 All right, so it is 6.31, so we are going to get started. So I'm going to call the meeting to order, so the first thing is to review and approve the agenda. We're going to have a couple of changes to the order this evening. We are going to keep the Veteran Homelessness Proclamation and the audit report where they are. Then we're going to move the Combined Heat and Power Project contract, as well as the PFAS conversation, shifting both of those up to just after the audit report. So those will be just after item 6, unless there are other objections or ideas. Okay, yes? Do we have, oh, maybe it's already taken off. Okay. You're good? Oh, no. Item 7, the Solid Waste Management, do we have an applicant at this stage? There is actually, so it's worth having a discussion. Yeah. Thank you. Great question. Okay, any other amendments to the agenda? Okay, so we'll consider the agenda approved. So on to general business and appearances. This is an opportunity for any member of the council, or I'm sorry, any member of the public to address the council on an item that is otherwise not on our agenda for the evening. And if you would say your name and where you're from and try to keep your comments to about two minutes. Sure. I'll keep that for two minutes for you. Okay. Good evening. My name is Zach Hughes. I'm over in Prospect Street, neighborhood. And I just want to rise tonight to discuss real quick, these last couple of snowstorms have caused quite a situation for me to, you know, get in and out of the city where I live. And there was a couple of nights I had to call for help because I could not transit the sidewalk. And I understand that there are things that are beyond these controls such as ice and you'd have to take blow torches to it and I'll get that. But there are chances that I have to take sometimes and it's very risky. So I just want to rise and talk about that just briefly. And I thank you for your time. Thank you. Hi. Elizabeth Parker. And I'm here for the sustainable in my political coalition. And first of all, I wanted to recognize what you did at your last meeting with your vote recognizing the climate and the issues around it and that resolution. So thank you. On tomorrow night, we are having a film. It's called the Climate Action Film Festival. It is a wonderful film of nine shorts curated by Sun Common. It will be at the Pavilion from 6 to 830. And we would love to have any of you come and please pass the word because I think it's going to be very exciting. This will be an effort to support the work of V-PURG, VNRC, and also the Climate Youth Lobby. So do pass the word along. And according to Roger Hill, the storm will have cleared by then so it will be good to go. Thank you. Thank you. I wanted to bring this up as public comments before everybody goes to sleep and leaves. And that is there are going to be some changes to GMT's public transit routes and it's really important people go online. There's some major changes to the two-route commuter, hundred-route commuter, and to the links. So please go online. Public hearings will be posted. Okay. So we're going to move on to the consent agenda. Is there a motion regarding the consent agenda? Second. Further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. All right. So this is the Veteran Homelessness Proclamation. So I want to invite Stephen Luna up to the table up here and just tell you a little bit about this briefly. So I was introduced to the Mayor's Challenge to End Veteran Homelessness, gosh, some months ago now. And in part because of the form of government that we have, you know, we don't have a strong mayor form of government. It seemed appropriate to me to bring this Mayor's Challenge to the council. This is what Winooski did as well, and so it seemed like an appropriate step. And really it's about ending Veteran Homelessness, especially with our discussion about homelessness recently and the efforts that, you know, we're putting forward to address that topic. Generally it felt appropriate to bring this up. So I'd love to turn it over to you, Stephen, to talk about, give us a little more detail. Sure. Is this on? Yes. Oh, very good. Good evening, everyone. My name is Steve Luna, and I work for supportive services for veteran families at the University of Vermont. That's my paid job. The other job that I have is as chair of the Vermont Veterans Committee on Homelessness. We've been around since 2015 and made up of mostly all of the veteran service organizations throughout the state, and we're charged with coming up with a program, systems, put systems in place that will bring about an end to veterans homelessness. We're doing a pretty good job. We've seen numbers go down over the last year or so. And just recently, I was introduced to the Mayor's Challenge. About a year ago, I was first informed about the Mayor's Challenge. It's a program that's been around for a number of years. I think George W. Bush started the program. Then Michelle Obama was the big champion of the Mayor's Challenge, and then it went dormant for a little bit, and it's kind of coming back with a vengeance lately. And it really is an effort by all of the organizations that work within the homeless arena to come together and create a system, create a buzz, if you will, about ways that we can meet the needs of the homeless community. Beyond just veterans, the Mayor's Challenge also works towards ending homelessness for all of the other homeless folks out there. So I'm here representing the veterans, but there are a number of other really deserving groups out there that we should look at as well. So the Mayor's Challenge, here in Vermont, we have eight mayors. And as of tonight, hopefully, we'll have six of those eight mayors on board with Mayor's Challenge. So we really look forward to Montpelier coming on to the group as well. Any questions? Conor than Donna. Yeah. No, and you might not have this, Steve. It's out of Vermont's homeless population. What percentage of other veterans? Ooh. Yeah, I don't have it. Maybe a hard number to come up with. I