 I apologize for being a few minutes late. So I'd like to call to order the South Burlington City Council meeting of Monday, February 4th, 2019. And we'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. I have none. Dave, OK. 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. No, don't turn the 8 down. I turned it up, but it goes off at 8.30, so. Yeah, yeah. So we've got to heat it up. Yeah, we're about here at 8.45. Yeah. OK, we'll try to. The second item is instructions on exiting the building in case of emergency. In case of emergency tonight, please go out one of these two side doors and proceed to the parking lot to the south and gather there. If these two doors are blocked for some reason, please go back out into the main lobby and out the front and around to the south parking lot and gather there. I will be responsible for making sure the building is cleared, so please leave immediately. Thank you. Agenda review. Additions, deletions, or changes in the order of the agenda items. And in spite of being asked to review this, I did not notice that we didn't have committee reports. So I would suggest that we add that as item 11A before other business. OK. Are there any other changes or additions? Things we forgot? All righty. Then I'll move on to four. Are there any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? Jessica. No, I'm sorry. Monica, excuse me. Yes, please. I apologize. I have three things if I can fit them, but they're short and sweet. The first is I have been sitting on the TDR committee as a backup to Michael Mittag as he was traveling, and so I didn't have an official seat. And Michael is returning, I believe, in the next meeting next week. I'm sorry. Monica, did you, for the camera? Sorry, Monica asked to be. Thank you. So Michael will be back. And I have really enjoyed being part of that committee and think that I can continue playing a good role on the committee. I also understand that there is a seat open that had not been filled from the public, I believe. Just no one came forward with interest in that seat. And if that seat is still available, I was going to ask if the council would consider making me a permanent member of that committee. And then I would not be backing up Bernie on the open space committee as a planning commissioner. But I spoke with Jessica. She was OK with my asking you guys. So for your consideration. OK, thank you. We will consider that. The next meeting is next Monday. And I'm going to be going either way in either capacity. Second thing is I would like to ask the city council to consider issuing a statement of support to the Community Equity Collaborative of Brattleboro. They are members of this Community Equity Collaborative of Brattleboro area who need to express their outrage and concern. They were shocked to learn that Vermont Laws protects the kind of threatening and intimidating actions perpetrated upon representative Kaia Morris and her family that led Attorney General Donovan to declare that Kaia Morris was a victim of racial harassment. However, charges were not filed against the perpetrators. The coalition wants to support Governor Scott, Attorney General Donovan, Speaker Johnson, and President Pro Tem Ash in addressing this unacceptable weakness in our state's legal framework. And they are urging the governor and all to use the unique authority of their leadership positions to ensure that perpetrators of hate are well monitored by Vermont law enforcement and to strengthen Vermont laws to protect individuals and communities throughout our state from the actions of anyone who intends to inflict hate, intimidation, or physical harm on any other person. I know that it's not a simple solution. There's a lot of First Amendment rights that are at stake in addressing this. But I feel that it's important for our community and the city council to show their solidarity with the efforts there, because it really does impact everyone across the state and the country. So I can leave this with you. Would you please? I was going to ask you that. And this is from their website. And I'll hand it up to you. Yes, so if the council would consider some kind of statement of solidarity or support with this initiative, I think it would be fantastic. The last thing is I know that in town meeting day, Burlington is going to be putting a plastic bag ban on their ballot. And it's a non-binding question. But I would ask if the city council would consider the same question. And I know we can't get it into our town meeting day, but it's not really needed. A vote isn't needed for something like this. If it does pass in Burlington, it has already passed in Brattleboro, and I believe Montpelier is looking at it as well, would South Burlington consider an ordinance? According to a Digger article that I can share with you, it was said there that this kind of change would not require a charter change or a state legislator of legislative approval. It can be done with an ordinance change. It also said that municipal action, it makes it more local municipal action, makes it more likely for a statewide ban eventually. So if the city council would consider the same kind of ordinance, maybe based on what happens with the Burlington question in town meeting day. This is limited to the shopping bags. It's not like plastic straws and stuff like that. There's this limit. The Burlington's may be more. I was trying to find what the actual language is, and I don't have that. But most of the bans are single use, certain type of plastic. And this Digger article was very informative. It even talked about local businesses being supportive, and larger grocery stores being supportive at different times. So it just seems like a natural. Can you send us a link to the Digger report? Yes, I'll send you the Digger report link, and I'll leave this. Thank you very much. And thank you for all your service to the city. Great, any other comments from the public? Not on the agenda. Great. OK, announcements in the city managers report. Tim, you want to start with announcements? Well, I went to my 12 city council meeting last week. Just for that week, right? The 12th one last week? Yeah. So I went to city council meeting last week, and a TDR meeting, and a steering committee meeting. And I will be an MMI interviewer this Friday at Larring College again. That's all I have to do. The TDR meeting was good. We are obtaining a lot of good information. And I think that with the next meeting, and Michael and the tag coming back, we'll be able to create some documentation that will be useful to the rest of the council. There's clarity and focus for that? I think there is now. There was some question about that at previous meetings, but I think the immediate need is to, first of all, document the current state of TDRs, the history of it as well, what the scope and bounds are of it legally, how it's implemented, and perhaps some recommendations on how it could be made better. But those are the things for the council and the planning commission to consider. I don't think we're gonna come up with hard conclusions about, you know, I don't think that we're gonna be saying, oh, you should allow TDRs to do X, Y, and Z. I think we'll have some sort of broad proposals if we get there, but you know, we'll have various. I think the important thing is that the average person doesn't really know how TDRs work. They don't know how many have been used or how much they cost. One of the interesting things or proposals is to create some transparency in the buyer and seller market for that. And to perhaps use planning and zoning as a non-directed marketplace, you know, catalyst. In other words, allow the buyers and sellers to more generally be easily found without acting as an agent. The city would have no agency in it. They would just be providing information that if two parties said, we wanna sell or a party said we wanna buy, they could have a piece of paper, you know, in the planning and zoning office saying, yeah, well, here are the buyers and here are some sellers and you can call them if you want, you know, because there have been some complaints in the meetings where there are nobodies ever sure exactly who's selling and who's buying. And I don't think the city wants to get wrapped up too tightly in that, but I think if the city has lists of names that were volunteered by different sides, they could say, here's a sheet of paper. We don't endorse anybody in here, but it's a list of names and phone numbers. Give them a call. That way you couldn't complain that there wasn't somebody who was trying to be known as being a buyer or seller. We don't wanna make a market out of it. We just wanna enable people to connect to each other. All right, thank you. David? Nothing, it seems like we just met the other day. We did, actually. So there hasn't been much in between now and then I did have a... The weekend. The weekend, yeah, exactly. And that was a good football game, at least the results. I forgot to make it, yeah. The what? It was good, I forgot to mention that. Yeah, well, it was important. A lot of revenue for bars and restaurants. Good for the economy. At the old rules of the old times. Hey, that's important for South Bronx, all right? No, the only thing I did was I had a chat with Alan Strong because of course we're in the same building and just I think he's on track to get this work done within the nine-month timeframe. He knows how important that is. He's chairing the open space. Chairing the open space committee and he's pleased with how that's progressing so far and he knows he's got a time schedule to keep. I remind him of that once a week anyway, so that's good. That's about it. You're so shy. Yeah, right. That's great. And we're lucky to have someone of his expertise. Yeah, he's got a lot, he's very talented and also I've got to mention to him I meant to do it today. There are a couple of real experts on wildlife in our graduate program and I've got to remind him that he has, he probably knows that he's got those resources there as they look at open space and the impacts on wildlife. We've got a couple of students I think in either the master's or PhD program who are really focused on wildlife and that would be helpful, so it's good. Yeah, that sounds wonderful. Thank you. Megan. Well, the third meeting of the open space, IZ Committee is tomorrow night, meets tomorrow night at 7 p.m., so of course it's a public meeting, all are welcome and we have a graduate of the graduate program of the Rubenstein School who is serving on that committee, Sophie Mazawira and so she, yeah, she is caring for that tradition on the committee. So I have more to report at the next meeting. Tom. Nothing comes to mind but I will make an endorsement, I don't know if it's in time but by the time Thursday comes around and this isn't the other paper but I'm really excited this Saturday, the SB Rec, Father and Daughter Valentine's Day dance. Got a great date and looking forward to taking her to that. The pink jacket, is that what you're, oh good. I take out this time of year. We don't have two days. One of them has a sleepover so just one day. Great, okay. And I just chimed in over the phone on our steering committee meeting with the city council, I mean with the school board and miss the last meeting, although as it turns out, I was sitting on the runway for four hours as Detroit airport was closed due to freezing rain on all the runways and taxiways. So I could have joined but they kept saying, well we might take off so I didn't make that call so sorry, it would have been more fun than just sitting there, I think. How long do you sit on the runway for? Four hours. Four hours in the plane? Yeah. Why didn't they let you know? Your phone would have run out. Well they couldn't because the taxiways were so iced over that they wouldn't allow any of the planes to move. You were in Detroit trying to come here. Yes, we were second to take off and they closed the runway to take off so they could get all the planes that they wanted to land as many in. They diverted 70, which is a lot. And then we were sort of the last crumb out there and we were way out because we were about to take off. Wow. So safety first, Delta gave me 20,000 miles on my. Oh, not dollars, shoot. No, I don't know what that equates to about $30,000. 20,000 miles isn't bad. But that wasn't bad. But I'm here to talk about it so. That's most important. Yeah, so the city managers report. Thanks, Helen. I was on Tuesday of last week, I was at a ceremony honoring one of our police officers, Brianna Williamson, who has done an enormous amount of work to support Special Olympics. And Brianna is gonna go to Dubai to be the torch bearer and the torch run for Special Olympics International in Dubai next month. She was participating in the Penguin Plunge on Saturday, Saturday I think, to raise money for that. But it was a really nice recognition of one of our fine police officers giving back to the community, not only as a police officer, but for Special Olympics. So it's pretty cool. This afternoon, Ashley Parker hosted a meeting of the regional conservation group that we've been working with that now includes South Burlington, Williston, Shelburne, St. George, and Heinsberg. And so planners and managers and relevant staff were here at our office to talk about how we might pull together a regional compact that is built around working together on conservation lands that are contiguous or near contiguous in our communities. And Ashley's doing a great job on that. And we're gonna bring in a bigger group for the next meeting to include a CCRPC, but we're also gonna start working on a draft compact or a cord. It's not a contract, but just a draft agreement of some types about how we could work together to support all those things related to our conserved land. I was at the Rotary Awards reception last week, which was very nice. They do a great job. And one thing they do is they highlight all the people who the Rotary supports throughout the year. And it's a huge group. Really, there were 20 people, I think, who were representing different organizations. Tom and I were there for South Burlington, but in all the many things Rotary's done for South Burlington. Last Friday, we had three firefighters who made it through their year probationary period and are now full members of the fire department. Great group of young people, very talented. All men, or men and women? Nope, we have one woman who made it through and is doing just an outstanding job on our fire and our ambulance teams. There is, everybody waiting for this, there's no council meeting at all next week. No, just wait, something might come up. Some good news, it doesn't mean there aren't committee meetings. There's no council meeting next week. This is the first time in a while. I'll have to write you all to speak. Work through it. On the 19th of February, I'm gonna participate with some other housing and municipal folks in a day in the legislature to support affordable housing. And there'll be some testimony before committees on that. Alana has just completed a memo on stormwater issues as it relates to the community center and to the school. So that's more of a technical memo about the issues that need to be addressed and how we propose addressing them. And then off duty, the food shelf effort and the various people who are working on that seems to be moving along pretty well. And we're looking at a new building located just up the street, actually. Not ready quite to announce it, but it looks like a good facility for the food shelf. So lots of work to still remains to be done on that and a lot of community volunteers involved, so it's all good. That's my report. Okay. Tim. I just forgot one thing. Sure. So the better buildings by design conference is this Thursday and Wednesday at the Double Tree and on Thursday at 1.30 p.m. the public can go into the exhibition hall and actually see all the exhibits. So I think the theme this year is affordable efficiency. So all the vendors will be there with all their wares and interesting things to look at. So I think anybody can just walk in at 1.30 on Thursday till 3.30. So I'm going. Great. