeting almost weekly at this point to do grant writing over the course of the next couple of months. So just trying to get this in front of you all and get any questions asked out and be able to move forward from that. Thanks, happy to see this longstanding successful collaboration likely continue. Questions from council? I have a question. Sure. Ray, thanks for the presentation and the summary. I'm curious about the memorandum as it relates to city responsibilities. Sure, let's scroll down to that. So the first bullet is well-trained high-quality staff for all city run out of school programs. Can you provide a little bit more detail as to how that is staffed? Yeah, sure. So it as it flows a little bit year to year depending on the programs we're running. One of the programs we run as part of our match is the thrive program. So that has regulatory requirements around what staff have in the way of credentials to be eligible to work in that program as a regulated program. So that's one piece where there's kind of a clear definition of what that kind of high-quality well-trained staff means. Then we're also running programs through our recreation department as well as through our library. So at this point, primarily that is our recreation program manager, Robin, our rec assistance and our AmeriCorps member in the rec department. So that could be any one of the three of them, again, depending on what else we've got going on at the time that the program we're offering is running. Because we usually run a few programs a year with 21C. And again, those are gonna vastly depending on what's popular, what kids are interested in, what the school has kind of identified as gaps. So some examples of what we're doing right now. We're just today wrapped up a field hockey program that Robin and Maruna were running. We've got a Pokemon club that's running now at the library that was kind of a community generated idea. We've supported a Dungeons and Dragons group in the past through the library. We've done an after-school soccer program. So it's really kind of a variety of different things. And we will kind of deploy staff according to availability and kind of interest. A couple of follow-up questions. One is do you, how do you manage any challenges to workforce capacity and attracting workforce to meet the needs of the programs? Yep. So I would say it's not really a different issue than we kind of struggle up against, regardless of the funding source for the program, honestly. Right now, we're down staff on the rec side of the equation for sure with two AmeriCorps physicians that are still vacant. I will report we had an interview today. So English Cross there, but that's a program that seemed really low enrollment. So it really then becomes a matter of scaling and adjusting our offerings to what we have for staff on board. And in some cases that means prioritizing areas where we have grant funding or outside funding that obligates certain deliverables. So it might mean we don't run an adult-based program during a session when we have a 21C program that we need to run to meet the grant obligations. So again, we have some degree across the department in terms of scalability of other things that we're doing. But ideally, we're working to get fully staff so that we can kind of hit all those marks. And then I'm curious how much of the staffing is overlaps with school staffing. Can you elaborate on that question a little bit? So for after-school programs, is there like a ballpark or percentage you could say where staffing for the after-school programs is- Oh, folks that work during the school day. Right, at the school during the school day. Yep, yep. So for our Thrive team, again, which is part of our match for this grant, I would say right now it's about 50-50. It's about 50% of our Thrive staff work during the school day as paraeducators primarily. Within our REC department, it would be nobody on our REC team is working at the school and that's been pretty typical. And then within the broader 21C kind of environment, including the school run programs, most of the school run programs are supported by school-based staff. So that's both teachers and IAs. So Suzanne runs a whole sort of 70% of the grant essentially and we run about 30% of the grant in terms of programming. And most of the school side is supported by teachers and IAs from the school. Okay, all right. That's all really helpful information. Thank you. Yeah, no worries. Do you have any other questions? Any public comment? Okay, does somebody wanna make a motion to approve the 21C grant? No random understanding and application. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Bryn. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, Ray. Excellent, thank you. For clarity in the minutes, are you authorizing me to sign it? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Elaine. Okay, we are on to item E. This is on for discussion or approval, awarding COVID-19 recovery nonprofit grants. Yeah, so at Council September 6th meeting, you approved this grant program for nonprofits, helping the community recover from COVID-19. The Safe, Healthy, Connected People Commission is the grant review committee. 11 applications were received. They recommended four nonprofits to receive the maximum and a second tier, also at maximum, in case you wanted to consider additional criteria. Back to you. Okay, and I think you had a note in here about this. To confirm, my recollection of our previous discussion when we awarded some funds to the food shelf was that that would be deducted from any future award. So we are all in agreement about that. So if we were to take these recommendations, we would be giving them 5,000. I do wanna raise a question since you were there for this discussion. Like, looking at these criteria and thinking back to our intent, you know, we've got organization made change in response to COVID and service of Winooski residents and our intent from our discussion was that we would be awarding this funding, prioritizing organizations that had addressed and were continuing to address pandemic impacts. So like, that's one of the reasons we had given some money already to the food