can tell you the number of veterans that are homeless that we currently have record of, and we are right now at 59 homeless veterans in the state of Vermont, which is down considerably from even this time last year, we had about 87. So we're down to 59 at this point. Five percent. Five percent. Sure. Five percent. I don't have to pull my calculator out, but... Donna. I like the proclamation, but what can we do? Are there steps you're going to lay out to what we can do beyond this proclamation? How do we put it into any kind of action? So the proclamation is a good first step. As we head down this path, like I was telling Mayor Watson, one of the things we're doing in Chittenden County is we're going to ask the mayors in Chittenden County to do a joint press conference, and we're going to call it a call to action. We're really, really close. We have single numbers in Chittenden County of homeless veterans, so we're really close, and we need the mayors to get out there and get the word out to the community that we need some housing for just a few veterans. And so when we get to that point, right now in Washington County, there are 23 veterans that are homeless. And the reason there's such a large number of homeless veterans here in Washington County is because of the vets place in Northfield, which is transitional housing. And unfortunately, at least from my perspective, unfortunately, HUD considers those anybody, whether veteran or not, that are in transitional housing to be considered homeless, which seems crazy to me, but I don't write the rules. So as we move forward and we start this process, really start to dig into finishing it, being able to submit an application to USICH to claim we've ended veterans' homelessness, we'll probably be coming back to Askmopolier for that call to action. Yeah. So where do they end up finding homes? Wherever they can. But you're making the matches, you're supporting them or connecting them to agencies? Beyond that, we have case managers that will work with them through the whole process and then stay with them after the fact. So it really depends on which program they're in. If they're receiving a HUD VASH voucher, which is similar to Section 8, they will receive case management for as long as they need it. If they're in our program, SSVF, which is rapid rehousing, they'll receive case management after being housed up to six months. I guess behind my question is, is it for most of the cases a matter of money and income or a matter of available housing period? The reasons are as varied as the veterans themselves. Some of them just need some extra money to pay off some back rent or pay off a bill that didn't get paid so they aren't evicted. Some need that down payment or the first month's rent and the security deposit to get into a place. Some need a lot more than that to include more specialized help. Great. Any other questions? Okay. Great. Is there... Thank you. And is there a motion? I'll make a motion to adopt the Proclamation to End Veteran Homelessness for this... Great. All right. For the discussion. All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Great. Thank you. And thank you for your time and coming to speak to us. All right. Thank you. Thank you all for passing the Proclamation. We'll be in touch soon. Sounds good. Okay. And so now we have an audit report. And if you're here for that, come on up. Good evening. Good evening. Welcome. I'm Ron Smith. Miranda McDonald. Miss Kelly Murphy. Heather, you want to give her a little introduction before I go? Yes, I'll go. Would you mind moving that microphone over there as you... Thank you so much. Thank you. Is this good? Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Well, I don't know yet, actually. Can you hear me okay? No. No? Okay. Let's see. Testing. Perfect. Okay. So we are here to talk about the audit. And I wanted to provide a brief introduction before getting into the details. And you sort of heard generally who we are, but being a new group on the scene here, I just wanted to provide that introduction formally. Kelly Murphy, Finance Director. Heather Graves, Senior Staff Accountant. Ron Smith, Principal Arie Jasmine, the company. Miranda McDonald, Audit Manager. So now that you know who we all are, I just wanted to know who we are. I just wanted to note that RHR Smith and Company was engaged in May of 2019 to do the FY19 audit. And the purpose of this audit is to express opinions on financial statements, governmental activities, business activities, ensure state and federal compliance, and meet generally accepted accounting standards. And then also provide the single audit for anything over $750,000. To that end, the news tonight is good. We have received a clean opinion, an unmodified, unqualified opinion over last year, which basically means in a nutshell that the city statements are presented fairly inappropriately and are in compliance with general standards. And so on your desk in front of you, you have the audit, but then you also have presentation materials submitted. And I apologize if my back to any of you. You've got the presentation materials, which includes a balance sheet, statement of revenues, budget to actual, and GF revenue by source and area of expenditure. I also did want to note that if you do want to go into executive session for any reason, I'm just reminding you that you have the option if you should so choose to discuss items within the audit that you wouldn't necessarily want staff present for. So with that, I will have them take it away. I have a loud voice. Is this too loud? Nope. So I'm Ron Smith. And I'm the principal with the R.A. Charismithing Company. And this is the first year, as Kelly said, that we have the pleasure of doing business with Montpelier. We audit in the states of Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, probably 400 governments. So we know a lot about who you are and certainly what you do. I hail from the great state of Vermont. I was born and raised in St. Johnsbury, Vermont. Miranda was born and raised in