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to item six, the consent agenda. I would entertain a motion to improve the consent agenda, including the sign disbursements approval of minutes for January 14th and the 22nd and approve the form of the documents related to the issuance of a $14 million general obligation bond for voter approved improvements at 180 Market Street as presented subject to the insertion by the manager on advice and vice and consent of legal counsel dates of or other data related to the transactions as the same becomes known to adopt same and to authorize execution and delivery there of when complete subject to the city's receipt of the proceeds from the sale of its bond. Tim. So I have a problem with item C, but it's not huge. I don't know if you want to talk about it now or do you want to remove that and we'll do it later or Andrew is aware of my small concern. So is it okay if we talk about it now rather than make Andrew come back at whenever time when is we end? Midnight. Midnight tonight, I hope. So why don't you come forward? Thank you. So do you want to approve the other two items or just get us address? I mean, if we can take care of this then we can approve them all. All right. So what is your concern? In the very beginning of the document it states that at a meeting of the city council where a majority or quorum was present and there was unanimous vote in support of the project it wasn't unanimous. So I just want to change that language so you could say a majority of the. Yeah. I think we could just enter Bullock city attorney. I think we could just strike through the length that that word itself. I've already reached out to outside council to make that edit. Yeah. So I think other than that I would just be approving the consent agenda as amended. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. So I'll make a motion, but I have one correction and just a question. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the correction I have is on page three of the January 22nd, 2018 minutes. January 22nd, 2018. That's it. Yeah. Yeah, nothing better. 2018 or 2019? 2019. So that's another thing to change is the year. I'm just reading verbatim here. Sorry. Oh, geez. We're human. We're all human. So the other thing is under item eight. It's the last paragraph there. Mr. Kaufman, Kaufman moved to authorize the city manager to proceed with formal acquisition of land interests as presented. And it should say, I believe it was Tom Chittenden who seconded it. It was originally Tim Barrett in the minutes that I said, because he dissented. So I said, Tim, I don't think that's correct, but I believe it's Tom Chittenden who seconded that motion. Do we need to have that recorded in the minutes? You should if we could. Yeah, I would think so too. Okay, this motion seconded by Mr. Kaufman. Tom Chittenden, yeah. I made the caveat statement that as much as I stained from the library vote, I was comfortable with moving this forward being consistent with the will of people. There we go. But we don't need all that. Yeah. And then the question I have is, Selina's been asking for the January 7th minutes, and I'm just curious where we are with that. Because she sent out these two or three notices asking for the January 7th minutes. So I thought. I know I read through them, but I didn't find any changes that I needed to make. I didn't either. You should be sent those in. Okay. Well, I definitely processed them. Could you just let Selina, could we make sure they're on the next agenda? I guess we'll vote for them in, since we're not meeting next week. We get a special meeting. There was a correction made. I'll just send them again. Thanks. That was my question and my correction, and I made a motion. So we have a motion to approve items A, B, and C as amended with the strikeout and C and unanimously. What? You want to vote on C separately? Consent agenda. If somebody wanted to vote against it, because they voted in the past against it. Oh, okay. Okay. Sit it out of. We do it in the Green Mountain Transit all the time. You just pull it from the consent agenda, and then we have a separate vote on it. That's fine. All right, so the motion is amended to agree to A and B as presented with a very minor corrections on the January 22nd, 2019 minutes. Second. Okay, so it's moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. And now we have item C approving the form of the documents for the issuance of the $14 million bond. Do we have a motion? It's been amended to strike out the unanimous vote. I will make the motion as amended. I will second, and I'd like to add a discussion point. Again, I'm comfortable with our attorney in moving this forward, so I'm okay with this language. Even though I abstain from the library, the people have spoken, and so I think this is sensible and I support moving it forward. Okay, thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Nay, so it passes four to one. Okay, moving on to item seven. This is the update report from the dog park committee to include recommendations for amendment to conduct in parks ordinance and a possible first reading. So our service, excuse me. Good evening. It's nice to see you all. It's nice to see you all live for a time. Steady. Was it all live before? Sitting in my living room in California watching you from a distance. You came back just for this meeting? And tomorrow. She missed it. She missed us. What's tomorrow? And then you're flying back? It's a meeting tomorrow. Dog park committee has a forum tomorrow night. Public hearing. And then you're flying back? And I'm flying back on Wednesday. Yes. But I spent the weekend visiting with friends, so. So it isn't your award. No. Anyway, I am delighted to be here. I have to tell you that this has been an amazing group of people. I sent you a written report and we're talking about enhancing the quality of life in the community connections through dog parks for residents and dogs. Yes, dog parks are about dogs, but they're also about people. And I think that it's important to remember that. So our work plan is still on schedule. And our overarching goal is that we will make informed decisions and that we will engage the community in that decision-making process. We think it's very important, and we'll talk in a minute about the survey if you haven't seen it and what's going to be happening tomorrow night and what's going to happen in the next few months. It's important to us that we make this as transparent as possible and as engaging as possible. So in terms of making informed decisions, what we have data collection information and data collection for us to make sure that we all have the same information. We've reviewed existing ordinances, and in a bit Andrew and I will talk about a recommendation for an ordinance change. We've met with both Paul Conner and Holly Reese to talk about sites in South Burlington that might be possible places. We also have, in the future, we will talk with, I started to call him Jason, his name is Justin, about the impact on public works. But to make sure that we have as much information as possible, and we also have a liaison from the recreation and parks committee, Mike Seminoe, who sits with us and someone from Natural Resources, so we are getting feedback from a number of different places. And thanks to Betty Melitia, we have lots of information from other cities about what they've done in dog park development and operations. Both Maggie and I have found ourselves in recent months, I in San Francisco and she in Cincinnati, walking around taking pictures of dog parks. I don't walk in cities anymore the way I used to because of what we're doing, but paying attention to what's happening in other communities, Betty has brought us a ton from the internet, but we're also getting some live information, if you will. Some statistics for you. We're using a base of about 19,000 citizens and from that, using the American Veterinary Medicine Association calculations, we estimate that there are probably about 4,300 dogs in the city of South Burlington. Of those, 1,300 are registered, which is an interesting number in and of itself, that disparity, only 31% are registered. And the estimate is that about a little over 2,500 households probably have at least one dog and from the data we started to look at from the survey, they may have more than one dog. So we have a lot of dogs and dog residents but the other piece that has, we have been reminded is that nearly 50% of South Burlington residents live in multifamily or densely populated areas, meaning they don't have a backyard where they can let their dog out the back door and go. And so we're paying attention to that piece of information. We've talked with the people working on the PUD about including something about dog parks in that document. We also know that there are a couple of densely populated areas where a dog park amenity has been added but it's very small. And one of the things that we learned tonight is we looked at the first set of data had to do with the fact that people want a place that's large enough for a big dog to have a good time and to play and dogs need a place to play. I am often reminded of that, that they need a place to be dogs. And just to romp and have a good time. So in terms of community awareness, and so I have copies for all of you. There is an online survey. I'm also giving you a paper copy so you can see what it looks like. We have, it's been out less than a month from dog owners and non dog owners. And we will be looking at those data and seeing what we can learn. We saw some trends tonight when we looked initially. I don't wanna talk about those trends because you never know what those trends will look like after we get a larger data set. But we're at least getting some good responses, positive constructive feedback. That's the one I was given. Yes, and when you, just so you know and if people are watching and listening, when you click on that and the picture of the playing dogs comes up, you have to click on the thing that says learn more. And it takes you right to the survey. And so I would encourage people to please take a few minutes, takes fewer than 10 to fill it out. And the information will be really helpful to us. And I'm grateful. We had in response to one of the questions, we had 50 comments. Not only do people answer the question, but they took the time to write a sentence or two. So it will be helpful to us. Tomorrow night, six o'clock in the community room at the police department. We are hoping we've put it out there as much as we can for people to attend a forum where we're going to talk a little bit about our process to date. And we are also then going to say, we'd like to hear from you. What is it that you want us to know about dog parks and about dog parks in South Burlington? So we will do this as a preliminary. We're not going to have a report for them about sites in terms of, yes, we want to put a dog park in. Tom, didn't you offer your backyard for that? Yeah, that decision has not been made, but instead we're going to sort of show them the information that we have gleaned so far and then we will take the feedback from tomorrow night and also from the survey and move forward in terms of trying to determine at least an initial site recommendation and hopefully a longer term plan for you to look at in terms of that. Yes. Excuse me. This survey looks great and it particularly is requesting information about potential users of the dog park. I was curious if you would follow up with a survey on what citizens in the city would like to see with regard to placement of the dog park. I've seen a survey like that in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for instance, where they specifically ask questions about population theft. We're trying to get, that buffering question is a big question and we're trying to glean some of that from this survey and we've heard in the forum that we held over at Chamberlain, we heard about concerns about buffering so we know that those things are there. We tried to identify as many of those issues as we could in the survey, but that's the other reason that we will have a second community forum after we think that we've got the right idea but before we come to you so that there will be another opportunity for community feedback. And I know you- Yes. And we are also going to talk about the matrix tomorrow night so that people will know that these are the criteria that we are using to evaluate potential sites. Speaking of which, thanks to Paul Conner, we have this great map. The doggy paws represent the five places that based on the meetings that we had with the staff and then the recommendation from Reckon Parks, we've identified those five city-owned properties. The other green dots identify some other city-owned properties. We are also looking at a longer term issue in terms of other properties that might be an option but that at least gives you up at the top is Garvey Park. Then there is Oak Creek and Wheeler Homestead, Underwood, and Red Rocks. So those are the five that are sort of, can everybody see what we're talking about? The red paws are the ones that you just- The red paws. You don't have a barrel mark, but the current dog- Because it's an existing one. I don't know, Maggie. What place is it? I don't know. Is the blue- The blue is the cemetery, maybe. The blue is by the airport. Yeah, they're probably the cemeteries. Ah, right. Okay, yes. And one of the cemeteries has some space. Right, cemetery, selectmen, or whatever you are. Sexton, excuse me. He's so familiar with the living dead, yeah. So that at least gives you a sense of what we've been looking at. And it does come there. We have had a fair amount of deliberation about properties and where we might go. We'd love to put donate on that option. We don't really think anybody's going to donate a piece of property, but we keep hoping, but that there might be later consideration of either private or institutionally owned property where we could have a lease for at least five years, if not a purchase, and that it would be worth it if we could have an extended period for a lease that we might be able to put dog parks in other places. That will not be the first one that we recommend, but it's certainly under discussion for us. So are you discussing ways to raise money either through fees or anything like that, or is that not filtered up yet? We have had general conversations about that. Location, location, location has been the biggest issue. At first to come together with a work plan and the mission statement and those sort of overarching things, but then after that to deal with the whole discussion about location and the different opinions that come with location, and we wanna know from natural resources, we wanna know from record parks, we wanna know from, we went and looked at a couple of pieces that are just too small. So we've been sort of exploring all of those options, but when you look at our work plan in a second, you'll see that there's more to come. So next steps, there you go. Next steps are the community forum and the survey results, and then we're gonna prioritize sites. We will also then look at dog park operational guidelines. So site development, an area that isn't grass, and Betty Malizia is our resident and expert on that, so I'm not gonna try to answer questions related to that, but if you have them, you can ask her because she knows all things about dog park sites. About maintenance, about operating rules, about the whole thing about who's gonna have access, how do you get access to the dog park? Right now, anybody can go in there. We will be having that discussion in terms of people who have a licensed dog using dog parks, and how will they then be able to access that? How will it be monitored, et cetera? In terms of the funding issue, Maggie went out with the flyers about the forum and had a really positive response from some local places that we wanted to