 one shortly. And that is why you are still muted. So you don't have to hear all of our chit chat. Oh, here's Councillor Jen. I think we're getting very close. I'm going to mute you for one more second. And then we should be getting underway here in just a moment or two. A motion on the agenda. Great. The motion carries unanimously. We're councillor Busher. You should be all set. I am. Thank you so much. Good evening. I'll be brief on the budget review that you're about to present. And, you know, I noticed monies that were proposed 500,000 for BCA's building on Pine Street, which made me contemplate, is there ever, does the administration ever have a conversation about a laundry list of small items that could be done for memorial rather than looking for a mega bond, but a small amount, $500,000 perhaps, to further stabilize. The reason I'm mentioning that tonight is that I know that the IT equipment is moving out of memorial within the next 18 months. I have no idea what that is. I mean, I have no idea what that means as far as what that will entail for memorial. But if there was an opportunity, if that was going to cause some void, which could be an opportunity to stabilize this or that, I would hope that the city would seize that moment. And so I just wanted to offer that tonight, not to change your proposed budget. But there always are budget amendments throughout the year. And I would really like the city to consider that. I mean, people are focused on veterans all the time with Memorial Day. And I feel like our city only does lip service, and I really would like them to do more, especially regarding that building. So thank you very much. Thank you, Sharon. Any other public comments? I'm not seeing any. I will go ahead and close public forum. Is there a motion on the consent agenda? And is there a second? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion carries unanimously. And that brings us to item number four, the review of the general fund. So I will just share my screen here and go through a very brief presentation. There are also some accompanying materials, including the 20,000 line budget or whatever it is if you wanted to go through all of that, as well as some memos. There's one about the moving the IT equipment out of Memorial. There's one about the parks and rec investments. And then there's one about the assigned fund balance. We are going to go into those tonight, but I'm drawing your awareness. Here is the big picture. Our revenues and expenses at this point in the budget are just over 95 million. Because we are talking about some significant use of these one-time monies from the assigned fund balance, I felt it was important to pull that out so there would be more apples to apples. And so if you do that, we come in at just under 93 million. And that is about a five percent increase from FY 22 to FY 23. Something else I know is very important is the tax rate. And we have gone over the municipal tax rate. What this group has not necessarily seen is the information we have on the education tax rate. So as you will see here, and as you have probably heard, the state is able to provide a rather large decrease to the education tax rate. And so that leaves us here. Whether you pay the homestead or non-homestead rate, our constituents can expect a better than eight cent decrease to their tax rates. And you'll see the FY 23 highlighted with that. A lot of what we've done is made some tweaks since our wonderful, marvelous nights. We got some good feedback from all the counselors who attended those sessions. Some of what we did was clean up things that you pointed out to us that were just missing errors. And some of it were suggestions like you will see we have gone back to separating airport revenue in the BPD budget. That's very clear. We've encountered an issue where the reclassifications before you in the BPD budget were not in the FY 23 BPD budget. So those are there now. A lot of just sort of cleaning up. As you know, there's a lot of details here. Another big item we did was based on our discussion from the first night, the not sexy but important non-departmental budget. We revised the budget for both gross receipts and local option tax up. And you can see that here on the chart. And that adds about half a million dollars of revenue between the two. And then this is mostly review. As you will recall, we are asking about making several kind of strategic investments using our unassigned fund balance. You've seen everything on this list except the highlighted item. You will recall we had a discussion about where Dewey Park even was. And the REIB sculpture that we are investing in will be put at Dewey Park. And one of the last items that we wanted to add was some money to help spruce up the park. It's my understanding that several years ago there was some sort of quick build up there and nothing sort of more permanent has been done. And we want to make sure that park is in really good shape to show off this new sculpture. And then lastly, one of the other components of this budget is again obligating more of the ARPA money and the proposed uses totaling just over $7 million are listed out here. There are no changes to what you've already seen. And that's it. There's not a lot of changes, but I am happy to take comments, questions, general venting, any thoughts you have. You want to let me, but I love the venting about the budget. That's our high tower. Just one more. I think I've asked for this a couple of times is I really like the 2019 actual amount. Yes. And I would prefer that over having the 2021 budget amount. So if you have to lose one to get one, I would really like to see those numbers. We can definitely do that. Yes. Sorry, taking notes. Councillor Bergman. It would be very helpful if we could see what the percentage taken by each department compared to the total would be. So for example, I think we did this last time with 19% or so, or 15% was fire. So that would be very, very helpful. And then I just want to say, and this in light of the number of public safety concerns that are being raised across my ward, that I would like to see, and I was just looking through the line item. So I was not actually able to identify very quickly where the urban park rangers and the CSOs and CSLs are, but I personally would like, I think, how many urban park rangers before I say I want more of that? I believe I want more in the budget. I heard from Chief Murat today that he swore in five. I'm sorry. I said, if he's asking about park rangers, he's asking about park spiritual, which is different, and park rangers are yours. Okay, yes. This is a great question. Which park rangers are you speaking about? I want more of all these civil enforcement uniform people is what I want. So in the budget to be in our parks and just be out in the community. I can show you the CSOs and CSLs are in the BPD budget under community support, but we can talk about Cindy, I'm not sure where yours are. So ours is under community services under waterfront division. We have two full-time rangers who just started just within the past couple weeks are fantastic and we have a group of CSOs. Okay, so two full-time plus seasonals for parks. My comment and I'll end is that I think that it is insufficient and I'll leave the hyperbole out and would like to see more in the budget so that all of our community parks are staffed with non-uniform armed officers. Thank you. Thank you. Can you also explain a little bit more about the $500K from the PCA for the finance because it doesn't seem it's on the PCA anymore, it seems it's on bad now. I think that is a good one that we should hold for the mayor because I think this is something he's been more involved with in terms of that strategic investment. So I've noted that and we'll have him answer that when we get to it. Any other questions? Yeah, one more then. It's about some people, you know, because of safety and also maintenance and what if this wondering what's next as far as it's going to be. That is a great question. I was just meeting with Kara today about that. So that is a partnership between the church street marketplace and parks and rec. Is there anything you want to talk about? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Keeping City Hall Park beautiful and what are our plans? Safe and beautiful. So that is a collaboration between the parks department and my department in terms of we allow that staff to sit and keep their equipment in the same place that the marketplace staff keeps theirs so that we can have an enhanced maintenance team very close by. They don't have to be coming from Pine Street. So they're just always there and they can be in the park all the time. So we currently have one full-time worker who is a member of the Parks and Rec and Waterfront department, but who reports to me so that we can sort of keep that level of maintenance at a higher level similar to what you see on the marketplace. I think it's outstanding, I just want to say. And we do have additional money budgeted for security for effects in the City Hall Park or outside security. I just wanted to make sure. So when we had the presentation on the police budget, which was it seems like a long time ago, it was on a Thursday, there were a couple of things. I don't know if you still have those slides or if those. So some of those things that were part of the recruitment effort, the one-time expenses where those, some of them were put into that budget and some of them were not like the public engagement coordinator. That was put into, it was that was actually like it's an online item or maybe I can't remember. And then but the recruitment of the one-time expenses were not in there that I can recall. And I just wondered if those are because that would lower the amount that was potentially could become an assigned fund balance or a carry forward. And then actually, Councilor McGee is here. So can certainly speak to that question that he asked about. And I would be interested to see that the breakdown of what that inside or that currently unused and potentially a carry forward what that is made up of. Great. So getting to your first question, we, I am still waiting for some of the detailed numbers around how much will be budgeting for a recruitment firm. For instance, you'll recall that was like a TBD number. So that is not in the budget. And knowing that it is coming from the leftover money, I'm assuming it will be a wash because we'll get money in from FY22. And then we'll spend it on that in FY23. But that is an addition that still will need to be made to the next version of this budget. And that will happen over the next week, I would assume. I was more thinking at the one time costs like the housing incentive packages, the hiring bonus, the recruitment coordinator, those things all did have numbers on them. So the staff are in the budget, the recruitment coordinator, the P, excuse me, and the PIO are included in the budget. But last I saw we did not have firm numbers for all of those costs. I'm waiting to have something firm for, and I know we have an estimate out there for recruiting, but something more firm to put with the educational bonus and all of those things. And you'll see all of those in sort of one, maybe not the lump sum, but under one heading in the budget under a free building plan. And I just wondered, I have one more question for Jackie Chi, but is all of the recruitment incentives, so to speak, and then the positions, has it ever been made to find out what young, you know, relatively new to the to the profession recruits want, as opposed to just giving much, yeah. So I think that's a great question. I know that a lot of our data has been worn out, come from our exit interviews, and what has caused people to leave. I think you bring up a really good point on the new hiring, and I see you have HR director here. I don't know if there's anything more you want to add to that. I know this is a more thing closely with the acting chief. Yes, I have. And within a compensation study, I mean, I hear Council President Paul need data to back up what people need, what do people want? What are people looking for? And I just constantly got off a call with our old CAO, the city employee through the administration, talking about previous work that have been done in this area, and also discussing compensation study. You know, we really, we know, I know some answers. I don't know if they're really specific, but just just by the work I've done in the past year in terms of recruiting difficult to fill positions, especially with Class A, if folks, you know, it's hard for firing police right now, they can't recruit. And one of the big obstacles is you're going to pay into a system that you may or may not want to. So that that continues to be an obstacle across the city for recruitment and how we sort of look at a cafeteria plan of options for younger folks who would want to come into these positions is something that I'm really pressing hard on, and we will not leave us to them until we get to the bottom of this. And, you know, a firm you had mentioned on one of the marvelous Wednesdays about a firm, and I've been really pushing for us to really find out what are other agencies doing, not just we know what the, you know, the state is doing, but what are people doing in other communities that have been successful and what we're trying to do in terms of transformation, and, you know, what are those officers getting in there before. So I think it's really important to also call out the transformation, because that is actually a more transformative progressive police department is what folks are. That's great to know. I think that, you know, I mean, behind, you know, these, you know, I think it's helpful to know that that firm's, you know, work has been done or at least some process so that we're, you know, we're using the money wisely. And what officers wanted, you know, 30 years ago, you know, was made very well, not be what they want today. So we're trying to get the officers who want to be helpful to know what they want, other than other than other competitive salaries. Thanks. Thank you. Mayor, while we were discussing the budget, we have one question that I could not answer. And that was the question from councillor Jay about the proposed investment at 405 time for BCA. And I think we're just looking for more information, but if there's different questions, questions, how that investment is, because now if we talk about 400 flights, if we talk about the full lunch, we talk about the boarding alley, we talk about the BCA. Yes, thank you. So as, so I believe this question during the BCA presentation, there must have been, as the council is well aware, the Burlington City Arts Foundation purchased 405 Pine Street a couple of years ago now, I don't remember the exact time. And, you know, we've gone through several stages of relationship with that property. First, there was a lease. Then after a couple years, less than two years, I believe, as a lease holder, BCA foundation, not the city, but this related foundation was able to purchase a full building with a recording in progress, half the building, or maybe a little more than half the building to fly Williams. There was an initial build out of art spaces during the lease period. This currently, the foundation is in a capital campaign to do an expansion of the public education, mission related improvements within the building. There is, their vision is that there would continue to be a lease part of the building for other uses going forward. Up until now, the city has had zero financial contribution to either the acquisition, or this new capital campaign. We are now, the BCA foundation has successfully secured a half million dollar grant from state government for the build out, the expansion of the education related spaces, and you have to both match those funds and ensure that the rest of the capital campaign is successful. My sense is that it's important that the city put up some kind of financial contribution at this point, and unfortunately we're in position to do so without a tax increase, using these sort of one-time funds. That's my sense. You have to finalize this yet, but my sense is that my budget, when we transmit this to you next week, that's the recommendation I'm currently planning on making. Up until now, I've heard some support from other councilors. That's our point. Quickly, in regards to the police budget, it's increasing the number of CSR and CSLs. The action chief said the department could use up to six CSLs and 12 CSOs if we're going to have some standard carry forward. That's it. We'll look forward to seeing the green light detail on those one-time. Okay, very good. Thank you and I appreciate the concept there. Yes, of course, this budget assembly, there's been shifts in a particular CSO program that's being utilized. I appreciate that. I think the next thing that would happen after tonight, the plan is to meet our charter responsibility to get the full budget to the council by the 15th, which is five. I don't think it's likely we will be in position to release further information this morning before the 15th, which would that give until the 20th, be the next time it beats or before the council for further action. If there's specific areas that you're particularly concerned about in those one-time fundings or that you think there may be concerns about that we try to pick out and start the conversation, have further conversations sooner, then maybe we should do that offline, because I don't think we'll have a big new information dump until the 15th. Just since we're talking about