southern Vermont, Texas. So we certainly know a lot about Vermont. And certainly I don't want to go through a 100-page document with you all. So I'm just going to hit the highlights of that. And I just tell some of our observations and best practices that we saw from Montpelier and answer any questions that you guys may have of us in the process. So as Kelly stated, we gave you an unmodified opinion for your financial statements. There's actually two audits that we do. As she stated, there's the financial statement audit and the federal compliance piece to that audit. We found no issues with findings or question costs with the federal compliance piece, meaning you're spending the U.S. federal government's money the way you're supposed to be. And then we found nothing worthy of fraud, defalcation and other reason to modify our audit opinion. So as she stated, we got the highest opinion, an unmodified opinion for June 30, 2019. And to hit the highlights, based on a budget with capital transfers and your general fund operating budget, which is about $14 million annually or was on June 30, 2019, we'd like to see you all at about 30, 60 to 90 days of your operating budget. So what's that mean in Montpelier terms? $1.1, $2.2, $3.3 million is the range. You're at about $1.5, which is uncommitted and not tied down to anything, which is a slight increase of a little over $200,000 from last year. So I'd say that that's great news for the City of Montpelier. You're at about 45 days of your operating budget. I think that the goal to shoot for and to be consistent with your policy is to, you want to get at about 60 days. That's the benchmark we'd like to see all of our governments at. And Dynat, as I can attest to Montpelier and laying in my bedroom at 11.30, listening to trucks going off and doing construction projects outside the window, this is a busy town and you have put a lot of money into infrastructure for sure and we see no reason why that's probably going to stop in the near future. So it can be expensive when that phone rings for sure. And one of the things that we want to talk about being the outsiders looking in and working with Kelly and Heather is just talking about all this infrastructure, how we're going to maintain it, how we're going to pay for it, the capital plan and any adjustments that you may need to make here to your existing plans and policies that you have. So I would suspect over the next few months, as we get together and engage in these dialogues, there's probably going to be some understanding brought to this council certainly for recommendations on that as we move forward. Because like I said, it's a busy town. You've got a lot going on. And I would say that that's probably one of our biggest talking points is what you have going on and the cost of it, but more importantly, the future maintenance of those types of things in your capital plan. So I think that that's a big thing you need to look at and consider. Your enterprise funds are busy. You have a lot of them, water, super. You have your heat district. You have your parking fund. So I think that all of them are financially within the constraints of where your expectations would be. But I think that the one thing that stands out with all your enterprise funds is the amount of money that you've put into your infrastructure of water and sewer specifically. So again, I think that that's going to be a big focal point that we'll make over this next audit and just making sure that we have a plan and in place. And based upon what our old plan was, that the plan now will be modified and acceptable to just meet the needs and meet the growth of Montpelier. This is probably the best way that I can say that. So there were a couple of best practice comments that we had. Procurement was one of them, for sure, just some suggestions that we made regarding procurement and looking at your federal funds. Bank reconciliations. We saw some delays in bank reconciliations this year at the city and certainly that's an area, cash is king. That's the area that you certainly want to pay your attention to. And we saw no issues of any mismanagement. I think it was just time. I think that as your outsider is coming in and being the new outsider is coming in, there's a lot of new faces in new chairs, specifically now. And even on the way out the door during the process, there was some transition and personnel, too, within your finance department. I think your people did a great job in getting through that exercise, but it was definitely a year of transition and given that. And I think getting other people to sit in chairs and look at things like the way that you have your organization, there was really no repository to go to to get information. It was all over the place. And I think with some suggestions with your staff, there was some conversation about that and just maybe a better, easier way to facilitate that going forward. Whether or not you have a debt repository, whether or not you have a TIF repository, and things that would pertain to that would reside in that. So there was a lot of conversation regarding best practice, but again, I think given the transition and a lot of the new faces that you have in your finance department, I think kudos to them. You know, they certainly responded and allow us to sit here in front of you and saying that the ship's pointed in the right direction and we look forward to being part of that journey and look forward to giving you guys advice going forward for sure. Thank you. Any questions? Donna. Oh, and then Dan. One about your questions. The bank reconciliation and the purchasing, what you found was that different than it happened in other years? So speaking on other years, I would say the bank reconciliation was a new one, as I recall, based on any previous year management comments. Yeah, there was some new ones and I don't know what level of depth of conversations that got had between your former finance director and your former auditors, but those are just some of our comments and observations that