shelf and formerly to the Congolese community because they were doing that work. And so I was surprised in here to see that the site for Kids Foundation actually had the highest score when I, it doesn't read to me like that is what that work is, like that there's a connection. And I want to know, I wasn't there at the 11-1 meeting at school because I had another obligation, but I was at the other one. So I'm not super clear on that one, but I did share and hoping to kind of understand as yeah, thinking about the direct COVID issues, kind of both past, present and future. I think a lot of things can be argued to be kind of indirect related to COVID, but the intention of this, these grants were really to help folks that are addressing kind of those direct causes and those kind of gaps related to COVID. Okay. And in the commission's defense, so when it came up when Aurora mentioned in the previous meeting, I think all of us looked at it and was like, oh yeah, it's not actually in the criteria, but these are the criteria. So they spent their time and work using the criteria with the understanding that you might make a different decision because there is still that overall intent, which was not in the criteria. I could see how it could have been better captured. And oversight on my part as a draftee. I mean, did other folks feel that way reading through these or am I alone in that assessment? I'll stop, I'll stop, let someone else talk for a minute. Did you have something? No, I'm mulling. Okay. I was like, you can strike me at the time, but. I definitely, my impression of the intent also feeling like there wasn't as much of an uptake on the private for-profit funding opportunities. So we were pivoting to offer grant funding for nonprofits that the focus was on COVID impacts and that the money that we received from the federal government was in response to COVID impacts and kind of staying true to that. Yeah, and I will say kind of in that second tier that they offered, I was definitely very impressed with both H-Well and pathways of kind of thinking about organizations that have been doing a lot of work and continue to do a lot of work in the community. H-Well really thinking about both connectedness and also food insecurity, which is something that we have acknowledged, especially with the food shelf, with the Methodist Church, and with pathways, specifically thinking about both housing and mental health. One thing that I noted in the H-Well one is that they're talking about having a kind of team specifically able to do, this is for H-Well, the new American outreach and service coordinators. So it definitely felt like with all of those, they're meeting needs, both current and I think increasing needs related to the pandemic. I would agree. If I could follow up. So the commission and Ray, go ahead and chime in here as the usual staff person for the commission. I was certainly at the last two meetings in previous ones. So there was some discussion among the commission about whether H-Well had capacity to deliver on this grant on their own or if they would need cooperation from city staff. So not to say that I would, if you wanted to award that with that caveat, that's all I'm, I would suggest that's how you could address that concern if that was one that you were inclined to award already. Ray, would you? Yeah, and I think just to build on that, I think for my recollection of that conversation with the commission, I think there were just sort of more questions that we wanted to ask about the sustainability of that program too. It's a program that we used to run pre COVID that is a pretty heavy lift in terms of just staff costs and inputs. And I think I'm just concerned that a one-time $10,000 grant may not be enough to sustain that in a meaningful way over time. And so I think just wanted to get some more information about the long-term plan for sustaining that program if we were to invest up front. It's a great program. We were sad to see it go with COVID, but I think just wanna make sure there's a good plan long-term to keep it going. I have to follow up on what Aurora said. I think I was kind of surprised to see that pathways didn't fall into that first tier because I think at least from what we've seen in the news and red homelessness and mental illness were greatly impacted from COVID, things that were already very exasperated in resources beforehand and COVID made it so much worse. So I think I would consider that maybe more than some of the things of the first tier applicant. Can you explain why turning point was scored lower? So the, I mean, the score sheet cumulative are in there. So they didn't discuss it at length, but they were in agreement that it was not among the top two tiers. So for the criteria listed, that they just didn't rank the very high. I'm, yeah, I guess that's curious to me since it relates to substance abuse. Substance abuse, which we know impacts our community and that we, you know, have a strong partnership with Howard Center for additional services through the police department for. Oh, and I wanted to ask how age well got a 0.5. There was one person who was like one or two. So I put it in as a 0.5 in the cumulative. We didn't say they couldn't do that, so. I suppose that's true. To ask a question about dream, kind of switching gears. I'm kind of surprised that they were in the deny category. Is there a reason for that? Given that on the kind of core program delivery, they were 10, nine and 10. Well, yeah, so for the bottom tier, frankly, there wasn't a ton of conversation because it was so clear to them that the top tier and then there was more discussion than they're on the second tier. They were just in agreement on the bottom tier. They all did their scoring individually before they came to the meeting. And the meeting was, I think, two hours. So at that point, we were like, okay, you don't have to keep discussing if it's obvious to all of you. So it's confusing to me because in terms of programmatic impact, it is the second highest ranking proposal. It just scores low because of lack of BIPOC ownership or board leadership. As I read the scoring, it's a 10, nine, 10, one, which is more