post that, and we're hoping that there are some foundations as well as local businesses that will be interested in providing support to the first and continuing dog parks, as well as the development of Friends of the Dog Parks. And so far, we had a number of people, maybe 20 out of 90, 25, who indicated that they would be interested in some sort of a group about the dog parks, so we're hoping that a few of those folks will step forward and, much like Friends of the Library, we'll have Friends of the Dog Parks, and there are Friends of the Dog Parks in other cities around the country that we've looked at. So we're pretty hopeful about the funding resources issue that we will be able to supplement the city's contribution with some external funds to enhance the dog parks. We also anticipate a second community forum sometime in May, where at that point we are hopeful that we will have at least a draft of something that talks about location initial and then projected future locations. We are all agreed that we're going to need more than one dog park in South Burlington, and so a plan for the longer-term evolution of dog parks. And then I hope, Kevin, you will save a spot for us on the June 3rd City Council agenda. It's a, I guess I'll address that to Helen or to Kevin or to both. Okay. Remind us, like, please. Oh yeah, Maggie will not email or something. Maggie will not let anybody know. The week before, because we just want you to know that we have a lot of good intentions. We have a date in mind to be here, to be able to give you the first round of real solid recommendations. In terms of the future work of the Dog Park Committee, there is a lot beyond the anticipated recommendations for June 3rd. We hope that we are going to open our first dog park that will develop Friends of the Dog Parks that the collaboration will continue. We'll look at funding. We'll look at activities like agility that people may be interested in having or parks and rec may be interested in offering something. We also need to plan for a leadership transition for the committee. Both Maggie and I will be seeing the end of our terms after the City Council on June 3rd. So we are having those discussions and making sure that there will be a smooth transition. And then City Council considerations, into your capable hands, we commend the planning for a creation of future dog parks. We can give you recommendations, but it's really up to all of you to take care of doing that. The continuation of the Dog Park Committee is a freestanding committee. And then that we're hoping that Rec and Park will provide staffing to the Dog Park Committee after June the 3rd. So I would be remiss if I did not talk about the power of commitment for just a minute. We have held eight meetings since the 1st of October, which may not sound like a lot to a City Council that's been meeting bunches, but to get people together and I will commend the IT folks. I've been running these meetings from my living room in California. And the committee is terrific. We've shared the work. People listen really well. We've worked by consensus. And I would be remiss if I did not express gratitude to the list of people up there who have worked really hard to make all of this happen. Linda Chasen, Larry Kupferman, Betty Malizzi, Mike Seminole on the committee. And then of course, Maggie Lugers, our stalwart staff liaison has been absolutely terrific. So that's what I have to share with you tonight. Andrew's gonna come up in a minute. We have a recommendation for an ordinance change, but you might have questions before. Are there any questions? I've got one comment, Barbara. Basically, we've talked about that earlier. It's abominable how many dogs are actually registered in the city. How few you mean? And as what? How few are registered. How few of the many. And as you develop the rules for the park, I should certainly encourage you to develop those with a very specific incentive that if people are gonna use the park, they gotta have registered dogs. That has been in our conversation, but we have not put it in print yet. So I didn't wanna write it down, but I can assure you we are all cognizant. However, that result works with access to the parks, because as you know, we also talked about many months ago, there's all kinds of technology now available for accessing parks. So as long as that's front and center on your radar, whatever you all come up with is safe. I guarantee you, it is not lost. I'm confident that it will not be. So thank you. Well, Betty Malizzi is on the Open Space IZ Committee, so she will I think be keeping an ear open to see what lands we're looking at that could be potential sites for dog parks. But I just wanted to add that to your radar as well as to Maggie's, and you can of course transmit that to the other committee members that as we go through these open spaces in our city, there might be something that comes. We are hopeful. We feel sort of constrained by looking at this point at city-owned properties, but we have had conversations about non-city-owned properties and hope that that will be part of an evolving conversation. Tom, any questions? The budget we just passed or that is going to be the March ballot for? Yeah, that's $25,000. $25,000, okay. Right? That's ongoing? I think it's 25. Thought to be ongoing year to year? Okay. So there's... Once it's in the general fund. There's money, okay. So there's money. For land, you're talking about open spaces. For whatever, I hope. Is it specific? No, it's $25,000 for a dog park, so it might be fencing, it might, it could be any number of things for a dog park. My understanding from the conversation I had with Tom briefly the other day was that the first word he mentioned was fencing, but it would depend on whether or not we're successful in finding some external funding and what we can do with that in terms of supplementing and what it's also going to take for basic things like water and shade and some things like that. All right. Well, thank you. That was excellent. Thank you for all your work. Thanks for coming back. Yeah. Andrew Bullock, city attorney. Included in your packets is a red line edit of the conduct and parks ordinance. It's a relatively minor one on page six, minor language change, but I'm curious what the, it was brought forward to me by Holly and I'm curious the committee's perspective on how it arrived at coming to this recommendation. During the deliberations of the dog park task force, and we don't want to go back and revisit a bunch of history about some of that, but during the dog park task force and the closing of the park at JC, it became really clear to us that JC was not a park that should be off leash. It's pretty intense in terms of the activity that's going on there and Mike reiterated that tonight during our meeting before this meeting. And so we think that JC needs to be designated as an on leash park for people who bring their dogs there. Why not Wheeler and Underwood? So yeah. I'd echo that concern. If we have leash requirements at Red Rocks, it makes a lot of sense to also have them at JC park and this litigious society where people hire lawyers for all these things. I think the city's exposed if we don't have a leash law putting the onus on the owner of the dog to have these dogs under control. Yeah, bait crest. I mean, all these little pocket parks too. Before we would approve this because aren't there hearings too? Yeah, there would be a second reading in public hearing that would be warned if the language was approved. We did it tonight so that I would be here for the first reading. Betty will be here for the, as the vice chair of the committee will be here for the second one, but wanted to at least bring it up tonight while we were talking about dog parks in general. So is the council agreeable to including all of the parks as a required leash? I don't want to start enforcing it differently, but I think it makes sense to have a consistent requirement across all of our publicly owned lands. How do we enforce, we don't really enforce it now. It's just that's what you hope people will do. And you have a little sign that says dogs must be on the leash, but we all know myself included, don't always follow that. Well, that's at this particular point in time. If the dog park committee recommends a dog park at one of the parks, then that park will not be just on leash, right? So right now with no or nothing on dog parks, then blanket across the board, dogs have to be on leashes in public and city parks. If they then designate a park for a dog park, then just saying all city parks. If that's the desire of the committee and the desire. At this point in time, that is not the desire of the committee. We talked about it briefly tonight and realized that we probably should have a larger discussion, but we have not had a chance to talk with the Rec and Park Committee about that. And so we are hesitant to do anything other than to say, this is a park that we have clearly identified that needs to be on leash. And there are a number of issues about on leash, off leash, et cetera, that sort of need to be explored. And so we'd like to have some more time to do that. And there is the whole issue of enforcement. And that's not our purview, but it may be something that the council wants to discuss at some point. Do you know if the school department has any leash laws on their athletic fields for even just parents who come, you know, a lot of people bring their dog and stand at the fence and watch the football game or whatever it is. And I'm just curious. I mean, that's, I guess not our purview, their parks or their, although I think about when they use Veterans Memorial Park and those kinds of places for their activities. We had some, we don't know the answer to that. If you'd like that, then my right and left hand back here has volunteered to try to get that information for you from the school district. But we had conversations about the concerns of parents when their kids are going to be playing on those fields and they have also been used as a place for dogs to run. Well, there's sort of two issues, but yes, you certainly don't want the football field to be a dog park on weekends when there's no football games. But even if you pick up your after your dog, you don't always. But I was thinking more. That's just a turf field. That's a little easier, but turf or turf. But I was just thinking of the spectators bring dogs. I don't know what the rules are. I was just curious if they had rules about they have to be on leash. I've never seen a sign, but most people do, but I think not all. So I was just curious. I don't know about the lacrosse field, but I think the football field is fenced almost. You're right, yeah. Yeah, there's a fence all the way around it, but still. But people are moving and I'm just as concerned in terms of the litigation of kids who play on that little field next to the stands and people's dogs are running around. Our overall ordinance on care and custody and control of dogs and animals in general does talk about dogs running at large. And so if there's ever a circumstance in the school district property where they're quote, running at large, then I think that would fall under the umbrella of the self-running police department at that point. Otherwise it's just sort of have to be within control. Voice control, yeah. Well, I just think it would be helpful to find out and be sensitive to the school district if they have any particular concerns or if maybe it's something they haven't really thought about but would like to and come up with their own policy versus having the city impose something on them. Anyway, we would hope that you would consider the ordinance change. We can at least as a start and try to remember that. Any other issues and see if we want to bring something larger back. Okay. Yes, Tim? What about the six feet leash? What about the retractable, you know, leashes that can go out to 20, 25 feet? I mean. Little dogs. Yeah, I mean, this would seem to preclude those, right? Even though, even if you had it at six feet that would qualify if it went out to 20 feet, then they shouldn't be doing that. But is that if no one else is around, I mean, I was just curious if... And technically that would be a violation as it's written. Yeah, yeah. But as you say, if there's no one around then as long as they're on a leash. It's just a point of, we may want to have that discussion or I don't know what the common sense disposition of that is, you know. I heard they were going to start drone surveillance on that too. Ha, ha, ha. There's something about that. Ooh. Okay, back on track. I think that dogs on the 20 foot leash are not under good control. And you can't easily get them back. Really, really small. Really little, you can pick them up. Yeah, I mean, you know, my dog is 20 pounds. So I could, but if you've got, and the vast majority of people do have large dogs, I mean, we want to go into the discussion about which is the best kind of leash and all that sort of thing, but just... Yeah, I don't want to get the weeds on that. No, no. I just thought I'd say something, but I'm not. I thought of that too. There you go. Show us not to raise the issue. All right. I withdraw the concern. No, it's okay. Any other comments? So we have to set another hearing meeting. Oh, comments from the public? Yeah. Just a quick question. Does a leash include the remote collars? Does that qualify as a leash in your definition? You know what I'm talking about? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. A collar and you can buzz them. You zap them and they stop. I would say, as written, that wouldn't qualify as a leash under the ordinance. It does not. It would not, yeah. That would be under control, certainly, but not on a six foot leash. Question? Okay, so we need to set up a time certain and a date for the next hearing? Yeah, so the, based on the warning requirements, it needs to be published in the other paper. And so what we've traditionally done is not have it at the next council meeting, but the council meeting after that. So there's a lag time of two meetings. So the meeting after is March 4th and the meeting after that. That's the budget meeting. But that's the budget meeting. The budget meeting. Correct. What about the one after that, which is the? The March 13th? No, five and? 19th, thank you. 19th to 14th. Stories of them thinking it's the 19th. Yeah. Well, I think it's the 14th. Let's see here. Yeah, March. 18th is a Monday. 