we made for this year. So with the bank reconciliation, it's sort of to indicate too much busyness and not doing that. With the purchasing, you're saying the system wasn't in place and that needs to be established. Yeah, so I think that there's some better, there's a lot of ways to say that you did things correctly and I think that, you know, some of your, or not correctly, I'm still trying to find the balance in the middle of there, but whatever that way is, you know, I think it's probably fair to say that there may be improvement, you know, here in Montpelier. But going back to the bank reconciliation, as we understood it coming in with your entrance conference and kind of through the whole duration of the process, is that there was just other time-sensitive things and then with some of the transition that went place, it was explainable to us, you know, to see. And as we have shared with Kelly and as we share with Heather, those are the things that we know that there'll be improvement on as new bodies and the time constraints are different. This audit, then they were last audit for sure. I had two questions. First one was about the idea of a maintenance fund or maintenance funds. Is this something that you don't see now that will have to be developed and is it because these projects are emerging? Yeah, so a couple of things. We actually see the intent. We see a capital projects fund. We see capital projects in there. We see a lot of infrastructure projects going on here at the town. And we see that you've got existing policies, procedures, and we see that you've got some, for lack of a better way to say it, a current blueprint. And what we're saying is, with all the infrastructure going on in the town, just like you probably did when you said it was time, we were growing here in Montpellier. There were things that we need to do. Maybe some of that was deferred maintenance. So guess what? Let's do it. We're saying now, stop. You've done a lot. And I think as you continue to do a lot, look at your blueprint right now and make adjustments where necessary. And that's one of the things that we want to work with your finance team on, because I think that that's time for sure. And my outside professional opinion, I don't think that there is enough money that you have sitting in for replacement or maintenance reserve, whatever it is to take care of and establish this infrastructure that you're spending so much money on and will continue to spend money on. That's where I think the blueprint is going to need some adjustments. And increasing funds. Correct. The second question I had was about the enterprise funds. You seem to indicate that we had a lot. Was that necessarily criticism that we should be looking at? No. So when I met by a lot, all the enterprise funds that I can think of professionally, you have them all. So that's a lot. So let me say that. Mine is an airport. You don't have an airport. But I'm not sure I'd call that an enterprise. I don't see many airports making money in this day and age. But here's what I'm sure of. You have a lot of them. And I'd argue you check all the boxes as we would say in our standards. But also, you can see the emphasis with those enterprise funds and the infrastructure needs that you're putting in there. I mean, you can see your balance sheet growing by millions of dollars every year because of all the infrastructure upgrades that you guys are doing. And that's what I say. You have a lot. And you're spending a lot in those areas. And I really think that that's probably one of the areas besides TIFF and some other things that you have going on here. That's where I really probably would focus some attention on going forward for sure. Thanks. Jack. One question that occurred to me and is not critical of anyone, but the fiscal year ended June 30th. Now we here are at the end of February. Is that timing an issue? Is that a normal amount of time? No, we like to. So that was actually talked about during the entrance. And I think what wasn't allowed really at the end of the day is your departure of your finance director, your departure of your long standing controller. And I know the audit got pushed back a couple of months to get in here. And this is not criticism on anybody. I think the fact that we're sitting here and actually we're sitting having conversations back in November and December with your management to make sure that you guys had no surprises, that I think is the testament to the process. If we were sitting here now saying, well, we changed our conversation that we had back in November and December with your management, that would be, I think, a concern that I would have in that chair. That didn't happen. But normally we like to turn the process and I think the goal was December 31st was to have the process complete. But statutory deadlines, you've met them all. March 31st is the big one to submit your federal compliance audit. So there's been no delay, you know, certainly in that. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I was thinking that it might be useful to have the audit complete while we're developing the budget for the next fiscal year. So one of the things that Kelly and I had talked about before we actually walked into the chambers is it's nice to know and do some prognostication as early as possible. We like to come in through our pre-audit process as you're, you know, developed, voted on your budget, you know, just to make sure, you know, that that train's still on that track, you know, based upon, you know, the fact that there's still three to four months left in your fiscal year, you know, the fact that a lot of things can happen, you know, for sure, and again, just the busyness of the city. Other questions? So I have a couple of questions. Well, first of all, it's just wonderful to know that we're on track, that we're going in the right direction, that to have an unmodified opinion audit, it's great. And also, you know, having the benchmarks of, you know, that the goal is to have 60 days' worth of operating