in terms of program delivery, it's scoring higher. So is that, was it dismissed out of hand because of the low cumulative score or is there something wrong with the delivery that they're proposing? It wasn't discussed, so it really was the cumulative. And for them, they were looking at them all together. So somehow for them, it just ranked in a bottom tier compared to the other two. I think that's a fair thing to bring up though because I, okay, we made this criteria through discussion. I feel like them getting knocked because the leadership of the organization, it seems like it's over-weighted. Well, I don't want to replace any liability in trying to make it determined or making a funding determination based on that solely. So I would raise that just not as an issue that necessarily problematic or wrong, but problematic in the legal context. And I'm looking at their proposal, it seemed like a decent program supporting youth mentoring in Elm Street seems like a worthwhile program for us to go with, but so I just maybe ask for reconsideration either by the council or by the commission for that one if we do open up another round. So one thing that hasn't been discussed yet is options to provide partial funding and not the full amount requested. We could do different combinations. So if we already have agreed as council that if we were to move forward with United Methodist, they would receive a partial funding, but that there's an alternative that we can consider as well. On that tone or whatever that pathway of thinking, I would suggest awarding the 5,000 to food shelf and the full award to Somali Bantu and parents and students project. And then digging in that there's 15,000 then remaining discuss like how to spread that across the top tiers. Yeah, I was wondering and maybe to consider H-Well differently and what something I was thinking with both H-Well and pathways would be possibly to give them 7.5 each. I have a question with all respect to our commissions. I forget how much we were bound by their decision because it really sounds like, okay. We're not. I just want to give them that respect. It's an informed recommendation that we do want to respect. Just because it sounds like dream and turning point do have some interest in council. So I don't know if we want to. Well, I will say that the next item on the agenda is to talk about funding a second round. And I will say the bureaucrat and me which is such a terrible thing to be able to say but the bureaucrat and me has to point out that turning point came in half an hour after the deadline. The commission was like, that's not a big deal which I feel like conceptually shouldn't be but hoping it just clears the whole deck and be like, don't even worry about that. Maybe they're just so strapped with resources it was hard for them to get out. They did have a brand new development director who turned it in. So yeah, certainly other considerations there. I would request that council considered allocation for awardees now without the consideration of the next item on the agenda. So you want to first allocate what we've already allocated to the people who applied and then talk about the second funding round? I would say consider them separate topics, yeah. And then if we do partial they can always reapply to try to get to that 10,000. Do they have to reapply or can they just be reconsidered? Or reconsidered. Could be reconsidered, I would say. So it's up to you. I would not make somebody feel out. Maybe they just let us know they'd like to be reconsidered. Yeah, I mean I would support, okay. Pathways Age Well, CBO, EO are the second tier. So I would, I don't know, I'm gonna say five grand or four. So 5,000 to United Methodist, full amount to Somali. Yeah. Somali community. And then, so that's 15. Full amount to parents and students. Mieski parents student project. And that would leave another 10 to be slid. Don't we have 40, I'm working with 40,000. Yeah, so I think it would be another 15. 15, yeah. Maybe I just need a reiteration on the age well situation. It seems like any money that we give them, it sounds like there's gonna be a substantial lift from the city as well. Or not, I don't know that we can say that for a fact. It's our suspicion, but we would check with them. We would want to be able to check with them before awarding them. Or yeah. Yeah, I did think CBOO is a bigger organization, but they're also, what I really noted with them was do, was the work that they're doing towards housing. And housing was definitely kind of top of mind looking through some of these as well because of the current need and the fact that I think we can argue that that's a direct, or COVID had an effect on that. Especially around securing housing. Elaine, would it be appropriate for us to adjust criteria at this meeting? Or is that something we'd wanna do later because it's not explicit that we were, that's not an explicit agenda thing? I guess it would depend on the criteria. I'd say that the COVID intent to me was like overtly implied by the name, by the purpose, but everything except the criteria. So if you wanted to add that, that feels fair game. Like if I was reading it from the public, I'd say okay, well it wasn't the criteria, but clearly this is what it was about. If it was something that was off and left field, I would suggest that it's not very fair and you might want to make it part of a second round or suggest that safe, healthy, connected can sort of that in a second round for guidelines. If you go in that direction for the next agenda item. Okay. I'll point out, I think CDOEO and pathways provide very similar services and half funding each seems like we're not really fully supporting either. So if we're interested in fully supporting, I think we should pick one personally. They provide slightly different services, but very similar. And consider the other one in the second round if that comes up. I feel like pathways was the only one that was doing mental health supports in the group. Well, turning point is addiction services, which I would consider related. I'm only talking about the top two tier selections. I'm expanding since we're allowed to consider additional options