18th, okay. Okay. Do you want to add 730? Flying back. Or at seven. What's your preference, seven, seven, 30? Why don't we do seven, 30? Because then it gives us a little more flexibility in the front end. Okay, so seven, 30 on March 18th. We'll be in the second hearing. Just a question. Since there is an expense to put this in the other paper and have a hearing, you know, it takes time. And if we were to come back in another two months saying, well, we'd also like to recommend these parks be added or this language, we'd have to go through the whole thing again. Is it worth it when we have snow on the ground to do it now or to wait until April when you have a chance to go to the recreation part of the parks committee, have a dual recommendation, think about what the school districts position, how that might all do. My guess is it's going to be, I'm looking at my colleagues in the back, but my guess is that it is going to be a while before we have a recommendation about expanding it beyond JC. I don't think it's, right now our focus is going to be on getting a recommendation to you for a dog park and for all of the rules and regulations and operational issues that need to be included in that recommendation, as well as hopefully finding some funders to provide a little support for that. So I'm not sure that this would come high. And if we were to charge the recreation and parks committee with making a recommendation, I think it should come from us and then go to recreation and parks for concurrence or not. But I'm going to, excuse me. I'm getting two head nods in the back. And they also are working on a whole lot of things about in anticipation of a major project that's going to come to them. That's why I suggest April instead of March. And so I think that it will be a while before you see another recommendation coming forward. It just, it felt to us like the dog park task force had brought this already. And so it's been sitting there for a while. And so we really needed to sort of move along and we needed to confer with Rec and Parks and do those things before we were ready. But given, I think the really sensible argument that Megan has put forth to spend the money to have another hearing, to notice it and then have some additional small changes in two months. I don't think you'll see it in two months. I think it's going to be at least six or eight. That's my best guess. But. I just raise it. Andrew, the other ordinances that we're going to be seeing tonight, will those be warned at the same time? Will it be able to kind of cut the cost of it's not just a one by one cost? It can be like a bulk cost? Yeah, sure. Yeah. And we can do it if we're, if we're going to kind of bunch them all on March 18th, we could do first readings of the other, the parking and traffic ones if we want to. And also have it at that first reading to next meeting and then still warrant it in time for the 18th. Well, why don't we try to do that then? Okay. So it stands that we'll have a second hearing at 730 on March 18th on the dog ordinance and anticipate some other first hearings on ordinances that same meeting. So I will move that we hold. Or second hearing. Yeah, that's it. Second hearing. Yeah, that's it. Okay, Megan. I will move that we hold a public hearing with regard to the, just a minute, the ordinance regulating conduct in South Burlington, ARCS for Monday, March 18th at 730 PM here in City Hall. 730 PM, period. Second. Okay, any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Great, thank you very much. So we're running a few moments late and so we're going to skip down to number nine if it's okay to convene the public hearing to receive comments related to the proposed charter amendments to be presented to the South Burlington voters for consideration during the city's annual meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 5th, 2018, 19. So I guess a motion to open that public hearing. So moved. Second. All in favor? Discussion. Oh, I'm sorry, discussion. So similar to Tim's vote earlier, I am going to oppose calling this public hearing because I am opposed to article three that we are warning as part of the process. So I'm going to vote no and I just wanted the public to know why I'm about to vote no to not open the public hearing. But aren't we required to have this public hearing? Which is why we're having it because the ballots are already printed. So whatever, this is totally superfluous, is it not? No, it's just, it's one of the requirements of the statute that for amending a charter that you have to have these public hearings a certain time, hear it out. So what happens if we don't have a public hearing? We could potentially be in violation of the law. We could be challenged that the charter is not now. All I'm saying is this isn't, this has nothing to do, this is protocol. Don't support moving forward article three to the public so I'm not going to vote to a public hearing. Oh jeez, if enough of us voted against it, we could stir up all kinds of trouble. Yes, you could. You could. I'm not going to. Thank you for pointing that out. Right. So we have a motion and a second for the second? I'll second that. Okay. Seconded. Okay, seconded. Okay. All in favor? Aye. So we are now convening, oh and one opposed, excuse me. The cheese stands alone will convene the public hearing. Are there any people in the audience who would like to comment on the proposed articles or charter amendments? Pardon? Do I do any good at this point? Correct. But there's nobody there. I'll move to close the public hearing. So I suggest, can I ask a question? I'm sorry, yes. So this is a question for Andrew. I don't know what it's time. The committee and the state legislature and the governor approves this right and we're able to object that fits within the scope of this right. And we go to vote to actually add the tax. Will we have the ability to vote for either just the 1% rooms of meal or just the 1% sales or both together? The council has broad discretion the way it's written. To determine what it is and also I believe it says up to 1%. I thought I said and or whatever. So I just want to make sure that we, yeah. Oh, and it could be up to 1%. Right, right, yeah. Okay, thank you. To that point, I just still don't support giving future councils this one or a different composition the right to invoke a sales tax. And that's why on principle I didn't support voting to open this public hearing. Okay. You on record. I will close the public hearing. All in favor. Aye. So we have held our public hearing. I'll close it. I just want to. Huh. Should we let him? No. Okay. So let's move back to item eight which is the TIF district annual report. And Alana Blanchard will present that. Welcome. Thank you. Good evening for the record. Alana Blanchard project director. I'm here tonight to both as a state requirement but also to give you a summary of the annual report that was provided to the Vermont Economic Progress Council. They compile all the annual reports for each of the TIF communities and present them to the legislature in another report. So, and that happens on an annual basis. So last year was the first year we had the requirement. So this is the second year. The form has changed slightly. We didn't, we were not required to provide a narrative this year. And they had some accounting changes which did not affect this year very much but we have a second spreadsheet which affects the prior years although you just see the summary on this so that it doesn't show up that much but it was a big change for us. So, so this is on FY18 and it refers to, so all of the information about it refers back to the April 1, 2017 grand list. So, so sort of when we put this together we're sort of reporting, we're thinking about multiple grand lists right now. The assessor is working on the 2019 grand list. So it's a nice time to reflect as we move forward. So, key elements of this are certifying what the original taxable value of our TIF district was in 2012 when it was created. All growth in the grand list within the district is measured against that year. And so this year was also the year that the TIF district was locked down so for the FY 2017 grand list because it followed the first vote and debt that the city incurred. So this year you'll see there's some discussion about a discrepancy between what was on our certified original taxable value. We, our accounting system shows one number and that is what is the number on the report. We're still waiting for the certification from the property valuation at PVRI. And review department of the state department of taxes or taxation. And so there's, so that's discussed a little bit in the report. They're pretty busy right now. So the, or have been for the past year. The increase between the original taxable value and the 2018 or the 2017 grand list value was just under $5 million. That includes the David Schenck development, Black Bay Ventures on Heinsberg Road and Market Street. The Trader Joe's and Pure One developments and the subdivision of the South Burlington real estate multi-parcel. So there was, the land for Ellard Square was broken off from what was a new lot called Property B, which is from Garden Street West to Mary Street. And the Mary Street section was also broken off. So that added about a half a million dollars of value to those three sites. So like the Pure One Trader Joe's landslides. Yes. Any of those? That's it. Yeah. The first last year. 2017. This is for April for 2017. Yes. April one 2017. It was taken when? April, so this, so the increase in value is based on the grand list as of April one 2017 from 2012. Yep. And then we report on what's happened in FY 2018, which is then July one 2018 through, no, 2017 through June 30th, 2018, so. So would it be fair to say as additional parcels are divided that their value increases and this grows? Yes. So smaller lots are more, sorry. Why is that? Why is that? You had 10 acres of land and you divided off half an acre. The subdivision itself has value. It does. It becomes a developable lot. And also smaller lots are worth more per acre than larger lots. I don't know why, but many people have told me that, so. So the total TIF revenue that was collected or increment in FY 2018 was $72,940. That was in 2017. It would have been FY 18 budget year. So I think I've already told you, so there's, so we report on every change in the parcels. So the changes to the South Burlington Realty Parcel are reported, they're reported by span number. In that year also, we had a conversation with PBR and this will affect next year's, but will not affect this year's. So we will be taking all of the parcels that are owned by the same owner that are next to each other and we'll be putting them in to the same parcel in our grand list, meaning that if the property owner has five properties next to each other, all under the same ownership name, they will get one tax bill. And I've heard that they are not exactly happy with this, but this is according to the regulations at the state and so they've asked us to do this in the TIF district. It will definitely simplify reporting and so we will be doing that going forward. Not for this year, but every year going forward. We did have a debt obligation, so the taxpayers voted and the city borrowed based on that vote, five million dollars for the construction of Market Street and the city center park that with that debt, we were able to retire the $460,000 that was an inter-fund loan that was approved to both trigger the TIF district and fund the park. So that was retired and then we just have the five million dollar obligation and that we also paid interest on that obligation, $134,500 or 600, I'm sorry, need my glasses, $661. So during this year, the largest project that we advanced with city center park, obviously, the bulk of the construction was completed. The second largest project that was advanced during this period was the library, city hall and senior center and then the third was Market Street and we also advanced Garden Street, Williston Road Street scape, the I-89 bridge over, I'm sorry, the pedestrian bicycle bridge over I-89 exit 14 and the private sector, we have stormwater as an eligible TIF district project and we did not advance that, however the private sector, South Burlington Realty in partnership with Snyder-Raverman did obtain a stormwater permit for their property. So that's a significant amount of the stormwater within the district. But that's not reflected on here. That's not, we did not fund any of that so that was not a cost to the city. The sources of non-TIF revenues are all listed. So to date or to July, I'm sorry, June 30th, 2018, the city has expended just over two and a half million dollars on these projects of which just over a half a million is in TIF district funds. That can't be right, sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. Which column, is that the? Nope, it's the next one. I should be just wearing my glasses. What page are you on? I'm on page, I'm on the second page. Section sources for non-TIF revenues which is right at the top of the page. So I'm sorry, so I apologize, I missed, I did not read the top line. So the total amount spent to date is just over two and a half million. I would point out for this that we have the reserve fund listed as the top line and I have asked for that to be removed from this column because all of these sources are to pay directly for project costs but the reserve fund pays for servicing debt which is not a direct sort of one-to-one we're sort of mixing apples and oranges. So we have taken that up in the last line you'll see is municipal debt proceeds so that becomes the city funded costs on projects. So the total in that first column should be seven million. Correct. What's the last page? So we're on panel 47, I'm sorry, in the bottom right-hand corner of seven. Okay, okay, yeah. At the top it says sources of non-TIF revenues in the first little block. So the middle column is the total amount spent to date. The first column is the total amount secured for each source. However, the first line is reserve funds and that one is really not, it is secured funding but it's being used to service debt so it's not a direct project cost amount. So the total should be about 7.2 million. It's indirectly, it does fund project costs but in a different way. The next table relates to related costs so during this period our related costs were for the TIF audit and also we had legal costs. Real property development, we pretty much covered as I said it essentially was the subdivision of a parcel. And during this period there were no new employees that were hired within businesses in the TIF district. And then during this period we also report on Vermont firms to the state. So the contractor for the city center parks that was where most of the funding was spent received the highest amount of funding. Wayman-Lambfair Architects was second. They have actually a large team of mainly Vermont firms and then some out-of-state firms that are working on the project as well. And then several of these are actually lumped together of multiple firms. Land Works was also fairly large. They're working on the city center park. And then we also report on what our approval criteria and what we have advanced towards the approval criteria. At this point our main, we had businesses that were developed and we have, I'm sorry, new jobs that were created because of new businesses and that was satisfied with the development of the peer one. That criteria was satisfied. Transportation enhancements was another one of the criteria that we met. And that we have not completed any transportation project. On the other hand, the development has not occurred yet that created the need for the transportation project. So we'll continue to work towards that, towards satisfying that criteria. So next year when we go to jobs created, whatever Allard Square has hired to. Correct. Well, it's well, it's the end of the tunnel. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, you may ask a question. Going back up to section three, votes in financing, debt instruments, right? So, you have rows one, two, three and four and then an example row. So disregard the example row. Yes, please. Where did the 2.95 million come from? Okay, that's what I thought, but I wasn't sure because there were real numbers in there. Yeah, I was asking, having that same question. Yeah, this is section three, votes in financing, that's on two out of seven. Oh, yes, yes, okay. So there was a grayish blue line that says example, but I didn't, it said mainstream. I just want to make sure that was an example. That's an example. There are a lot of locked cells on this form. This is a fairly complicated form. Do you think the state understands it? They've been simplifying it, so I have to give them some kudos for that, so, yeah. So the poons. Oh, I'm sorry, you have another question. Yeah, the poons created four apartments on one floor in the old venue, China Lake building. Are those occupied now? I think so. Yeah, I saw one listed for rent. You did? Yeah. I saw four of them in the end. What are they renting for? 1,100 per month, 1,000 per month. Lots of parking. Yeah. Easy access to shopping. And so there was an anticipated construction that didn't occur on that building or on that property? From the report? Yeah. I don't know. So the poon trust had, has come in several times to discuss potential developments on their property that are not redevelopments of the existing building but redevelopments of the whole site. Okay. Thanks. So on that same area, section three, the 134,000 for the total payment for recording period, 134,661, so right below the example line. I'm trying to reconcile that with, that's all interest, no principal paying down, because that's what it says annual debt service down below, it says it's all interest paid and no principal payment. That's correct. Okay. And the page before, we have $79,000 for the last reporting year, fiscal year 2018. We took in $79,000 in total TIF revenues based on the $4.6 million increase. Is that correct? 