the Barling-Tipoli's department budget, I missed the presentation, so I've only looked at the physical presentation and I've gone back and watched the video yet. But along those lines, I guess I'm curious to hear, I fully would divide at the CSLs between the CJC and the Barling-Tipoli department for the first hire, and I'd like to hear how that's going and if that's going well, especially like the combination of restorative justice practices in CJC with more traditional public safety is really valuable and the reason we set it that way is I like to hear how that's going and then as we think about expanding, dividing and potentially continuing to divide between those two, I did talk to very briefly to the folks that we hired, and they didn't, they seemed to think that was a good setup, so yeah, I would like to hear more about how that's going and how we're thinking about expansion in terms of using both of those organizations. I also have to go back and look at the presentation, but when we talked about increasing diversity between partners, as executive director of one of those community partners, I haven't heard anything about this, so I'm all curious as to what that actually is in terms of a plan as opposed to just a list of organizations. And then of course, I guess a question in terms of potentially getting the 2019 numbers, do you know when we could expect that? That is very easy, I can get that to you. Awesome, thank you. Yes, I'm sorry, it was on a different page to this one, so that's my fault. Let's see if there's any interaction. Just curious, we mentioned about the term 15th, we have a, I thought we had a board financing a property, so that would be another opportunity for the 15th, is that right? So maybe some of these things could happen. Any further discussion from other counselors in the room? I have one more. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Jackson. It's about the police. See who's for the police, we have a new position, it's $65,000 to be better tell the story for the people. In 2019, before the funding for the police, we were at 22% of the general fund allocated to the police, now I believe it's about 90. Of those 19, how much, what is the percentage that is not associated with this police? I don't know, but when I pull out this number of the total budget, total of department per budget, you know what I'm trying to say, I can also do that, and that would not be hard, we can do uniform officers, community support, because it's all broken up by configuration, so yeah, administration, so I'll just separate it for me. And a follow-up question if I can ask the part of that was moved, is that parking, essentially? I was just going to say that, I don't think we should be careful with that comparison, we will have to do some things, and I'll talk to you about it, but yes, because we've moved parking, and now we've moved administration, so certain things have to be done to try and make that an apples to apples comparison, and it will never be perfect, but we can get you something close to what you want. I'll just take the parking, I'll recall. And sorry, what was the note on administration that you just said? One of the things that you've missed in the police presentation is that up until this year, the administrative staff for police were actually embedded in the uniform, police uniform services, nine items, something I'm not sure that we were all aware of, so that's been pulled out now, but that's something else, so that for last year we have sort of a dummy figure of what we think that was, so that we could compare it, we'll see it when we go back through the notes again. So it's still in the police budget, but it's not a uniformed officer, correct? It now just says administration and everything you see in uniform services is actually like a person in a uniform. Thank you. Okay. I know for the questions, we will close out this section, and we'll move to 5.01, is authorization to execute a contract with Wind River Environmental LLC for tax-based and clean services, water resources, and a lot of resources and items. Thanks. This is one of many, and Megan Weyer, Division Director of Water Resources, and James Schroder from our stormwater program. We'll pick it up. Thanks, counselors. This request is actually to build upon a similar contract that was executed two years ago, also with Wind River to perform catch basin cleaning. Essentially, the city has about 3,000 catch basins. They perform an important job here in the city, both as a drainage mechanism, but also they capture a lot of sediment. That sediment does build up over time and needs to be cleaned annually. We strive to get about a quarter to a third of our basins cleaned each year. That's somewhere between 750 and 1,000. A little while back, our staffing didn't allow us to get up to those numbers, so we have been shooting for a full 1,000 basin over these past few years and have been achieving that with the assistance of a contractor. A lot of our streets crews do perform a significant amount of catch basin cleaning, but they simply can't keep up with the amount that we're hoping to get in these next couple of years. So with that said, we're hoping to get approval from the Port of Finance today to continue to work with Wind River for up to potentially two years, but this initial request is just for a single year. Great. Thank you. How would the board like to proceed? Are you ready for a motion? Good. Councilor Ithard. Yeah, I'll move to program recommendation of the city council authorized as recommended on board talks. Great. Is there a second second, Councilor Chang? Discussion? All those in favor, motion please say aye. All right. Very opposed. Question carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, James. 5.02. Authorization for $188,927. Amendment to the construction loan from the Mont and Water State Revolvering Loan Fund and Executed Contract with Engineers Construction Inc. $488,312 for design, build, and development from that, which forced me. Can we get a little background on this? Absolutely. Our public works water resources engineer actually will talk about our clean water resiliency plan and how this fits into our ongoing commitment to the lake. Hi. So this is a continuation of the rehabilitation of our existing pump stations within our clean water state revolving funds. We have completed the rehabilitation of this particular pump station and under that contract originally we were going to be doing shared in place pipelining of the associated force main with that pump station. However, upon initial TV inspection, the CIPP lining was not a feasible option due to some additional bends and the location of those bends in the force main. So we have gone out via RFP for a design build contract to perform a trenchless rehabilitation of the force main, which would provide a completely new pipe instead of rehabilitating the pipe that is existing. And because we are also going across the railroad tracks, the Vermont Rail System requires trenchless rehabilitation. And so this contract would be Engineers Construction ECI would design the new layout as well as construct it within this season under the clean water state revolving fund. A small loan amendment is needed when we total up all of the project between Flynn pump station and Fletcher pump station, which Fletcher also had included a couple of unknowns that we had to address. We do need this small incremental loan amendment to the overall loan. Thank you. This board ready for a motion? Thank you. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Brings us to 5.03. I'm going to read it. Authorization for 198,926 dollar amendment to the planning loan from the Vermont clean water state revolving loan fund and execution of amended consultant agreement with oil care associates for 398,881 for the planning of industrial treatment for planning of industrial treatment. Excuse me, Megan, would you like to speak to us further? Absolutely, because it's a project that's been around for a little while. And so some of the newer counselors and or existing counselors or older counselors may not recall. But fundamentally, both the state requires as well as our own system really demand that we have a burgeoning business community, a lot of industry, a lot of breweries, food and beverage processing. And we love and support those businesses, but the fact of the matter is they do discharge higher strength waste. And so starting a number of years ago, pre-COVID and then going into COVID, we endeavor to implement or to study and then create a program that would help us generate our own local regulations around how to manage those waste and to potentially require businesses of certain size and a certain amount of discharge to better control those onsite. The sort of too long don't read is a lot of the testing that we did happen during COVID and the flows were not the flows and the discharges were not what is actually typical for our system. And so we functionally do have to redo those. The other piece is that I think together with our consultants, we thought or believed that the industries would know more about their process and about the what they were discharging. And when we've done a lot of surveys of them, they really just don't have that information. And so in order to create a defensible fair process, we're going to, you know, we hemmed and hawed about whether to require them to sample and have them expend that cost. But because this is a program that we're trying to do as a lake friendly municipality, we, a lot of the scope involved going and directly sampling them. So we have recent solid data. The really good news is that even though we are asking for a loan amendment, a significant portion of that is actually likely eligible under a Vermont grant. The grant has not been released yet, but we will be able to incur costs and then reimburse them against the grants. So we're hopeful that the impact to the rate payers is actually going to be minimal if we're successful in securing this grant. However, we do need to move forward with the project. And so we want to have that loan amendment as a backstop so that we can move forward and execute the amended contract with our consultants. I guess that was still kind of long, but longer or shorter than it could have been. Thank you, Meg. Laura's open for more questions, very much. Catherine. Great, thank you. Councillor McGee, High Tower. Further discussion? Seeing none, we're going to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Megan. And this now brings us to 5.04, water, wastewater, and stormwater, ARPA funds. And Megan, who's going to be the... And Kate Karamaz, our water resources engineer. Yes, I'll probably take this one, the money one, and then Kate will take the reservoir one after that if that's okay. Kate, so she can answer any questions about the technical aspects of the projects that we're proposing. If we turn back time, we had originally requested a allocation of the ARPA funds. Water, wastewater, and stormwater projects are one of the eligible categories for the city ARPA funds for expenditure. And we had based that request of $860,000 on the estimate at the time for what work was needed, what water resources work was needed for University Place. As a result of some really creative thinking and some modeling by our engineering team, we have now determined that we're able to sort of value engineer, or not value engineer, but substantially reduce the overall cost of that project down to 267. And so our request is to repurpose any remaining funds of the $860,000 to either both, or at least one of these two projects. The primary one is to reconstruct the water main on Overlake. This is a pipe that was part of our original bid, but we didn't have funding at the time. Even at the time that we bid it out, it had broken a number of times, and then it proceeded to break even more times this last winter. And so it's sort of top on our list, because of the amount of emergency costs and overtime and, you know, our crews having to be out there in the middle of the winter. I'm fairly confident that if we don't repair this main, that we're going to be in the same place this winter. And so that's our top priority for repurposing those funds. And then should funds remain from doing both University Place and Overlake, we would potentially like to repurpose some of those funds to fund the planning stage of the Reservoir Improvements Project, which is the second or the next item on the agenda. That project, the Reservoir Improvements Project planning phase does, we have enough capital money to fund that. But if we were able to reuse some of this money to fund that, then we'd be able to take the money originally set aside for the Reservoir Project and spend it on other needed capital projects. Thank you, Megan. What was open for questions or emotions? President Paul. Thank you. I would make a motion to take the action as recommended before. That's Jenning for another discussion. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. All right. Post carries unanimously. All right. Thank you. And this brings us to, I believe, the final Water Item 5.05, Engineering Services Agreement for Reservoir Improvement Project. And Kate, why don't you go ahead and give us a short summary. So our original pump station was built in 1867. It's historically registered and it feeds the whole high service area. There's two distribution service areas in the city. The high service includes the Level 1 Trauma Center and University Medical Center. This pump station's done as well, but at this point in time, we need to look at our future and into needed repairs and upgrades. There's a few listed out in this memo itself, including that we need mixing equipment, a full roof replacement, replacement of retaining wall and fencing. The pump station itself, we need to evaluate whether it needs to be rebuilt or replaced. We've worked with, we've gone through the RFP process and have worked with DuFren Group to come up with a cost of $90,000 for the planning phase, which would be a full evaluation of the pump station and the reservoir and the security on the site to give us a preliminary engineering report. And then that report would lead into the next stages of a potential CWSRF, excuse me, DWSRF funded project. That's the intent. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Kate. We are, floor is open for a motion or questions. So now that we, I had asked Megan about this. So now we're in number two and the first one passed. So now the $90,000 isn't $90,000. It's $90,000 minus the $67,000 or so, $64,000. I can't remember now. So that's good news. I don't, I mean, I'm happy to make the motion as the maximum limiting amount with the understanding obviously that we've, the first has happened, so we now have a much lower number, which is great news. So with that understanding, I would make that, make the motion as requested in board talks. And for full transparency, I think the number for Overlake is still an estimate and it is a very generous estimate. So I, we believe that we certainly will have at least that 67, if not more to dedicate to this project. I just want to be clear that in construction, we can find all sorts of things. And so I wanted to make sure that the council knew that we did in fact have enough cash capital should, you know, things come to pass that we don't have the ARPA funds or maybe we only get 30,000. So just to make sure that's clear for everybody, since Councillor Paul and I did have a separate conversation. Great. Thank you. We do have a motion. Seconded by Councillor Jang for the discussion. All those in favour of the motion, please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you for your support. We always appreciate it. Okay. Next up, 506. Reclassification request for certain officers. So please sit down. Welcome, Karen. Please sit down. How important would that be to see those? President Paul. Thank you. I'm happy to think the motion of people would prefer to have Director Murphy. Director Murphy, Karen, why don't you give us a quick summary of our questions. Councilor Lee, for all the councillors here, you know, we are seeking to expand the CSO program, needs to be able to, there is a pay equity issue between the park rangers and CSOs. We want to just want to reclassify that job so that it is at least kind of in that position. So that's what it's doing. And then, do you want to, is the TV? Yes, right after you. Okay. So there's additionally the same thing with the domestic victims advocate within the police station and the civilian rights, which of course we're talking about expanding and promoting. There's an identical position in the city of the CJC, and this person has been serving for 25 years in this role. So that means that's a pay equity issue. We need to bring her out to where the others are. Great show. Go ahead, Councillor. Park rangers for hire. This has been something that since the inception of the job was by human resources. And the reason that, I mean, this has been on the agenda, but the VPOA wanted, they actually wanted to discuss the duties of the CSO. And there were some, there was some talk about some of the duties not being performed by a CSO, they're able to reach an agreement. So that extended this coming before this body. I think that's it. Thank you. Second by President Paul. Excellent. Thank you. For their discussion. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. All right. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Just heard that it was only for 5.06, which is an easy 5.07. We'll see if we're ready for either a motion or a question. So I'm going to leave the rest of the pilots on. President Paul. Thanks. I'm happy to make a motion as recommended. Excellent. Second by Councilor Hightower. I misstated the title of course, domestic violence victim aggregate. Any further discussion? All those in favor of vote, please say aye. All right. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. I just want to thank the council for working with me on this. Everyone had President Paul and everyone had it. Hand in this. So thanks for helping me move this police item forward. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. 5.08, FY23, track-thick markings, contract award requests, BW. I'll be Jeff. I'm going to keep this off first. All right. I'll give you a quick overview. So this is basically our annual pavement parking contract. So this is all the lines, white and yellow lines, the green, white, flames, stencils, the shadows, all that painting. It's important to note this was paid for by meter of money. One and a quarter at a time. And so this is an actually good news. The good news starting here is the contract is slightly more expensive. It's about 10% more expensive. But we also have 22% more green bike lanes painted. That's a massive percentage. It's like 30, 40% of what this cost is. So that's really driving. So it's not inflation, it's not supply chain, or actually pre-unit costs are actually pretty simple. This is not a construction going wild. Price is there. This is just more painting. And we've only got one bidder and it's the same contractor we've had for a number of years now. They do a good job. And the other really important thing is we've shifted the way the contract is. We used to do it on a seasonal basis. So we put it out in January, February, and everybody's scrambling in March. And then they're scrambling to get feet on the ground. We like to get this done now. So they have a contract for July. So they're actually the, as they're doing their primary job, which is spring paint and the contract, but they've had a whole year of plan to get this. This is for next spring painting. This is for FY 23. I painted it and already happened. Right. So this is FY 23. So starting in July, we can, so we have them under contract and we can bring them back in the fall. We're going to touch up something here. So this is a major improvement over the years. There are years where we've been getting the work done. Yeah, I was there for, yeah. So we changed it. Yeah. And we're actually getting kudos out on the street. We have bicyclists actually, like, give them thumbs up. They won't know what to say. Thank you. What I do have to say is, warm days does not even paint it. Because if it's going to be 30 degrees at night, we still can't paint it. 75 degrees is still cold. It's too cold to take the paint. So just if people are complaining, it's two or three days of 75 degree weather. But if it's 30 at night, it's still not happening to us this year. Anyway, much more flexibility. Discussion, motion, that's for you. I'll move to take the argument for another portion. Second. Thank you. That's my entire discussion. Yes, that's Jay. One of the private entities that are doing cross-quarts painting for themselves. I don't think we'll come to that. We do the cross-quarts. Cross-quarts, we do not under this contract. They're actually done by city forces and they're going to flow this year to two seasons up. So we're struggling to get our cross-quarts done. If anybody's painting in the right-of-way, it should be us. Should not be private entities. We can follow up and discuss absolutely, especially if it's on a Cambrian way, which is not yet accepted as a city street, then they would be maintaining that. But if it's out on North Avenue, that city right-of-way, it should be our forces. So we can talk. They are required to actually do one caveat is that they're relocating the crosswalk, the RFP. And so as long as they can follow our ordinance and work with our excavation inspector, they can do that work in the right-of-way. So I'm happy to follow up and talk about that. And then you also do the way of what safety is. Tomorrow would be attached. Yeah. There's a ball. Thank you. Okay, so I have a question. Since the street painting outside, I've had a number of people who have approached me and asked whether or not they're they've seen it in other cities that there are crosswalks that are painted, not just white lines, but particularly people that have seen crosswalks that have been painted, colors. Is that I know that that's probably, that's probably an MU, whatever it's called. A new TC, what is it? A new TCD. A new TCD. A badge on uniform, traffic control device. Yes, that's not what. There's probably like a rule, I'm sure, and that rule says you can't do that. However, there was a rule that said that we couldn't do what we're doing, we do outside. I'm breaking from the city hall. So I'm on the way around that rule. Is there, if there were, you know, organizations or if there were, particularly if there were children under adult guidance who wanted to do something and they came to you, is that something that could be done or is that something that you put in? Right, having been involved in both the ones where we, a couple years ago, did work with Champaign College to install one custom crosswalk, followed with VTRA and Federal Highway on that and then the Black Lives Matter installation. The state and the feds hold a pretty strong line on artistic installations that crosswalks serve a function to protect pedestrians. The Black Lives Matter installation is not a traffic control device, it's not near a crosswalk. We separated the words to be away from the crosswalks. They're holding a pretty firm line that they do not accept artwork in and around regulatory devices. Can that, you know, some communities have done it off of state and federal highways. The lawyers nationally say that the cities could be at risk if someone gets hurt. Ultimately, that's a conversation if we're not on a state and federal highway that we could have locally, but they urge against it. I just want to invite, you know, given the amount of artwork that we see around the city, that this might be an opportunity to do something. Yeah. That's right. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, I think we're still, I don't believe I lost track, but I don't think I'm wishing yet for this 5.08. We do read it. All right, so, right, for both of them, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Great, thanks. All the BWM. So next up, we have 5.09. We have four BD items to follow. So welcome, Darren. Or BD items, including this one was set by 23, rate change. Why don't you give a short summary, Darren and Emily, about what we're standing this up, kind of a multi-step process. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening. Good afternoon. So as we discussed with the board, during our budget presentation, we were planning for a 3.95% rate change for FY23. Originally, we communicated that we thought we would need a 4.9%. We were able to reduce that during the course of the budget process to a 3.95%. I do just want to contextualize it a little bit, because we did have a 7.5% last year, which was our first rate change coming out of the pandemic in 12 years. And at that point in time, our commitment was, let's have rate changes more regularly, and let's have them be more moderate. And that way, we can keep up with the cost of doing business, not end up in a single year where we have something that is more than customers can bear. And so that is why we're bringing forward another rate change. We actually needed, at the PUC, our documented level of need last year was 11.8%. We only asked for 7.5%. So in a sense, we're sort of completing part of that process this year. We are being affected by inflation. We are seeing energy markets being quite volatile. And one thing I want to say there for our customers, we're actually well protected from that because we are 100% renewable. And we had the most expensive January in the history of the New England grid. And instead of that costing us and significantly impacting our customers, we were actually able to not only insulate our customers, but better our financial position by running the McNeil plan, for example, during the wintertime. So that's a plus. The net zero energy revenue bond is a plus, is helping us to hold rates lower than would otherwise be the case. But we are still seeing upward pressures from transmission costs from workforce costs and others. And that's why we're coming before you into 3.95%. If it's approved this evening, we would plan to file it in mid-June. It would take effect as a surcharge on customer bills August 1st, similar to what happened last year. And the PUC would review it, make sure that it is appropriate. If there's