as a council. Yeah, but pathways does also support addiction. I think something I noticed too on their websites, they also offer training. I know that as well, but they have diversity and inclusion committee. So it seems like they're taking that into consideration. Yeah, I think similar pathways and turning point do offer similar, but slightly more specific. And pathways offers a housing program and a support line. Yeah. CDOEO does housing, turning point does mental health and addiction supports. So I think, again, you pick two, pick one. Yeah, yeah. And doesn't mean we can't consider the others in the second round. I mean, what's the depth of detail on services that each provide to our residents? I found pathways to be somewhat thin and that it's a county service. It's not very specific to Winooski. I think probably because they don't have that data that they could have included. I did have a question about that. Not having a specific data on Winooski service. I guess for me as a secondary element is like, when reviewing the applications, I try to differentiate how much direct services are happening for Winooski residents versus like generally. And it is, I did find that hard to tease out in a number of the applications. There was a criteria that the state public and active people evaluated on. That's what a criteria really touches on. So yeah, it looks like they thought pathways did have that compared to turning point. I thought we were comparing pathways and CDOEO. Actually, they both scorned both pathways and CDOEO on reasonably related to service provided to Winooski residents, so. I will say CDOEO has demographic data on their Winooski residents served. And Pathways statement is that they, this is very broad. I mean, there are certainly things that will be issues in Winooski, but it's not as delineated as CDOEO, so I would prefer CDOEO over Pathways personally based on their two applications. I just like having some confidence is that the organizations know how much services they're providing to Winooski. So in that regard, I would agree with Councilor Duncan. Are we suggesting a 10K award to CDOEO? I'd be comfortable with that. And then we still have $5,000 that we could distribute. What one way to think about it is what services haven't been addressed yet? Housing, mental health and addiction, food access, New American support. Thank you, they're still missing. Not more than Winooski Parents and Students Project. Somewhat, but I think we'll stream it, but for kids provide that kind of direct youth mentoring support towards the Winooski Parents and Students Project, we're trying to fix the systemic issues that impact negatively certain students and parents. We might take on it. That's right. I think that's true. And I'm struggling with this, but we have Fight for Kids Foundation who ranked top from our commission, who provide youth services. And then we have the DREAM program that they didn't put in the top two tiers. But reading through it feels to me like DREAM does connect better with the initial intent of COVID impacts and has also established a priority location, I would say. And so maybe, I could be on board with awarding them 5,000 and then maybe reconsidering Fight for Kids in a second round before reconsidering the intent. I could go either way though. Awesome, I was first looking through them. I kind of, my idea with DREAM was it does seem like it's meeting some really needed, including around ELL. And I was thinking I think 5,000 to them would be, have a big impact too. And they're already established. Yeah. Versus a new thing that would probably require more than financial support. And I think that the work that DREAM does can be correlated to impacts from COVID. Mentorship wasn't able to happen during COVID because people weren't able to visit people that they didn't live with. And there's a direct correlation to that. And the many things that we hear about of test scores going down, students not feeling connected to their communities. And I think DREAM works within those parameters. So do we want to award 5,000 to DREAM, 5,000 to food shelf United Methodist, and then 10,000 each to CDOEO, Somali Bantu organization and the Muruski parents and students project? Does someone want to make a motion? So moved. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Thomas. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Do we also want to update the criteria? Somehow more clearly state the intention is to address COVID impacts. I believe that would be the second agenda item. We're in the second agenda item then. Item E, item F, item F. Round two. So you did ask the commission, the Safe Healthy Connected People Commission, which is serving as a grant review committee for recommendation as to whether to open a second grant round without specifying amount. And they did vote yes on that. So back to you. Yeah, okay, so I mean, I feel, I think we do, right? I think I've already heard that. But we're not interested in this. I'm not interested. Okay. Then let's backtrack. Oh, sorry, one more thing. They asked to be allowed to give input on the criteria. Okay. So we had some experience this time. So I won't have a criteria discussion. If we were to move forward, we could let them and then we could get their input and then decide if we make changes, if we were, if we voted to have a second round. I did want to ask, I think we allocated $100,000 to business grants, but we didn't spend that. True. How much should we have left in that pool? Angela, are you there? So the allocations that you had previously set expired at the end of June. So we'd have to reallocate funding. How much was it before it expired? Do you have that? I don't have that because I was no longer tracking it. Okay. I could look it up. I was just thinking that if you wanted to have a preliminary discussion, again, if you want to at 7.30, you could and we could bring that to the commission. Yeah, okay, let's, how does that feel? Let's not make an approval about a second round at this point, but get the commissions and put on criteria and then have this conversation at a future meeting, at the next meeting. I guess I'm a little torn about that proposal