72,000. 72,000. So if we'd taken in more, would it be capped at that 134,661 as the, no? No. So all the increment that the city receives goes into a separate fund. And it's, if there's no obligations, it sits there. After the city completes all of the debt that has, that the city can issue, meaning that we, once we reach the deadline for debt, unless we're Burlington, but we're not Burlington. So until we reach, once we reach the deadline for debt, then we will work with the state to figure out how much we actually need to make the payments so that if we have a surplus, we might reduce the percentage that we keep. So right now we keep 75% of the increment, 75% of the municipal and state increment goes into this fund. We did $72,000 last year. Right. So if that increment is, Wait a minute, 75% of the education or the municipal? Both. Both, okay. Yeah. So if that, if the amount of increment that goes into the fund is greater than what we would need to meet our obligations, that percentage would be reduced. The last question I have, this 73,000, you might have said this to begin with. Are we expecting that to double, triple? What is that gonna be this year? Because that's alarmingly low to cover both Market Street and as well as the library coming online. So what are we thinking that 73 is gonna be this year and next? You said that I apologize. I did not say that, but I did anticipate you would ask that, but I think I do not have your followup to this, but I can, so next year we anticipate it to be 78,000. Extra or total? Total. The following year we expect it to be 84,000 or approximately 89,000. I'm sorry, 85,000, so 84.9,000. Am I wrong to be somewhat alarmed with that shortfall? So we, one of the reasons that the reserve fund exists is because we expect the revenue fund to begin very, it's sort of like a slow acceleration. So you're always keeping what is built and then adding to it. What happens with a large development project is you have a lot of permitting up front. Part of the permitting process has been the development of affordable housing. There's not much revenue, tax revenue associated with affordable housing. It's, you assess it by a formula that's fairly stringent. What was the percentage roughly for the tax money? Actually I wanted to talk about that. This is a good time. Sure, yeah, it is. Because we looked into that, Tim. Yeah. So the city supports affordable housing in a few different ways. One is the trust fund that you've created. The other is inclusionary zoning and other supports that we gain for specific projects like we're the host, we're the applicant for the CD money. But at the end of the day, I asked Todd LeBlanc to calculate what Allard Square would be if it was a purely commercial project. No, no affordability subsidy at all. And if it were a purely commercial project, we would receive about $24,000 more in tax revenue of which about 6,000 would be municipal and about 18 would be education. So if you then apply the same concept to the CHT building, which is being built on the corner of Garden and Market, and it's about a third bigger, you're talking about 36,000. Compared to what are we gonna get from Allard? If it, well. Allard is the 24. Allard is reduced by $24,000. What we would get as a commercial project, it was purely commercial, it's $24,000 less as a subsidized affordable housing project. And so is CHT. So is CHT. They're just a bigger project. So if you combine the two, it's 60,000. Rough, I mean, we're talking roughly $60,000 in reduced tax revenue because it is subsidized affordable housing as opposed to a straight commercial project. So back up, Allard Square, what is their tax bill gonna be next year? I don't know. I didn't calculate. I couldn't find that. We can find it out. All Park, is it 5,000? I don't know. But it's $24,000 less than it would be if it were a commercial project. We'll get you what it is. We'll send an email out with it. I was just curious. I mean, I knew that there was a savings by being affordable housing. Because there is a state formula that decides that. But I think the point is that the community is supporting. We all want affordable housing built in South Burlington. And this is one of the ways that we support affordable housing, which has spread that cost of the reduced tax revenue out broadly across the whole tax base. But... When you add it together, it's a sizable number in terms of all the supporting. I think also, if I'm understanding it right, sort of playing off your concern that that's a slow number, we're also stuck with the number as of April 1st. So depending on how much has been developed or completed in the development of, let's say, Allard Square, that smaller number. So it doesn't really, so the real cost or what we will get from now on from Allard Square won't kick in until 20, until the after April 2019, right? A year from now. So it really lags. So I appreciate that 72, 79,000 we're not gonna be making five million bucks, but as you get further into these, then there's a, whoof, and it glows up a little, significantly. What is the... Be patient. What are the taxes on the shank property today? The existing one, does anybody know? That's worth approximately two million, and it was originally worth about 134,000. So the next version has to be a little more expensive. Right. So that's the next thing that's actually going into ground, that will be market rate taxable, right? Correct, yep. Is there anything else? But it won't be completed by this April. No, it won't. Well, you won't see it until... We don't see it for years. Yeah, sure. We'll sit down there and help them. Which is just kind of like... So yeah, and just to, it sort of creeps up and then between 20 and 21, there's a $70,000 jump. Yeah, so it's sort of going up by like 12, 15, 20, and then... I feel like we have one closing remark. I don't wanna use a bar time here, but I need to do some more homework on because I gotta say I'm walking out of this conversation somewhat concerned because we have 134 right now just on the five million on the market street and we're about to put another five million on the city hall library. So that's effectively gonna double it. And even with the numbers you just laid out, we're still falling short of covering that 300. This is general obligation debt. So this is gonna factor into our future, our budget, so I need to do some more homework. Yeah, so we just passed in the consent agenda to see that it's annual payments is $466,000. For 30 years. For right. So, continually. And we have $860,000 per year. With 26% of that, 24% of that, it's TIF eligible, but if the TIF monies don't come in, we gotta pay for it. Right, but we have the reserve fund for that purpose, which annually takes in more than the $466,000. You still are putting upward pressure on our property tax bills if the TIF revenues don't come in. For our budgeting assets. Well, if they don't come in, that's true, but the developers are interested in developing. I mean, they're talking about and have plans. We just, they're not public yet. Again, I need to do some more homework, but I'm leaving this conversation concerned that where I just need to be shown that five, 10-year property development. So you, I'd just like to clarify that, or just help, you know, if I can offer the, there is a projection that's based on conversations with developers and based on the plans that they provided as part of their wetland permits and their stormwater permits and that projection, which is the numbers that I just gave you are based off that projection. And that is the exhibit for the public notice for the last vote. So if you remember the multicolored sheet, and I think you might have that Excel sheet, and I'm happy to send it out again. So that's where I pulled these numbers in it. It shows the TIF obligation that we currently have for market and market and city center park. It shows the projected obligation for the TIF portion, which is $5 million. And that has not been, we have not recommended that the city, or the city is not going out for debt for that $5 million. The piece that was in the consent agenda is just for the city share. It's not for the TIF share. We would prefer because of this lag in revenue, we're not recommending that that be sought at this time in order to delay those payments until we know exactly what we need in terms of the TIF portion. My concerns persist, and because those developments are projections, they're not shovels in the ground, that if a major economic downturn comes in and all of a sudden development freezes, then we as a council would want to revisit this conversation. Well, when the final payment is made, I'll be almost 100. So I'm, You can rip up the bond. Potentially I won't be alive, although I might be, but I probably won't be sitting here. Tom, you probably won't either. That should be required, but the city council has to be alive by the time the bond finishes, you know? That would be tough. I looked at that, and I went, holy moly. Drag you back, look what you did. That's a scary thought. Scary thought, but anyway. Impressing, actually. Well, okay. But everything will have been built before then, I just, we'll still be paying for it. Well, that point, I don't care what place it was. Exactly. So do you look at Wienewski's and Burlington's at all, or are these shared among towns that have tips just because it's easier to fill them out, or? I've looked at the summary, but not the theirs, I haven't, but that's an interesting, yeah. Because there was some controversy a couple of years ago when Wienewski was challenged by the state, right? Milton was too. Milton was right, right, right. These are a result of that. Okay, there you go. So they, we did not fill them out before that. Or they're, we didn't have one before that, but no one else was, they were not being required before that. Any other questions for Alana? Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. All right. So now we're moving on to item 10. This is the overview of the public survey taken from voters at the general election polls last November. And professor, are you emeritus now? Yes, I am. I just got a letter last week. Professor Emeritus, Vince Baldur. Let me see if I can get it. This side. Set up fence. I was retirement treating ya. So far, so good. It's been the month and two days. I'm gonna be using that a lot. Okay, shoot. I'm worried about hitting you with a laser by accident. I don't care about it. No, no, no, no. It's just, Oh, I did, but I didn't take it out. Because, because hell it ran out. We're gonna try and use this. Yeah, let's see if that just produces. Generously supplemented it. Possible. Very difficult. Yes, I would say so. Do you notice the pen I'm using tonight? That's, you'd be engrossed in school with this, It is. Very nice pen. Do you have to open it up and put it down below? I don't know. Oh. No, I was a judge at the end. I don't know. I'm into it already. I don't know why this isn't showing up. I'm in way over my head here too. Would I take it? Sure. It was just on the phone. It wasn't like that. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. Student success. Damn. Now, why is it not doing that? Yeah, thank you. I thought I sent you a note back. I didn't. I didn't get it as of earlier. It's all right. Thanks. I know I sent you back because I remember what I wrote. Yes, I got your cell and I should respond to it. Well, no, no, you didn't need to. I just, I was so late, you're in it. Maybe I responded to Helen by mistake, thinking I responded to you. I don't know if you did respond to me, because it was a good response. I responded to Helen. Sorry. I thought it was to you. Yes, unfortunate. You may have that. Come on. Why would it show that and not that? No, no, no, but I was starting to worry. Let me see if. Let me see if Alana's still here. Chris, did you ever have Matt in class or not? Right, right. No, we talked about this last time, but I remembered something. What was his name again? Matt Hoffman. No. Yes. All the TSA people thanked him off. Yeah. Well, that's right, because that's where Matt, that's got him going on his career. I mean, no, he's still with the light. Well, they're not really left, but I mean, three more years, four more years to partner. That's great. That's great. I think so, he thinks so. Are you going to run this gimmick yourself? Yeah, I'm trying. Better or not? Yes. You sure? Oh, man. Good. Good. I mean, it's just like, it's crazy. Well, thanks everyone for having me, and I want to turn and thank the audience for there. They're all there. May the record show. No, the audience is in the camera. May the record show that even the city attorney left. When I got out. He's heard it so many times. Well, can I walk around? Or is that OK? OK. And not yourself, but tell the public. Oh, identify yourself. Identify myself, yeah. Vince Bolduc, formerly of St. Michael's College, directed this survey on election day, November 6. Please interrupt at any point. As long as I don't have to sit there, I can wander a little bit and feel more comfortable. These are the students. But also, I note, Paul Conner came to class several times and helped us with the design of the questionnaire. Did a tour around the city to introduce it to the students. And the school district made a couple of suggestions too. Here's an important caveat here. It's kind of sad to have to make it, but perception really is oftentimes more important in the reality. We see here the public perception of the crime rate. Large numbers of people are going up for a while. It's even up higher now, if I had more recent figures, saying there's more crime now than there used to be a year ago. But in fact, the real data shows that the crime rate is going down. And so the public is wrong. But their perception is very important, of course. Yeah? Oh, good, good. It doubled the audience we had before. Let's keep that in mind, because anyway, I think we'll see some things where you'll look at it and say, I think they're wrong. But it is just a matter of perception. Here's a table of contents of what I'll go through, a little bit about describing the survey, and then these middle categories, or how I tried to break the questionnaire up, at least in terms of presentation. And I don't have to show you the appendix. Two interpretive tips as we go through this tonight. I've got about a dozen slides that are in this color, and that just means that there's a time comparison there. So this is a case of 16 to 18 when we've done a couple of surveys. And here's another tip about the interpretation. We had three sets of questions that were matrix questions, like this one. So it was the same response set, but different items, like providing quality services, maintaining, and so forth. And so that I don't exactly repeat the whole thing each time, I just put some arrows on it. So as we go from section to section, you'll see the arrows. So we'll see this later. That's just for interpretation. The strength of exit polls are well-known. They reflect people who have the most interest in civic issues that may be a negative, or it may be a positive. We get good cooperation. We don't get many rejections. Pretty easy to get large numbers, very inexpensive typically, allows voters another form of expression about their community, and I think that's good for the community to do. And finally, I think there's a little dynamic about the interviewing process on election day that has people outside the polling station talking to each other and listening to each other. It's kind of fun to take part in that. Weaknesses of it, the most obvious