any difference between the 3.95%, what's ultimately approved by the PUC, that would be refunded to customers at the time the PUC makes the decision. And I do just want to also mention that we are continuing to plan to have our energy assistance program for low-income customers with a 12.5% discount available starting July 1st. That program is currently available with a 7.5% discount for boosting that to 12.5% starting July 1st. Glad to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Darren. I have a board like to proceed to the questions. Are they ready for motion? We need the bill at home on the 3.95% total. Total in terms of our budget? Yes. Do you have that on top of your head? We have kind of a rough proxy for 1%. Okay, we'll email the other print. I thought you were going to ask about customer bills, which we do have that. We'll get to the exact number. Let me make the motion. Okay, it's our second. Second by President Paul. Discussion? All those fairer motion, please say aye. The ayes are opposed. Motion is approved. Unanimously. More fun. The technical rate increases. We're accepting grant money for various stations. Yes. Would you like a summary? Yes. So this next item is a little more than $95,000 state grant that will help us install up to five charging stations that are going to be mounted on poles that are for street parking. And this is particularly going to be focused on the Old North and some areas in downtown and part of South End where our team has identified per the state parameters a high prevalence in terms of multi-family housing in terms of lower income folks and where there may not be a readily available off-street parking with charging. And so we're going to be using a new technology for us connecting to the street light poles. These will be publicly available. They'll be able to charge using our same rate that we have at all of our different public charging stations around the community. And just a continued part of our efforts to make charging available everywhere in Berlin. And we had heard previously, particularly for the Old North end that there wasn't adequate charging available. So I think this grant is going to help us along with some efforts we're making with our own investments to add more charging is publicly available. Is this something that can be replicated elsewhere if there's demand for it? Absolutely. They say anyway. Yeah, there's no infrastructure limitation. So if this is a success, we could replicate it. That's right there. Yeah, and that was my question. At least from my understanding, it looks like we're exclusively doing this in the Old North end than in the South end, which has one of the east representatives. And I'm sure it's somebody in the New North end built the same way. Yeah, why we're, I understand the income, but at the same time, I feel that there's also neighborhoods in that east district. Right. And this is not the exclusive program that we have. So we also have our multifamily rental and condo building charging program, which can be matched. So we're planning to have 60 of those chargers go out over the course of these couple of years, which could happen in the New North end and the east end and elsewhere around the city, public chargers as well. And I know we're working with UVM pads and chargers on campus at different locations too, but really, it would welcome if you have locations that you look at and you think this is somewhere we need charging and there's a need and there's not infrastructure. We have the resources with the revenue bond. We would love to work with you to find those locations. Yeah, I definitely feel like some of the big, like Baybury comments, I don't know, yeah, would be a whole place. Excellent. I'll follow up by email. Get some connections with our team who's looking at this. Thanks. Thank you. That's okay. Thank you. I think this is great. This is amazing. And I was just wondering if ladies and gentlemen can connect all of them. Someone could just look and say where I can go. Yeah. So a lot of them have different apps. What we've used primarily in the city has been charge point. So if you have a charge point out, you can charge it pretty much all of the locations in Burlington that are public stations. The rental property stations are with a company called EV Match, so they have an app. The one I would recommend is called Club Share. And that kind of looks at the city as a whole in other areas of the country too, but you can locate Burlington and it'll show you all the different chargers, whether it's a DED public or a rental charger, anything that's available publicly will be on the map on Club Share. So it's kind of the app that's the umbrella app. And this is the last question. How is the EVA available? Are they taking advantage to access more cars? Program is growing. We're getting close to our 400th EV and plug-in hybrid rebate. I actually think it would be growing faster right now given the very high gas prices we know people are doing more Google searches for EV as we've been advertising. And I think the supply chain limitations are a huge challenge. Not just new vehicles, but also pre-owned vehicles finding an affordable pre-owned vehicle is a lot more challenging, particularly for an EV. And then getting a new one, in a lot of cases, there are wait times. I did just see that the Chevy Bolt next year's model is going to be available for around $26,000, which is a significant discount from where it's been. That could really make that driving a new EV even more accessible. So I am hopeful we'll see even more growth in the future, but I think the supply chain needs are acute. Just the last week or so. Yeah, so that's going to be a very affordable brand new EV with about 250 miles of range. Yeah, the 2023 model year, so I think I'll leave it out later this year. All right, well, we'll start more in the next session. Oh, Christ in the section. I didn't say it. Just a sec. We're going to be here for walking out, but she noted that electric vehicles less and less expensive. So we actually recorded on board dogs. Great. It's our second. That counts for Channing. Said this was going to be a fun discussion, right? All those, I think we're ready for vote. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Another grant acceptance, 5.11, for district energy, federal funds and resolution supporting the creation of district energy 501c3. Go ahead, Eric. I want to welcome Michael Hernd from Evergreen Energy, who's with us as well. They've been our partner on the district energy project. So the two items before you are accepting a 5.16 million dollar grant that Senator Lady was able to secure for us to support the district energy project. Very significant. We're very grateful to Senator and his staff for that work. We're in the process of working with the Department of Energy to access those funds. And then I'll just speak as well to the other item, which is a resolution supporting the creation of a 501c3 that Evergreen would run and that would manage the district energy work for us, both the development work going forward. And then if we are successful getting to a go decision later this year, manage the permitting, the financing, the construction and operation of the district energy system. We are right in the process of finalizing a letter agreement on what the next stage of development work will be with our partners, UDM Medical, UDM, the Interveal Center, Vermont Gas, BED, the city and Evergreen. And so we anticipate over the next six months a fairly intensive set of work. I do want to mention there are some headwinds for the project that we're dealing with. Construction pricing has significantly increased, as we've seen in the projects around the city, has been the same case for district energy. We're hopeful we can see some reduction in that by the end of the year. Fuel costs have been incredibly volatile and that has some effect on the system as well. And then interest rates for financing, as this would be a debt finance project, have been also moving in the wrong direction. We're hopeful we can make a go decision better place. But all of that said, these two items will help us keep the project on track. And our goal remains to get to a go decision and if we're successful to have this be a construction project in 2023 and 2024 and operation in 2020 and 2024. So this will keep us on track with that schedule. There's a problem. Thank you. I don't know if it will be available to you in the interest of time. And given the fact that these are related, I would move on 5.11 and 5.12 on both to take the action as part of that. Thank you, President Powell. Is there a second? All right. Fine motion. That's what we get. Seconds. Thank you. Any further discussion or questions? That's right there. Yeah. So this just came, and I know that we've talked