because it presumes that the council will move forward with a second round. I think we should make that decision and then ask for them to do more work. Before making them do it and then we say no. Okay, that's fair. I'm full in support of there's demonstrated need that we have, I think that other nonprofits might be identifying additional needs and we have this funding available. It seems like we should make it available personally. Yeah, I'd be happy to do a second round. I would like it to be at less than the $50,000 though, just given all of our budget discussions, I think that there's lots of needs for that money at this point. Yeah, I feel the same way, which is why, because I don't know. I felt like there was like 30,000 unspent or something in business. I was gonna try to tie it to that, but. I'm very reluctant to allocate additional funding. I think there will always be a request for need from nonprofits, so I don't think it will change regardless of whether or not money is funded from the city of Boonewski or not. I think that for me, looking at our budget constraints and the future of potentially using bridge funding to mitigate tax impacts, to me is a much higher concern. And the availability of one-time funding to support our tax base, to me, is a greater priority. I think that's fair, you're sweating me. And maybe I would want to revisit this after we do our next budget, maybe to the next year. Yeah, I think for me, I would overall be in favor of helping folks that are doing meeting needs around COVID-19, especially where the city isn't able to on the flip side. I do almost wonder if you wanna at least kind of have that discussion about all this ARPA input we've had. And it might be in that input we see that, oh, there is this need and opening up for more nonprofit funding would make sense or we might see a kind of a different pattern in that. So I think that's where I'd be leaning to. Listen to, keep this in mind, especially, because again, there is a need, but probably always be a need. And kind of see how the input, what the input we get is. Okay, that's a good point because I feel like initially we wanted to create this program for emerging needs and then wait until we had more ARPA input. So I think the question for us now is, do we still feel like there's emerging thing we need to address or can we wait a little while to actually review that input? And I think it's worth waiting for actually have more budgetary discussions. Like Councilor Oakley said, there will always be need. I think this gives us a unique opportunity to help some of that need. But there is, there are other tax and budgetary needs that the city has, so I understand the conflict. I mean, I feel a little, we go with the business award or that we put $100,000 aside for businesses that wasn't used and we put out $50,000 for nonprofits that was oversubscribed to put potentially programmed on the ground now as opposed to waiting on budget that we can't start spending for until June. Looking back at it, under minutes, it looks like we only approved four applications of the 80,000 remainings that does leave at least 30,000 left from the business grant. So it looks like Angela may have better numbers. Yes, it is 30,000 remaining. There was 80,000 available for the second round of which 50,000 was cut. You know, six months is maybe a time for a nonprofit to actually help one person in our community. To me, that seems like a worthwhile, these are all one-time funds. So whatever we decided to do with ARPA funds, it's a one-time investment. This is also a one-time investment that gets on the ground faster. That might be important right now. Oh, and when can we expect ARPA survey input session results or summary? That is a good question. So Paul, do you wanna provide an update on where we are with the schools and seniors? Absolutely, yeah. So that essentially, I believe, we'll wrap up the final pieces of the ARPA input. So we have a couple of things lined up with a few more Winnieski Housing Authority buildings, and then we have an event at the senior center on the 11th. And I'm currently working with the school to get some surveys out to the different age groups there. We've got a pretty solid plan lined up with Gabi Ora, the communications director at the school. So I would say we are definitely nearing a corner there and should have a complete set for you in the next couple of months. So not soon. So probably not, but for the end of January. Well, we could potentially get there. I think it depends on how, I mean, definitely with the senior feedback, we'll definitely be finished with that this month. So depending on how quickly we can turn around some of the youth feedback there, I think it'll definitely be moving enough to go off of. Given that there's a lot of holidays and vacations in December, to think to Prince Point, probably early January would be, that would be a, what do you call it? Somewhat, but not too ambitious timeline. Not impossible. And what's, do you happen to know the date that council needs to approve of what moves to the town meeting ballot? Oh, geez. It's the last meeting in January, I think when we vote on the budget. Angel, you've got that on the calendar, right? I should know that by heart. I have the date when we need to vote, and it is at the end of January for the ballot item, for the budget. I don't know if there's a different date for any referendum items. What date are we having the first budget presentation? The first budget presentation will be the first meeting in December, so December 5th. That's what I thought, so the next meeting. Yes. Can we have this discussion at that meeting after we've seen that? Does that feel appropriate? Someone could also make a motion if they wanted to move this forward, and then it either goes or it fails. Clarification question, if I may. Yeah. Would you want input from Safe Health and Connected before then or after then? At the meeting tomorrow. They're meeting tomorrow, so they... But this isn't a warned agenda item, right? No, no, because I think... Okay, what I was thinking is we're gonna get that first budget presentation at our next meeting. That can give us a sense