one, is you can't get non-voting adults and you rarely get early voters. In our case, we got almost no early voters. We only came over for half a day, and of course, there are increasing numbers of early voters, and we can't demonstrate that they're as verifiably representative as a professionally not a simple random sample, but those are quite expensive and very rare. Yeah. I don't know if you're gonna continue doing this in retirement years, but conducting it via the early voters, because we know when they get requested. Right. Mailing them in the survey? Right, no. The mail thing is really expensive. And the response rate is terrible. You just have to clerk hand them to the voters right in the lobby here. Thought about that, we could try that. It's really good to have 25 or 35 students there engaging the public directly. There are those other things. If you were to find 25 or 35 students, I'd be happy to do this next year and a year after. People who we could give a little training to. Well, we've got three people who teach at UVM, so we should be able to each get half of the strike 10. That's right, round up some good interviewers. Yeah. So this shows that this is how many, according to the estimate anyway, this is the population over the age of 18, but only this many are active voters. And here are the people who cast a ballot. There are that many early voters in November, whoops, that's what I was saying, November 6th. In fact, this is a slightly dated version of the PowerPoint. That's the telltale sign. I hope there aren't many mistakes in that. I corrected some since I did. This isn't the exact same one that I showed to you folks. I think it'll be okay though. There aren't too many mistakes. Because the date was actually, if you look at it, the date was November 6th, so it's not November 8th. How demographically representative were the people we interviewed? They exactly mirrored gender and voting, the gender distribution of voting age adults, very close on age, except we had slightly more older, slightly fewer in this age, but that's the way people vote, nationally. And of course, voters are typically better educated than the average resident, and that's what we found also. You don't need to see the voter district, ma'am. Here's the voter turnout for the United States in that midterm was 49% for Vermont 57, impressive, South Burlington even better. And of course, the four different districts have very different numbers. We see Kennedy because it's different in a number of ways. It has more renters than others. Of course, it goes down to the Federal Street and so forth. Here's some miscellaneous statistics about South Burlington, and I got from the American Community Survey. We estimate about this number of overall population, number of households about that many. And the median family income, of course, in South Burlington is higher than in Vermont, about the national average, median household income is higher than Vermont. Families below poverty, a little better, percent never married, that's pretty common. Bachelor's degree, this is a very important characteristic. According to the American Census, the American Community Survey, 55% of the South Burlington population has a bachelor's degree. In Vermont, it's 37, it's higher than the national average, which is only 31, but in South Burlington, it's much higher. I'm sorry, Megan. Yeah, a family is two or more people related by blood or marriage. A household can include singles. So there's single people in there that just naturally brings it down. Our age, and we are aging, is, I mean, as we stand here, we're aging, but the median age in South Burlington is 43. Vermont, younger, United States, quite a bit younger. So there's a significant difference. That's quite high. Are you, you're exactly? Oh, good, good. Lucky you. Should we also call that the middle age? You're just so average. You're so middle age. That is an average though, it's meaty. We are a more diverse population than the rest of Vermont, but Vermont is still very homogeneous. You can see the gender distribution. Census says 4853, our exit poll got, I mean, 4753, our exit poll got the same thing. There's the age distribution, just of the over 18 population. The census says we have about 28% under the age of 35. Our poll got 22%, but you can see over here we got more older people, but that's part of the voting pattern. Older people are more likely to vote than younger people. Here's a blue slide that shows we have a comparison over time. And so the single family homes, not too different condos, not too different from the survey we did in 2016 to the present time. And that may not, that may just be a sampling difference. I don't think that represents a real change in the population. This is remarkable that it came out so incredibly similar between the two years. According to what people told us when we asked them, how do you think of, or how would you describe yourself politically as conservative liberal independent or something else? In 2016, you can see we got 12, we got 11 this time. Look at how close those are. Really very, very close. It's a sign of good reliability of the survey to get that. And by the way, nationally, the Gallup polls shows that 38%, self-identify as conservative, 24% as liberal and that many independent. So we're really a more liberal state. Yes, liberal state, but also a more liberal city. And we'll look at some subgroup differences on some of the results. You can see what they are. And here's some examples of the subgroup differences. We'll actually, we'll look at those numbers. Just kind of interesting results. Higher education, women, homeowners, liberals, conservatives answer the questions a little bit differently and we'll look at some of those, those are just examples. So let's look at some of the general priorities. Here's the first matrix and the question was, it was one of the opening questions. As I read you a list of issues relate to South Burlington, how important are each of these to you? That phrasing isn't precisely what we had, but it really captures it quite well. For example, this says, I'm reading off the questionnaire here, providing quality city services such as recreation, fire, ambulance, police and so forth for the entire city. Is this very important someone and so forth? One could answer all of those is very important. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. And they were not, as you see here, items have been reordered from the original. They weren't asked in that order. And I put them in that order based upon just one criteria which is the very important. It doesn't mean these are unimportant, but it does say that schools and these things people selected as being, more people selected as being very important than anything else. Yeah, everything's pretty much important. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, now here's a comparison for going back to 2012 and 2016. So this is the same chart as I had over here, except I took off the right hand side of it and just kept the very important. And we see that in 2016, 91% said that issue was very important. And in 2018, it was 90%. I wouldn't know how to answer that if I was either wanting a lower tax rate or if I wanted to raise your taxes. Yeah, every so often we got someone who said, no, I don't like the existing tax rate. I want it to be lower. No, that's a problem, you're really good. Not too many said I'd like it higher. Yeah, right. Now, if we look from left to right, which items do you think show that the greatest change? Balancing the city budget. I think that's interesting, I mean in 2012, 83% thought that was the most important thing. Or balancing the city budget. Yeah, now it's down to 70. It appears to have become less important. Yeah, I'm surprised at that. Yeah. But many, because it can happen. People answer these questions sometimes in terms of what have they recently read and what is perceived to be in threat? You know, if it's not in threat, it's not a big issue. They just kind of assume it. Right, and we continue to balance the budget so that's not a threat, they'll do it. Maybe by raising the taxes, but. But isn't that a huge change in the affordable housing? Yeah, 37% is. It's encouraging, just in terms of methodology, to see that when we weren't talking about it much in 2012, not many people selected it, but we've been talking about it a lot for the last several years, and so it's reflected in what people say. Well, some of that may be the perception of housing being more affordable in 2012. It could be. Because prices have jumped disproportionately quickly. And there were more homes. That's right, it could be that. Yeah, more of a concern. I would guess that's a significant piece of it because of the perception. Yeah, well, that certainly could be. Well, and there certainly is a greater knowledge of what affordable housing is, I think, because we have a committee and the fund and we're all talking about it. You're right, right, right. I'll let you read this question, it's a little long. Oh, see, that's one of the things that I corrected on the next edition. You're gonna see a couple of those on here. What was it? Yeah, per year, per year. I mean, $100, just ongoing for the next 10 years or $100 a year per year increase. Oh, no, no, that's not what, I'm sorry. I love this survey, it's a lot of it in the paper. It really validates a lot of the perspectives I have as I walk the streets. Yeah, okay. Because you know what the community cares about climate change. Yeah. Well, and renewable energy sources. Not to mention open land. Right. Yeah, affordable housing, those are all, those are pretty big. I've been writing articles for the other paper and so the one last Thursday focused on open space and there'll be one more this coming Thursday and that's on the schools. Good, good, good. And you stay awake. That's good. Comprehensive plan, sets goals. This is the third matrix. Is, I mean it's the highest one, but is just with excellent and very good. It's just 55% because it seems as if there's been a. A lot of effort. A lot of effort and again, the people that we're asking this of are the very ones who come to those meetings and participate. I mean, and so I just, that's troubling to me that. Look at the yellow. I think the poor is what we should really see to see, you know, if we're not doing very well. Fair does not mean you're. Let me tell you one thing that'll change this just a little bit. This is not the first one. It's the highest one, but maintaining public schools, maintaining quality public school is above this and you'll see that later. I wasn't sure it was mentioned in the comprehensive plan and so I removed it when I was presenting this. You'll see it in all of the others. In retrospect, they should not have done that. In fact, I was told that it is obliquely mentioned at least in the comprehensive plan. Okay, I didn't know that when I made that decision. So here's some differences by neighborhood and by homeowner status. So this question, which we just saw was 41% on the last slide. We now see there's statistically significant differences by the precinct. For school or bike to their school safely with all those little cut throughs? Yeah, you know. There's no room for development in here. So the communities that are well-established, that are well-connected, we're pretty happy. The ones that are seeing growth and development might be less happy, you know. Well, or they're so spread out. I mean, I don't have a bike path that goes by my house. You should ask for one. I should ask for one. And anybody's for the path. Actually, they are going to build one that road by where it's 50 miles an hour. Can't wait to be biking on that. And then we see, yeah, homeowners are more likely to say, the affordability of housing is excellent or very good. Here's a change from 2016 or actually, more accurately, not a change in just those two years. So no, sure, sure. That's field of land, field and team, right? That's what we're talking about. Well, they're still concerned about climate change to the extent that they are. Maybe they're feeling we're not doing enough. We've done some, but it's such a... Let's head to South Brillington to save the planet, but we can try. That's right. Well, we signed out. We're hoping things can change the planet. Yeah. This is going on the premise that your sample of voters that filled out the surveys in 2018 matched demographically and, well, psychographically. Yeah, we don't know about that. You don't know about that. The demographic parallels are all that we can really have. And we thought the ideological one was almost precisely the same. But that could explain these minor differences. Yeah, these are pretty small differences. That could be related to the weather. What was the weather in the two election days? It was basement flooded out. And remember, it's about perception. Right? And the perception doesn't square over the reality. And... So it's just important we have to know that. Absolutely. Absolutely. In 2016, we asked this open space question this way. Conservation and important open spaces and other resources. In 2018, we changed it a little. So this is probably driven by SOS. And just perception of SOS. SOS. Open spaces, you know, the whole reaction of Dorset Meadows. And there's probably just some opinions that were tweaked for 54 to 46. That's significant, I think. I mean... Or is it, I like to make it go from 5% up to 12? But I think somebody who just said Dorset Meadows, et cetera, that easily could... I mean, it was only 400 and something. So I easily could be the bulk of it right there. And of course, there's a ripple effect in the talk about it. In the... Sure. And as you had the highest percentage of voters too, if I recall. Right, it did. There you go. Yeah, it did. Right. There was another survey that was done very differently than this. It was part of the Sustainable Agriculture Committee. And there, you know, talk about the voters. It was done partly by the Burlington Land Trust. And they sent in the Land Trust members and said, get your friends to fill it out and so forth. And the results on open space came out very different than you will see here. And I think the sampling is part of the reason for that. Okay. Schools. I'll do very little on schools because that in a way is across the street. Been ranked extremely well rated and joy voter support. So here we have quality schools up here and tied with providing quality services. And here we have another item on schools. Remember I said I didn't have that before. I took it out and regretted it. Here it is back in again. And now you see 26%. The only item that received double digits. This was only nine. That's 26. But there's been a big jump. We'll see over the last time in the number of people who don't know, who had no opinion on it. And you see it in this slide. Do you think that's skewed by the age? So if the, the farther away you are from having children in the schools, the less you know about them. So you don't really know. We do see that's related to age, but this is only a two year change. So I'm a little surprised at this big jump in a two year period of time. There are a lot more rental units in the city that have become online in two years. And renters, if they're newer renters in a shorter term, they just might not know. And they might be of an age where they don't have kids. Yeah, I break it up by renters. You'll see it, you'll see it in a minute right there. So 26 overall, so the schools are doing an excellent job. But renters, only 15% said excellent. 30% of homeowners, go back? Yeah. Sure. Maybe. I was thinking that too. That sort of negative. You do this in two years? Think about school. Yeah. But you did this. I'd like them excellent to don't know. Well, if you look at the excellence, yeah. Because the last time it was November 2016, and they didn't change the name until 2017. And just before that, it's not really been in Essex or the best school districts in the state. And a lot of people's minds, and they'd revel about how to put a lot of questions into people's minds. And would it stay there in the city? That'll pass. At least it wasn't a change to poor. It was in don't know. Yeah, don't know. Which is... Here we see the age difference. Older people have more positive things to say than the younger people about the schools. And significant differences in the voter district. Southeast quadrant by far the highest. Kennedy Drive. 