about this but before, even though I was on console and I couldn't see that since then. But I guess I'm curious, kind of with the speed of this, one, like what deadline we're under and how to accept this, two, if we think that doing some more public outreach to inform folks that this is happening because it is kind of a big shift, would be a good thing to do before we accept the grant or yeah, so I'll leave those two questions there. Sure. So in terms of the project, it's still not a definite go. We still haven't gotten the sign up from all the key partners that would lead us to permitting financing construction and we'll hopefully have more engagement on that over the course of the rest of 2022. In terms of the grant, I received a letter was attached to the packet where we had to submit a one page summary within 14 days, which I did. The Department of Energy is supposed to get back to us. They're a little late from what they said they would be getting back to us but they'll come back to us with a cost share amount, which we have ample funds within the district energy project to cover the cost share. And we're supposed to execute the agreement at the top within several weeks from when they come back to us with the cost share. So I wanted to be prepared and not lose out on the opportunity obviously by having the approval in hand because they've said they'll get back to us in the near future. I'm obviously accepting the grant, having the agreement. If the project's not successful, we would look first for ways to repurpose it for a similar kind of effort at a smaller scale. And ultimately, if we really can't move forward in any way, we can always decide to get the funds back. It's not something I would look forward to doing, but that would be the process for that. Great, awesome. And then I do, and I guess maybe this was more for a session at the council, but I wonder if, yeah, if Tuk would want to take a closer look at this and have a conversation around what's next. Certainly. Yeah, we'd be glad to brief the Tuk at whatever time is appropriate. We had planned a kind of a broader update for this evening as well, but given the number of items on the agenda and the fact that we didn't have this letter agreement fully executed, this is kind of my brief for update. Great, awesome. But maybe we can just type this and this is partially done from that call, but some update on what this would look like for council when that's going to occur, when that's best in the process for you all. Certainly. I just want to clarify how we're going to support. So I think the hope is that the council will approve this acceptance tonight. We have months to go before we have the very position to make that go ahead with our decision. You're asking for maybe a work session or something leading up to, that will be a very consequential decision when we get there. Some great, some more discussion in advance of that decision would be helpful, or you could say think it'd be more before this grant. No, no, I think this is fine, but I think it just, it is, I guess, a big enough project that I think people are going to have lots of opinions on, so I think that as early as possible. Very excellent. I would think that that would be something some of us have been talking about for 30 years. Oh, yeah. We're seeing 40 now maybe, and the... Not as long as the Champlain part. No, no. That's fine. I put in the same bucket of long, long-distance items that we're hoping to... We're making progress, we're closing out on making some resolutions, so, and it will, you know, it's... We will, and it will be, I mean, it's a, if we are able to do this, the city is taking on certain significant long-term responsibilities in certain ways. We've mitigated lots of financial risks, and I think it's a structure that makes sense, but yes, the council fully understanding that and have a good discussion about it before being asked to vote. It's essential, and that would be a different kind of vote than to make in terms of preparation for it. Mr. Jenner. And, you know, it seems that developing will be one of these sort of as-a-proper conversations. And with this one, we're going to ask about the plan program. I think they are also making a possible sense, but yeah, it should still be. I'll speak to it, and Michael's welcome to as well. The concept for the nonprofit would be that there would be a board of directors that is based here in the community that potentially be serving in that role as one of the members of the board having the University of Vermont Medical Center, which would be a significant hot taker of the energy, potentially University of Vermont, the Interveal Center, BGS, which would be a big facilitator of the project. So the goal is to have a local board that would help to govern the process they are working with in Evergreen and making sure that the system's operating effectively, that the rates are being managed effectively, that there is, you know, technical staff on hand to manage any repairs. Michael, I don't know if you have anything to add on that. And I think you summed it up pretty well. I've just known it's the way the nonprofit would be structured rates would be cost-based. As Darren noted, we would expect the stakeholders for the system, the customers, as well as BGS and BED to be approving annual budgets and making sure that the system is adhering to those budgets from an operational perspective and with full transparency, of course. And then strategic direction of the business as well would be approved and led by that same board of governors. Okay, we have a motion on this one. Yes, we do. Okay. All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion? Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. This was for 5.11 and 5.12, right? That was the joint. So this brings us to 5.13. I think we can say thank you very much. Thank you. And two items remaining, 5.13, both mobility corporation lease. Welcome, Cindy. Attracurational waterfalls discussion room. Give a quick summary. Sure. So we have two locations for both our on-lams. We have W manages and sort of keep them in line with how we treat other folks that lease flams. It's for release and it's a 5% of the gross sales of any rights that start from that location. So if they finish at the location, we would not receive any revenue, but if it starts from there, we would receive that. Like Chris in line. Similar ones. So the years ago, we used to pay a predecessor to provide the service so that we'll make some revenue on this. Any discussion? I'm grateful to have that right there. Yeah, sorry, just a question. Because I just remember, and I don't remember if this was part of another item, roughly just got emails. I know that some of the other providers have been worried about competition. And so I guess I'm curious how we think about assigning these contracts to one of the local providers or if they did ask to keep it competitive or just kind of where we're ending on that issue. Sure. So who are we joining? I mean, I'm happy to speak to you. Yes, there have been complaints from a certain about specific locations. More so, the waterfront location is the most controversial aspect, I think. I'm missing your question. That's where most of the controversy has been focused. There has never been any indication that local providers are interested and capable of providing a bike share in this way. If there was serious interest in that, that would certainly be something that we would discuss. But since that has never been serious interest in that, that's how we find ourselves being open to extending once again this whole whole issue. So that going out in some new process. Yeah, I just had a couple of things. One was we had one of the providers last year asked for something similar the idea of being able to kind of have a lease to wrap. And we went to the park's commission to ask if this was something that would be interested in allowing. And the commission was open to it would be a wrap that they could lease in a space within the provider that shop owner decided not to do it. I was actually kind of excited at first because they were going to donate the wrap when they were done. So that was just something we did a reach out for. And then also, Jaypin and his team had a phone spot on the waterfront that put an RFP out for if anybody's interested in doing bike rentals down by the waterfront is a way again of just trying to listen to the shop owners and making sure that they've got their actual access to the waterfront too. I don't know if anybody ended up putting a bid in on that or not. That might still be open. The RFP's open. So if anybody's interested to be full out all the shops now, happy to have their kid. No, so I think we've worked hard to try to be to listen. Responsive. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Are we ready for a motion? Let's do it. But they paid taxes though. Who would assume that they paid taxes? I don't want to beat myself. I don't, I don't. That's like a cc question. I want to find out. I just make sure I get my money. Shop owners pay taxes as a bulk. One bulk. No, I mean, bulk has this lease with us. It's the lease defines the terms. There's a separate property tax. No, no. But I'm curious as to whether the tax law considers a rental of a bike a sale. And therefore they're paying sales tax. I don't, I don't have that. I mean, the fact they go very, you know, this is the city of. They can build it. So no taxes. So whether they are subject to some kind of, if they are subject to the nature of this, which is through to state, it would be a state tax. I don't think there would be a city tax that they would be subject to for this kind of service. So that would be the question is whether this is a service that post services are not taxed. The sales tax generally applies to sale. Sailing versus seats are taxes applied to the sale of items. Proper. This is not property that they are, you know, owning or controlling other than through this lease, this, this agreement. The compensation. And again, just a few years ago, we were paying tens of thousands of dollars for the source or fact that they are now paying. Plus is this is a public service. This is essentially says some public transportation value has been thinking. So in the same way that, you know, so that's, that's, that's where we are. It's a fair question whether they should be paying us more. Certainly if we, in future years, as this continues to evolve, there could be different compensation structures, but I don't believe the city is expecting any revenue beyond what's articulated in this lease. I feel like, you know, the deal is there to pay taxes if it's fair. If they don't, and we only talk about only two levels, knowing that they have multiple operations. Can you guys speak more to how we determine that there will be payments for these two locations only? Prevent is, for these two, that's, we tried to censor property properties. We just tried to make sure they're consistent to how we treat anybody else that's in our books. That, so for example, may have been down at the state park. Yeah, generally, they pay 5% commission. So I, I can't, I can't speak for the other places. So just, I tried to make sure they're equal to other pieces. I think we should move the tables. It's going to be definitely, definitely, sure. Well, let me hit back to saving this for the 20th. I mean, does this impact, what are we doing here exactly? This is, this is the one year, this is for the overall lease, but this is just, this is speaking just to, to locations. Two locations. If there, if there's a decision to table, it doesn't impact because this one is, it's stating in the lease that the payments start from when the new contract started, which was with, with, so this is only for the parks managed spaces that I'm here for, for this payment request. If you choose to table it again throughout the lease that we have. So is this carved out of the rest of the lease, which is already approved? It's like a separate agreement. This is the lease, this is the lease for them to have those two parks plans again, to make it equitable with other. That's not somehow covered by the agreement we've already set up. The agreement says that they need to work with us to get access to city owned property. Most of their pods are actually on private property. They work with private property owners to do that. So this is something that is referenced to the agreement. They need to get permission from the city for pods to do the right of way studies. So are you operating or waiting for us? They're already operating. They were there last year. Last year we had used the first time they came on to be simply this language called encumbrance. So we got a per foot price from them. And Attorney St. James said that we should be using a lease rather than an encumbrance, because an encumbrance really isn't a parks function. We don't have encumbrances. We have leases. So before it was an encumbrance and they paid that square foot price. But now we're going to a lease and citizens of lease. That was any of these required a city council approval. So they were paying. Okay. So many of the other locations. This is a different situation because it relates to the private players. So private. So it's Attorney St. James' request is to furl this for until next, probably at least two weeks. Probably would not be the 13th. So the impact of that would be to delay when this would be maybe to delay when money starts flowing to the city for this, but not. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So that becomes a question. That's the thing. It probably pushes back a couple of weeks. I don't think it's likely to propose a different structure. But if you're seriously serious misgivings on it, I want it to late. How does the rest of the board feel about it? I would prefer to get it done than that, but others are having misgivings as well. All right. You don't know who we mean for. We're just waiting for you. You are a couple. Yeah. I would like to get some clarity on the locations of this particular item as well. So would you like to make a motion to move forward or maybe if you want to request additional information to come back later today, maybe with respect to your agreement? So I would super recommend a one-year lease for Golden Balloon Corporation. Seconded by Councillor McGee for the discussion. Yes. I feel as if we need to look into the lease of the people that we have as well. So generally, if you see how they pay taxes, what type of leases they have for the people, what type of clothing they have for the business we have with them, what is it? What is the city canning in terms of taxes or leases as a matter of in general? This is very exclusive. But I ask the general question. I think it's bad for us to understand that. Yes. So it does seem we are treating it because of the nature of different departments having different public areas. There may be some different locations. We did just, when did we approve the overall place service? So that is... Yeah. It was made clear because the data on Amy is official. So the overall agreement is in place and it's not up for changing for another year. With this vote that was proposed, we would lock in compensation here. I do think it's a fair question and kind of an interesting question. There are other public locations that we're not charging for. If we are charging for this holiday, is there something consistency there that we should consider doing something different on? And I don't think we, by taking this action, have lost the ability to do that. So I would certainly commit to you, Councillor Jang. It doesn't have to be formally a part of this, but that we would have a follow-up communication about the other public locations. So I'm reasonable for now. Okay. Excellent. Thank you, Councillor Jang. I think this has flushed out kind of wrinkleness that I had sort of escaped me to. So thank you for that. And again, let's give this a way forward so it doesn't fall except anything. So if there's no further questions, so we're going to vote on the motion. All those are fairly motioned. Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Chairman, if you can... I think the rest really falls outside of the parks and is more in your... Yeah. So if you can help me make it on the... Can I just make Councillor Jang get a communication and every other time on that, that'd be great. Yeah. That brings us to the last item of the night, 5.14 allocation method and standards for common area to be formula and establishments, common area fees for the traditional marketplace. First of all, you're 23. Welcome to the park. Why don't you give us a quick summary? I am my full year, a little bit late getting upstairs now. I don't need to be quick. So as for Charter, the Treasury Marketplace Commission makes a recommendation as to the marketplace fees. They are charged per square foot of ground floor establishments on the marketplace. They voted to leave the rate unchanged at $2.87 per square foot. I will note it has been at that rate since fiscal year 17. And this did have the... Sorry, I could just have the recommendation to remain in marketplace at this level. Yes. So just to hear that way, we're recommending what the marketplace did too, but that doesn't happen. The council does have an authority. The floor is open for motion. Thank you, Councillor Chen. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hightower. Discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Very opposed. Motion carries unanimously. And how objectionable we will adjourn before financing at 6.12pm. It's upstairs.