of where we are, and if we then want to make a decision to do some more funds to this program. In which case, we would then ask the commission for more input. That makes more sense to me. It looks like the commission meeting will probably be on December 13th, so that should work out. I feel like it puts it on the same timeline as getting ARPA survey feedback, because we wouldn't really be considering the commission's input for ARPA until January, so... Oh, yeah, because the second meeting is the 12th of December. Which may be fine. So it's... But I think maybe we would just wait to tell the commission to do any work then until we see the ARPA survey results if we're gonna try and follow that pattern. Because I don't think we gain ourselves, I don't think we're just having them do work before we can really utilize the outputs. That's how we're gonna consider it. So I'll move that we approve $30,000 for Safe Health Expected People Commission to consider a new criteria against. There's a motion by Jim. Okay, thank you. Motion fails. So we will revisit this. Okay, we are on to item G. This is a Municipal Infrastructure Commission appointment. So I'll keep this very brief, because it looks like our apocat is in the attendees list. So this is a request to appoint Dallas Wheatley as an alternate Municipal Infrastructure Commission from one year term. So the commission chair and myself had the opportunity to interview Dallas and like to put him for it as one of the new appointments. So it looks like Dallas is in the attendees, if he wants to say a few words. I think you're on Dallas if you wanna introduce yourself officially. Hello everybody, my name is Dallas Wheatley and thank you for having me. Thank you for your interest in our Infrastructure Commission. Are there any questions or concerns from council? No concerns. I wanna mention to council that Dallas did attend as an interested community member the last joint meeting in October with Municipal Infrastructure as well as finance. Excellent. Do I have a motion to approve the appointment of Dallas Wheatley to the Municipal Infrastructure Commission? Second. Second. Motion by Thomas, second by Aurora. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, Elaine, another procedural question for you. Yes. I don't believe I called for public comment during the last two items while we were discussing the COVID grants. And I wonder if I can do that now or if that would be inappropriate. I feel like in the spirit of the intent, yes, go ahead and open it. Okay, so we just had a lengthy conversation about ARPA funding grants to non-profits for COVID recovery. And I neglected to solicit public input. So if anyone who is attending via Zoom had wanted to ask a question or make a comment, you can now. So you could use the chat or the raise hand feature if that is the case. I'll give it a moment. Thank you. So we are on to item H, the legislative priorities, right? Am I in the right order? Yes, okay. Okay, so we have been having a lot of policy discussions as a council and seeing needs that require state or higher intervention in addition to our local efforts. Based on our policy priorities and strategies, what we've been discussing and also some outreach I've done to existing representatives to understand what is likely to come up in the legislature, what VLCT or like the Regional Planning Commission and other leaders that are advocating for. I've drafted this list that would essentially become, could be used as a letter to our legislators. Also guide where we provide testimony on potential legislation. So, and I just wanna state this clearly that it is a narrow set of priorities because the goal is to focus our voice where we could have the most impact. I honestly feel like it could be narrowed down even a little further, but have brought this to you for all of your input, hoping that at the next meeting, I could bring something back to finalize and then we can actually post-election and be able to share that with the folks that are representing us. So with that, I will take any questions or comments. One thing I was thinking with the going around housing and considering it's something that kind of put to our housing commission is to think about doing it or having state level rental registry. Once more be a priority. It was passed last year, but vetoed by Scott. So there's definitely an interest and potential there. So I'd love to see that once more come up because I think it would help both of us as well as, yeah, I think it would be a benefit and go online with kind of what we're looking at already. Thank you for that. So one other thing, which would probably go under, improve access to state services for all remonters. I was talking about narrowing it down, but one thing that I would love to see see when you ski have as a priority. I'm actually thinking back with just our discussion around the grants as kind of support or protection to address the opioid epidemic, treatment and services. I mean, another thing that was, might come up again this session, even though it was vetoed last time would just be to look into, kind of to do a study on safe injection sites. So I think it's one, something that is very much already on the radar and it would be great. And I think would be helpful for when you ski, when you ski residents, just to have us back that or noted as a priority. Thanks, Sarah. And I'm gonna say I would like to get all input and then I'll kind of summarize and see what we wanna move forward with. Clarification on the last item, Councilor. Has legislature approved a study for safe injection sites or are you requesting that they support? They did and it was vetoed. Just a study conducting a study. Just the study, okay. Yep, exactly. So possibly putting just doing the study again. I see. So even as kind of low level as that to get that started. I just wanna highlight that there have been a bunch of meetings about it recently. So I wanted to thank you for adding in the section about evictions. That was based off of the conversation that Councilor Duncan and I have raised. But I also just have a procedural question just so that people understand when this letter is drafted and you