16% Chamberlain, those are some. And probably the biggest section of the population goes down to Shelburne Road into the rental units around Sherrill. And Sherrill. Yeah. How far does it go down all the way to the Shelburne line along Shelburne Road? And not very far. We can go back and look at the precincts. Yeah, because Orchard picks up. Orchard picks all the way down. Orchard picks up then, yeah. Same question you've seen before, but I just highlighted the city schools tied with renewing. Renewables here. 84% said they were willing to pay the extra $100 in taxes to improve the schools. But it was higher for those under 30. I don't want to do a little kids thing. You're coming to school. They're planning to have kids or bought homes here because of that, so that's no surprise. But the challenge with this is it, if it was just 100 for schools, that's the only question. Right. But if it's 100 for schools, and 100 for the rec, and 100 for the bike paths, and 100 for whatever, something else. Well, now life's getting expensive. Then it's, all of a sudden, that's real money. So that's a challenge. That's why you need to share that, Tom. The cost. So it's not on the property tax to pay for some of those amenities. Not all of them. We're not gonna pay for all amenities with it. So here are some long, one longer term comparison on would you spend an extra $100 for the schools? Look at how this goes from 52% 78, 84. The wording's a little different in 1992 we said for better schools. See, the wording's just a little bit different. And another factor, of course, is $100 in 1992. I went online and saw that'd be equal to $74 and change. What was the worth of it today? Well, I said it at $100 for today, and but in 1992 it would only have been $74. And this was an open-ended question. Those are the words that jump out. I haven't done any further analysis of those 334 sentences. I'll leave that to an ambitious high school student. Well, that's all right. I mean, at the university we try and identify, you know, in our students where their biggest challenges are, certainly writing and communication. I mean, all they write, they communicate with their thumbs on their phones. And that stinks, and that's what's giving us so many of the issues that we have today. So writing and communication is no surprise that they're right up there. With all your digits, that's it. Yeah, right. And your mouth. Communication is face-to-face communication, that's it. Oh, of course, yeah. Here's another question, and I don't find that very helpful, but so I'm inviting a high school senior to do that. Okay, let's focus on energy and climate change. So here are the questions on reducing energy consumption, city-wide and increasing renewables, and just highlighting that it's not, in terms of the excellent, it's on the lower end of the scale. How well has the city done in making progress on it in the last two or three years? Here's that run. And so we see what those others are, it's redundant, I probably shouldn't have done that. Addressing climate change. A lot of people don't pay attention, don't know. Yeah, at least they're saying they don't know, which is good. Would you be willing to pay the $100 to support more renewable and tackling? Yeah, that's a lot of people. 84% is a lot of people who say they'd be willing to do that. And here it is by gender, women are much more likely to, and liberals are more likely to, liberals and independents. Independents, generally, nationally, are closer to liberals than to conservatives, and here we see that they are as a proportion to. That's still a lot of people. I mean, 77% of the men. Right. It sure is. I mean, that's as far as dear up to, yeah. Yeah, right. Here's some economic issues. How important is maintaining the tax rate? There's that question again. Attracting more businesses, balancing the city budget. I think it's interesting when you look at them like that. Pay more money to support attracting businesses to town? A little split, isn't it? So when I was asked that, I wasn't really certain what that would mean. Yeah. Kind of, yeah. And I think it's bad open space, then you aren't immediately saying, oh yeah, let's get some more businesses in because where would they go? Yeah, right. Open space. Sure, right. Right? Can I see, builds 14 stories somewhere? And so here they were in the larger scheme. Some differences by demographics. Men are more likely than women to be willing to pay extra money to attract more businesses. Homeowners and older respondents are more likely to give priority to maintaining the tax rate. Homeowners, 45 renters. Younger people versus older people. The tax, yeah, it was the, we didn't give them the option to lower it, but. Here's some questions that I called infrastructure. There were quite a few. There's the quality services, affordable housing, new infrastructure like we now see and we're at the city center and the rec facility. Yeah, yeah. They want it all. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. There's hope. Right. How well have we done in the last two or three years on each of these? Oh, gosh, it must be there and there. So putting them together, affordable housing, excellent and very good, not quite 20%. Conservation up to, of those two, almost 50%. Well, we're taking concrete actions at the moment. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Recent too. Yeah. We'd just spend more on these things. I gotta say, none of this is a big surprise to me now. Okay. It's a lot of opinion. Okay, good. Good. And we have walked away from shock from everything so far. That's like an insult. Yeah, sure, sure. No, I'm actually glad to hear it. That's good. A good survey should correspond to our common sense. There's one figure in here that I find shocking and you'll see it all. We're on the slide to say how good a job you think city council is doing for you. That's it. That's it. Someone said, terrific. Frank, the city council is one by one. So by demographic, the overall for better parts and facilities with 70, higher among younger people, lowest among the older people, improving city schools. There's that younger group we saw before, right? Less among older, supporting the construction of more affordable housing, 80% overall. Renters more interested in that. Yeah, it's understandable. Five of the eight items had greater support. This is to spend an extra $100. Among those who were willing to increase the open space. So there's a correlation there. And also six of the eight items were more often supported by self-described liberals. So to the extent that the stereotype of liberals always wanted things to cost more, want to pay more money, well, six of the eight items on liberals statistically more likely to say, yes, I'd like to spend an extra 100 times. When the library book was open, so who does any of you? Yeah, just on the last ballot. So the library was on top. Yeah, and that included the library. And it was different by neighborhood or by precinct, like the orchard was most on board with it, Kennedy Least, and by age, felt prepared. Now it doesn't mean voted for, felt prepared. Very well prepared. Very well prepared, thank you. Yeah, oh, and women also felt more and longer term residents. And then we put this in just in case it went down to get an idea of what people didn't like. And so we got 49 responses of people who said they didn't vote for it. And so we said, in a few words, can you tell us why you didn't support it? They said money and taxes, but they probably didn't take the time to understand it either. You know, so, I'm bad for them. Well, but there's a need there. Oh, I'm sorry. Which is pretty big. When you have a word like taxes on another word, tax, do those things work together when the students? They could be, and the computer would make it larger. Yeah, certainly there are some people that didn't know. All right. They're the ones who moved in from New York or New Jersey. This is the second longest question. I'll let you read it. Can we ask that? She does. She does. No, not this question. And here's a demographic breakdown of those who said insulate. So it was 80% overall said insulate. It was quite different. Yeah, 85% in Chamberlain. Just 69% in Orchard, the furthest away. No, they're the furthest away. Sure. So they don't hear it. Sure. That shows that people on June 9th are committed to that view. And could I ask a question? Yeah, of course. As far as I'm concerned, there's the chairs over there. Yeah, of course. Yeah. Can Peter ask a question? Yes, certainly. Could you go back three slides? One, two. Yeah. The next one. Yeah, forward. Oh, forward. Right there. Yeah. This one? Just a few words, can you tell me why you didn't support it? Yes, we voted. This is only of people who voted against that ballot item. Right, I understand that. But on the board of civil authority, we tried to make sure there's no real discussions going on. Now, you were outside. You did come inside the school to do that. The reason I'm raising this is because we're in the talk about election process at our next meeting. And I would consider that a ballot question, or a related ballot. Oh, I see, OK. And it's how technical you want to be and how you look at it. But I would see that, in my mind, too close to the ballot item. OK. To really be right, particularly inside. How do you do an exit poll then, Peter? Then you have to do it outside, and outside of the barriers where the politicians stand. You were outside? We were, except for when it was raining. And it got really dark. Yeah, it was a crummy day. So it's a question we have. Sure. You'll have on Wednesday evening. Sure. You should take a copy of the questionnaire, too. OK, yeah, good point. Interesting bottom line, 50% among the self-identified conservatives and 85% among the liberals. Now here, just open space. Conservation in the middle. Progress and comprehensive land for similar. And here, we have the similar questions here. Another resource with open space, 18, been adjusted for the don't-knows. Would you spend more money permanently preserving more open? Pretty much right in the middle, tied with affordable housing. I'm surprised it's not above climate change and renewable energy. I would have guessed all the land would have been great. It's all closed, so it's. Right. And I'm sorry, this has so many bars. But this goes back to 1990. This is the way we asked a question. Are you willing to spend an extra $100 for better preservation of open land? I've done statewide surveys for the Vermont Business Round Table in 1990, 95, 2000, 2000, and two ends are from that statewide survey that I've done. And the orange ones, of course, are just for South Burlington in those years. You can see here, we changed it to 250. And we thought we'd continue doing it that way, but later decided to go back. Doesn't surprise me statewide that we wouldn't be higher, because there's so much more pressure here. Sure. Versus Barton or something. Right. Right. How'd you pick Barton? Right. Right. Because I know someone who lives there. Yeah. We're also more affluent, so $100 doesn't mean as much. So this is the total. Remember I said another survey done a couple of years ago, had different figures. I almost reversed that. But that was really pushed for one group. And I think this is more representative. Do you have that in 2016 or previous years? No. Oh, yeah. Let's look in a minute. OK. So the about right doesn't change much, but look at it. Pretty big difference between males and females, about too quickly. And big difference between homeowners and renters. And there's one more that shows some big demographic differences. Here is the overall. And here's the age. Goes up with age. And yeah, here's one of the surprising ones. Conservatives compared to liberals. Conservatives are more likely. And it's not, it's only significant at the 0.09. And I have qualms about even including something at the 0.09 level. But I think it does represent something. So conservatives were the largest groups that thought that the city was growing too quickly. Yes. By a little bit. By a little bit. I'm not surprised. I listen to some of the people who talk with us. And that's represented in this group, who, you know, they're the people who moved up from, you know, Atlanta. Or New Jersey or New York. They bought their homes. And they moved here because they felt where they were living was too crowded. And so they naturally don't want many more people here. But they self-identify as conservative. Well, I think. That's what surprises me. Oh, maybe. I think they tended to come from a conservative background. The longer they live here, the more liberal they're going to get. And that's the way it is. It's in the drinking water. They're not much for political office. They have to get a little more for liberal. But in a real sense, conservative means conservation to not change things. Right? And so you kind of understand that. I mean, that's a real root of it. Another way of looking at this, it just went back, is that 70%, say, either too slowly or about right, is that 31% or I rounded differently? It's one of the things I fix. I rounded differently each time. This is the one that absolutely, sure, over time's age, right? At the middle age there, OK? Middle to later years. This is the one that shocks me. We so frequently talk about the Southeast Quad. And it's in the newspaper out in the Southeast Quad, but only 58% know where the Southeast Quad is. That's high, because they're the highest voter turnout. It's probably lower, really. Now, look at the differences. Are you familiar with the Southeast Quad? OK, overall, yes. Homeowner's more likely than renters. It's understandable. And it makes sense that the people who live in the Southeast Quad know where it is, but only 71% should ask them if they know if they live in South Burlington or whatever. I don't mean that it's healthy. What's the president? Yeah, that's the kind of question that does not come out 100%. Yeah, exactly. So we also see that the older they are, the more likely it is they'll know, and the longer they lived here, the more likely that they'll know. Well, sad as it may seem, there are plenty of people out there who focus on their day-to-day lives, what they do for a living, and pay absolutely no attention. Remember, this is of voters. They elect us to pay attention. They elect us to pay attention. That's right. I mean, I could. Or they don't vote. I mean, I hope that they don't vote. These are all voters. I know these are voters. Yeah. Just think of the 33% they didn't vote. Well-educated people at the university who live in South Burlington who haven't a clue what's going on in town. I know some, too. And in town, so no surprises at all. OK. Well, they're in the ivory wall. Same history of Burlington. Really? OK. Not looking out the window. So we see homeowners are also more likely than renters. OK. So if they knew, there's that 58%, then this is the question we asked. OK. So if they said they did not like the way the Southeast Quad was evolving, we said, what is it you don't like? 50 of 78 made reference to too many houses, too much growth, too much sprawl, lots of space. 22 referred to some sort of planning issue, design problems, clustering, too, and so forth. And here's a word cloud from those 76 responses. But in the South Burlington region, this seems like any area with changing in character and growth pressures that we've been talking about, we're going to have a similar reaction. I would expect so. Yeah, I would think. And here's the longest question. But I know you'll be interested in this. It's now used to maintain the properties of the quires. And the question is, no, not asking for it. But just for a period of time. Not forever. Yeah, yeah. And then we do what? What? How many more slides are there? Probably 15. Oh, no, not that many. 14. 