say that we'll be handing, will you be giving that letter to the two people who represent our district or will that be a general letter addressed to the legislative body? Generals of the body. So normally I would share it with our reps and Senate but also like the Speaker and Pro Tem could also distribute it to committee chairs actually irrelevant committees where some of these activities have been discussed. I would strongly support giving to chairs especially since there will be a significant amount of turnover this year. Fair point. I want to highlight and emphasize the funding and equitable taxation as it relates to English language learners. Now that there's been quite a bit of work that's gone into that and I do think that that should continue to be one of the highest priorities for Winooski. So I'm glad to see it's ranked number one in here on the list for that. Yeah, I should share that I did, the numbers aren't prioritized in my opinion. So if we were going to call anything that's like where I'm leaning but I obviously we can move that around if needed or I can just share it as a bulleted list in the end format to sort of remove that implication. Good, almost request. You address it here in the energy section continued funding for weatherization I would say that there was a very limited amount of funding for municipalities that was approved this past session and I would request that funding amount be repeated given the demand that is anticipated for that municipal energy project funding and ideally expanded given the new federal allocations that we anticipate for the Inflation Reduction Act. So like asking them to at least maintain if not increase. Correct. The legislature requires us to have a downtown designation organization but they don't fund that. Could we request that the state start to provide some funding towards those organizations? We could, I think it'd be a hard sell since we use that organization to access state grant funding. Can't move them both to say this but in the interest of trimming down on the greenhouse gas emissions one number six I think there's substantial federal assistance in the coming year for municipal tree planting and I don't think it makes sense for us to advocate for a state level funding for that. Okay. Unless it's in the form of a match but I think we could strike that one. I also anticipate state of Vermont has a plan for deploying chargers along interstate highways within I think at least five miles of the quarter. So number three could potentially be paired out as well. That doesn't necessarily address designated downtowns but since we're within five miles of state highways I think that's to our advantage. The entire city is within five miles. Oh, so I don't forget again. Are there any questions or comments from members of the public? Raise hand or chat. I guess I could give a summary too if anyone is like not looking at the packet. The priority areas are focused on housing, climate, equity and taxation and funding and in access to state services. I love, do you know if any other municipalities are requesting the tax revenue from cannabis to go from two to four? It was last biennium requested and it's still included in the VLCT legislation. I did want to check though with the mayor's coalition because I feel like if it's not being advocated for in mass it's not really useful for us to prioritize that. I think it would be great if there are other towns who are asking for the same thing. I'll confirm that. One item I wanted to add on as it relates to energy, number five. So commercial vehicles, incentivizing fleet transition. I want to make sure that that available funding would be for municipalities as well so that as we look to rotate out our aging safety services vehicles and municipal vehicles that we would have, we would also have access to that funding. So wishing we had awarded the contract to an electric fire truck, but maybe the next one. Is there anything else? Okay. Are you reaching the end of this item? Yeah, so I'm going to do a summary. Yeah, if you want to do a summary, I did want to comment on one of the things that we had. Oh, go ahead. Well, I'm asking actually. Do we? That's what I was going to check, yeah. So the suggestions are to add in support for the bringing back the rental registry, legislation, the study for safe injection centers. I think those are the only two additions. Okay. Just commenting on the rental registry, I would, as a resident of Vermont, I think it is an important, I think everyone else should have access to what we have here in Manuski. I think that from a municipal advocacy perspective, that's not what our city needs. Like we have that unless there's the supports that come out of that statewide initiative that make our program easier and more cheap to implement. If that's the case, I fully support having it on, but we're lending support to others who are advocating for that at the statewide level. We can certainly testify on that as having experience in that realm, but I don't see it as a municipal priority for us to advocate for that at the statewide level compared to some of our other housing issues. Elaine, I feel like when this came up before, previous manager didn't believe it would impact us because we would retain our own structure. Do you have any idea? I don't, and I'd say that you never really know what the legislature's gonna do, however. That's true. However, in the short time, I'd say I've been in local government in Vermont. I don't, they do tend to, seem to tend to not want to mess with current stuff. So, yeah, but it's hard to say. I expect we'd be keenly interested if that were to come up in the legislature in terms of tracking and monitoring what impacts it would have on us, but I'd rather advocate for other housing supports. Did we mention, she was trying to find a section for public transportation, addressing the anticipated shortfall? Number two. Well, that's in the gas tax, but I'm thinking about rider fees. Oh, well, okay, sorry. So, that study is saying that the gas tax can't be the thing anymore. And it doesn't have a recommendation necessarily, like it ranks a couple of options. But for example, one of those is a utility that would then support transportation, which goes beyond the scope of roads. I believe it also includes public transportation. Okay. But we could call that out somehow. I'm just thinking about the contribution that's been requested at Boonewski and how there's dwindling, it seems to be, some dwindling stops, frequency. We are a community that has some of the lower percentage of car ownership. I was thinking the same thing, especially, and I think you do call it out in here, whereas the expanding public transportation in downtowns and dense areas. So maybe it's just highlighting that too. I do have a, if bus rider fees come back, I do, I think I have a worry about accessing that. I feel like there are different things, like different feelings on what might be best, but I think it would be in the interest of Boonewski residents both to have more comprehensive bus routes, but also to maintain that free bus fare. And I think there's enough federal funding that that could continue if that's leveraged. I can add a line in there. About expanding this revenue source also to expand public transit. That sounds good. So the focus isn't just on a shortfall of current state. If anything, you could tie it to greenhouse gas reduction goals. The buses are easier and more convenient and more people will use them. Bryn, did you have thoughts on whether to include the rental registry or not? I don't feel like it will detract from other things here, but I'm willing to acknowledge Councilor Duckin's concerns and remove it. That's, that seems like it's- Well, not at it. It was a suggestive. Oh, at it. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think it's fine for us to support it, but maybe consider the ranking and the order that you have placed, I guess. I just wonder if it would be more effective if more of our neighbors had it. And that's what was a statewide thing considering a lot of Winooski and Burlington and Essex and culture. Like, there's a lot of movement between. So having that, I think might hopefully just enforce better standards overall, but enforce, I think is the tricky thing there. And this might be left up to municipalities. Yeah, I see value in having additional municipalities have rental registries for the same reason why we've seen challenges with property owners in Winooski that have rental properties and multiple jurisdictions. And do other folks want to add in the funding before the safe injection site study? We can add it. I don't feel strongly either way. I think depending on how the legislature is turning out tomorrow, we'll probably try it again. I'm not opposed. I'm also not opposed. Okay. And I don't know if you want to make it more broad and just have that as a reference, but just general potential ways to address the opioid epidemic. If that feels better than making it super, super specific. I was trying to think of what else would take its place because it seems, it needs to be there. Something needs to be there for intervention and support. So I appreciate that. I will also solicit the mayor's coalition to see if anyone has anything on their radar, any other like prevention or treatment. I think there might have been some wording on from a coalition of cities and towns priorities too. There might be some language there. That could be used in last call for public comment. I missed if you had consensus around the bill, record registry. I was gonna come up with some way to bake it into one of the existing recommendations versus having it stand out as a sort of interim or like middle ground. I feel like I have good input for bringing back something we can finalize at the next meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Onto item I on for discussion approval, the small business Saturday proclamation. So every year for a longer than I can recall, Winooski does participate in small business Saturday and the downtown Winooski organization also supports that effort working with our local businesses. So we are being asked to make this proclamation again this year. Are there any questions or concerns? I have a question for councilor Renner. Is there going to be a storefront decoration competition? I like that idea. I haven't heard that there will be, but I will bring it to that board. All right, thank you. Any public comment or questions? Do I have a motion to approve the small business Saturday proclamation? So moved. Second. Motion by Bryn, second by Thomas. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries, thank you. So we have more, this is the end of the regular items on our agenda. We've worn an executive session, pursuant to state statute section 3132 about the negotiation of real estate purchase or lease options related to our lot 70 Abanaki Way property. I'm looking for a motion to find that per state statute, having this discussion in public would put us at a disadvantage and so we should hold this in executive session. Christine, do you wanna do both topics? Both, okay. And a second executive session item under state statute 313E, civil litigation, to which we may be a party, which again, we should discuss an executive session to not put the city at risk. Second. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Thomas. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Elaine, do I need to bring any other staff in? Yeah, so for the first item, you're actually inviting Bill Niquet and Doug Nettie as well as John Rauscher. And then for the second, it would be John Rauscher, Angelo LDRI, and Eric Borwald. And me for both. Can I have a motion to enter into executive session inviting Elaine Wong, John Rauscher, Doug Nettie and Bill Niquet? So moved. Second. Motion by Thomas, second by Brynn. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. And can I have a second motion when that discussion ends to have executive session with Elaine Wong, Eric Borwald, John Rauscher, and Angelo LDRI. So there, LDRI. LDRI. Wait a minute, do I say that wrong? No, I'm gonna do myself. Motion by Roura. Second. Second by Thomas. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thanks for nesting your name for years, Angelo. It's healthy, right? It's fine. I have. Oh, my.