14. I'm sorry. OK, let's stop making comments. OK, there's a follow-up to this, OK? But anyway, here's the educational level of those who say increase, decrease, or not change. Better educated people, more likely to. Here's the follow-up. Should the city now increase? OK, of those who said increase, there it is. You saw that pie before. Here was the follow-up. Well, yeah, it said 25 or 30 or something. But the interesting thing is, the other thing said $100 and you got a little different response than you do on this one, which is. And maybe it's the word adding to your penny to the tax rate that scares people. But they're more willing to spend $100. Yeah, citizen participation. It's obvious from the attendance here tonight that about 25% of the city come to these meetings. The figure was 30% when we asked the same question two years ago. Homeowners more likely to come. Older people more likely to come. You'll see in the article that will appear on Thursday kind of my analysis of why this is true. People like to say yes to things that they think they're supposed to be doing, like go to the library and go to meetings. People exaggerate a little bit. So have you visited a park? Not huge differences, but the middle years are most common. And if you said you visited a park, what did you do? You know, in organized sport, nature walk, most common. Playground, walk your dog. The people who chose nature walk, more likely to be the most highly educated and not born and drawn. Playground, a certain age group, of course. Walk your dog, a little higher for men than women. And Kennedy, you know, is hearing the reports from the dog park committee. And Kennedy, they don't have as many dogs. And so there's much less than that. And here it's the middle years that. Chamberlain shows me that we really need a dog parking in the Chamberlain area. Yeah, because they're going somewhere to walk a dog, yeah. And we asked if they went to see them. Yeah, yeah. And visiting the library by gender. Women more likely than men with education is that. People from Orchard come up to the library in the highest numbers, in the Southeast Quad. And age, it too goes up with age. OK, almost done here. This is the last one. The 33% that went to Bikes and Bites, or the educational level. Look at that. Very special demographic. Age, the middle years. And by precinct, look at the huge amount from the Southeast Quad. 33% is pretty darn good. More or less represented the population. That's one third of the people in town go to Bikes and whatever we call it. And I think we get all nice, nice next summer. Beautiful evenings. That number is going to go up. That's a fabulous event. I just remember of voters who are more tuned into this kind of thing. Anyway, that's it. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Good. Good. Thanks for giving me the time to do this. It says we're doing most everything right. You hate for us, right? Yeah. So what questions surprised you? The one on the low percentage of people who knew where the Southeast Quad was. You didn't show them where it was on the map? No. It must be not that it's where we are now. It's on the left with a southern resident two days ago. And I had them in his quadrant in the south. I think the northern border confuses some people. OK, we have just two items left. So even though it's quarter after 9, are we OK plugging ahead? Are you all right, Sue? Oh, yes, you may. OK, so why don't we just have a very quick recess? Anybody wants to start signing stuff? There's a lot to sign tonight. Let's get started. This is the contract for the firefighter union. We held it. OK, but I want to reconvene him. We're going to move on to ordinance. But you'll have another crack at these, I think. Maybe not. You vote yes. OK, so I'd like to call back into order. The South Burlington City Council meeting Monday, February 4, 2019. And we'll continue with the agenda on item 11, which are ordinance amendments that apparently Andrew's going to talk about. Andrew Bullock City Attorney, Amanda apologizes. She has a sick kid at home tonight, so I'm filling in here. So this is a part of the ongoing ordinance codification project, rebooting. Amanda's been taking a deep dive in and getting up to speed. And this is kind of the first round that we saw. I'm thinking there's about, after this, there'll be about six left. And the two that are kind of in a pre-first reading mode are by far the largest and most substantive of all of them. I think mentioned in the memo, there have been 18 amendments to the motor vehicle and parking that has also doubled as the parking ordinance since 1953. So it's been a kind of piecemeal together. And I think this honestly was probably the ordinance that kicked off the entire project just because of how complicated it's been. So I guess the first one is a actionable one for the council tonight. That's the repeal of the emergency management ordinance. That's one that was passed originally back in 1995. And state statute was heavily amended in 2005, 2006. And then it largely supersedes. So after conversations with both our fire chief and our police chief, the recommendation has been is to repeal this and rely on state statute moving forward. Other than that, it's kind of a here's a look at where we're thinking for parking and motor vehicles. When you go through and read, you'll see that particularly the motor vehicle ordinance is going to rely heavily on resolutions by council, which is a different process than the ordinance amendment and should make it a little bit more streamlined as far as and more accessible, I think, as well. So with that in mind, if you have comments on those two, let us know just so you have it in front of you now. And the other one recommendation is to warn a hearing for March 18th, as you've done with the earlier ordinance tonight for 7 PM, for a second reading. The warning is for the repeal of the emergency management? Correct. OK. On March 18th, and then would we also have the second reading of the first reading of the parking ordinance and motor vehicle and traffic? That would be we'd bring that for a first reading for the next council meeting in February. OK. On the 19th. February 19th. So that would be first reading. Or is that also the 18th? No, 19th because of veterans. Yeah, our presence, yeah. Yeah, 19th. All right. Are there any comments or questions? I guess as I understand it, the motor vehicle one, is that the one that's mostly resolution? Correct. Which makes sense to me personally. How do they know how many offenses for the parking tickets? I know that in Burlington, they just have a set fee that if you don't contest, right? Right, yeah. I mean, I think there's our primary enforcement agency at this point is the police department. So I assume that that'll be a question for Chief Burke to determine how he wants to manage that. Largely an enforcement issue. We have this kind of graduated process to try and eliminate kind of the scoff law violators, the ones that are continually in front of the police department. So I think that's the idea behind it. It's also consistent with how we've managed all the other ordinances have been in this sort of graduated way. First offense, second offense, third offense. I think there's also waiver and kind of a diversion method as well. And yeah, I think largely beyond the discretion of the Chief, I think how he wants to use the enforcement of this. And as our city center becomes a real downtown, I think it'll become pretty important. Downtown is going to be a new problem, a new situation. So it's not going to be a problem. Well, when you deal with law enforcement, you're dealing with problems, right? So I don't see it as an opportunity. Until the day. I don't see it as an opportunity. Probably not. So it's going to be a new situation, right? Yeah, and I think it's one we're going to have to. I know the discussion has already started among both planning and zoning and public works and police, at least with Chief Whipple. And an ongoing discussion. OK. Any other questions or thoughts? Well, I guess what we need then is a motion to set, excuse me, February 19th as the first reading of the proposed parking ordinance and the proposed motor vehicle and traffic ordinance. And March 18th as the second reading of the emergency management ordinance. At 7 p.m.? At 7 p.m.? Or do we say 7 p.m.? Well, I think we said at 7 30 for both of them. Right. At 7 30 earlier. So I've still moved. Second. Is there any further discussion? I have one comment that I want to make that I will definitely articulate better at our next meeting. Yeah. Finding that the motor vehicle current draft, it just doesn't seem to form or conform to the same format that Jim had been doing for so long, like the purpose and authority, general definitions. Is that intentionally because of the nature of motor vehicle violations? I just I've loved how consistent all the other ordinances have been. And I'm wondering why it seemed to depart from that framework that we've had on all of the revised ordinances. But yeah, that's a good question. I think I'm not entirely certain what changes Amanda made from kind of an original draft that Jim had prepared of these. And it may be because it's so heavily resolution-based. But I'll certainly consider that for the next round. I'm going to stop me from voting for it. I just love the consistency that we've had in this reworking process. Yeah. Yeah, good point. Although this one doesn't have any penalties really, does it? So with regard to the parking with city center, we're really, again, and I know I've seen maps of these things. But there's no possible way for someone to park on grass in city center, right? I mean, we've had these conversations before on grass, that there are, especially when we have the parking ban over the winter months, right, that people park on their lawns, right? I know that Pat and I would have a discussion about that. And I'm just trying to remember those maps. I would hope that, you know. Well, I think all the building and city center has parking from behind, has either parking behind or underneath, or is my memory correct? There may be townhouses where there could be some lawn. I can't say that there wouldn't be. Most of it is multifamily, though. And even the townhouses, I think, are not detached for the most part. So they're going to have parking. They're going to have parking. I mean, maybe not enough if you have three cars. These homes do have parking. We have, you know, we have driveways, but still people. Right, when you have residences that don't have curbs on their driveway, right, where you can just roll onto the grass. I mean, that's a different issue. But these are part, like behind shanks building, right? There are curbs on logwood. I mean, I remember these discussions, Pat, and I went out where she was. So I mean, if you can get onto your property without damaging your car, right, people will do that to get off the road if they can, right? But in these developed areas, there are going to be granite curbs, like behind shanks property for all those. There is grass, but you can't get a car up there. You have to go across the walking path. I mean, there's grass in front, but you'd have to go over the curb, over the bike and pedicure on garden side walk to get onto some grass. I mean, I just, and then the rest of it in the back, it's all plantings. So you'd have to mow down a bush to get off. The home-based code would require to build up onto the street. There would be limited space in front. Could be in back, though. Except behind the shanks. Yeah, I would think of there's consistent parking on something like, I mean, if the four banks code doesn't cover it, or if it's in violation of form-based code, that's a separate route. I mean, that would be a zoning violation route, potentially. So enter by route. What do you mean by route? From an enforcement standpoint. OK. Yeah. OK. Because, I mean, it would seem like the city center district would be very different from an R4 district or Southeast Quadrant. Let's repeat that word over and over against the people. Southeast Eastern part of our community. Southeast Eastern quarter of Fort. You know, coming from Chicago, we knew North, South, East, West, because of the lake. I don't find that people here have that same kind of sense. But we have a lake too. But it's interesting, because people don't have that same sense here. But in Chicago, you ask anybody which way you go north, because you know the lake's that way, right? A lot of the districts in Chicago are addressed as north, this, and south, that. So you know where you are. But even outside of the city. Because I want to know where you are. Even I'm a suburbanite. So even outside of the city, you just, OK. Anyway, so do we have a motion on the table? I did, yes. And a second? OK, is there any further discussion? I mean, I think your comments about grass make sense, because I'm sensitive to that too. I don't think people should bark on the word. Right, and that there might be districts with an individual characteristic. All right, if there's no more discussion, I would be ready for the vote. All in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Should I move to repeal the emergency management and ordinance? Well, no, we're having a second hearing in order to do that. That would make any motion with regard to that. Yes, I did. Well, what I read out was to have a second hearing on the emergency management ordinance, March 18. All right, OK. I'm just tired. OK, 11A is committee reports. Are there any? I missed the last airport meeting. It was just keep having these emergency meetings. 11A, where are you? 11A, we added it. Right before other business. OK, if there's no other reports for that, I would entertain them. Oh, is there any other business? I just wanted to make a request. When we look at trends over time, I think it would be an interesting exercise. Now, I realize that our budgeting format changed in 2011. But I think from 2011 to 2018, it would be interesting to see the breakdown of where our revenues and our cost drivers are in the presentation that would come before the public on town meeting day. I also have to announce that I won't be president town meeting day. I'm really sorry. But we are having some work done at our house. My husband has vacation days. My daughter is off. Where are you going, Prince? We're going to go probably up to Jay Peak. Oh, nice. There you go. That'll be good. So we're going to pay some rooms and meal tax. There you go. So you're thinking maybe broad category? I think it would be interesting for the voters. So maybe, like if you look at health care, it might take a bigger piece of the talk. Right, but also city center or definitely our public safety and our public works. But what in the questions that might come forward with regard to the budget, we have some new line items. Now we have dog parks. We have the mental health initiative. We have some monies going to new initiatives for regional dispatch, all these things. I think it would be interesting to see these new initiatives and see that laid out. I think it's important. We talk about educating people to know what these things are. I think this is an opportunity for it. OK. The university's money's gone. Any other business? OK. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Good night, gang. Good night. Thank you all. No meeting next week, unless you've got a committee meeting. Tim. I'm going to go to the southeast quadrant. I don't think somebody ought to find out. Who's going to the southeast quadrant? I'm following you. I don't know where to go. I'm going to go to the southeast quadrant. No. It's up there by the airport. Yes. Look into that. Thanks for the goodies. I have stopped donating to the university because of it. When they call me for donations, I say, when you change that, we'll talk about it again. And I feel that I have been.