budget, that's, you know, useful, or like a way to think about it and knowing that we have 45 days, which is up from last year. That's great. You know, thinking about kind of coming back to the question that Dan had about the infrastructure. So knowing that thinking about the funding for infrastructure might be a focal point for next year, it's just very interesting. I just want to make a note that we are, with this budget that we just approved, that'll be voted on Town Meeting Day, why 21 Budget marks the end of a long process that we went through as a council to try to increase the amount of funding that we put into our infrastructure to be maintaining the infrastructure that we had at an appropriate level. So, you know, like how much money would be needed to keep, you know, pavement conditions at a certain functional level over time with proper maintenance and whatnot. And so, anyway, it's just very interesting to hear you say that perhaps that the amount of money that would be needed to maintain the infrastructure is not, perhaps not enough. And so I'm curious if that thought comes from comparing Montpelier with other municipalities that you might have worked with in terms of like the amount of money that, well, I guess I'll just leave it there as a question. How did you come to that conclusion? Like what are the ingredients that go into that? And like how can we be thinking about infrastructure differently? So yes, I want to go back to your question. It is comparing you to other municipalities and I would add just to that element 30 years of being me, you know, and dealing with this industry and just going through the peaks and valleys of the industry and seeing this change, you know, now and just seeing, you know, really the direction that government's moving in, you know, and I think it moves in a different direction every year, quite frankly. So yes, you know, with as far as the industry and just my knowledge of it, you know, and just my observations, you know, and some of the conversations, you know, that we had with your management, you know, there's been some deferred maintenance. Clearly here in Montpelier, and I'd say you're going to pay for that now, you're going to pay for that in the future. And winters aren't getting any easier, you know, and you know, and I would argue, you know, that the snow coming from Vermont, you know, the snow may hit the roads and I'm not sure the snow is causing the problem. I think it's the salt, the calcium and everything else that's going on the roads, you know, and the potholes that you get and everything. Roads is just probably the biggest infrastructure need, you know, that we see. And being the capital of this great state and seeing the amount of cars, you know, that are probably coming down route to, to go to Burlington or come back home, that puts wear and tear and stress certainly on your infrastructure as well. You know, so all those, you know, considering I think that there's just a multitude of things, you know, that really force you every year to look at your blueprint. Thank you. Any other questions? Great. Well, thank you. And thank you all for all your work in this. It's really encouraging to have a clean audit. So thank you again. It's been a pleasure. Okay. And so now we are jumping to what was scheduled to be item 10, the combined heat and power project contract. And I know there are some folks here for that and left in. Do you need a minute? You're good? Okay. Welcome. So on your council agenda. Do you want to introduce yourself? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Kurt Modica, City Engineering Public Works Department. This is Chris Cox, Chief Operator of the Water Resource Recovery Facility. And we're here to talk about the agreement for the phase two project at the Water Resource Recovery Facility for combined heat and power. We sent a draft agreement around in your council packets. Just some of the highlights of some of the items we talked about at the last meeting. We are moving forward. We're proposed to move forward with a single 400 watt kilowatt generator. According to our consultant, that really is the most economical option at this point. Moving to two generators would be a cash negative option. But we have set the contract up to allow for a second generator to be installed in the future. So the gas conditioning equipment will be sized in a way that it can treat all the methane that's produced from the plant, which is the big cost of an adder project to put a second generator in. But at this point, we think that a single generator is the best option. I also wanted to point out to council that there is a risk moving forward with this PDA, a financial risk. We have to essentially put forth approximately $220,000 to apply for the standard offer program and to do the upfront permitting in order to make this project eligible for the relatively high 20.8 per kilowatt rate. So there is a risk. So if you do approve this, and there's no absolute guarantee that we will get awarded that based on conversations with VEPI, we think there is a very good chance that we would get the award. But I just wanted to make sure that council is aware of that. ESG did offer to the total permit fees are $40,000 approximately. And that includes an air quality permit and the interconnection agreement with Green Mountain Power. And ESG has agreed to take half of that risk, $20,000 energy systems group as ESG, the contractor we're working with. So instead of the $240,000 risk, it's $220,000 risk because the agreement itself, the work for ESG to develop the engineering needed to do this project is cost of $200,000. So that is really the highlights of what's changed. We are still doing final negotiations on this agreement. There may be some minor changes between the two lawyers, our attorneys. But I think this is very close. I don't believe there will be any substantial changes to the document. Jack. Kurt, has there been any change in your estimate of the likelihood of being able to get the standard offer contract since the last time we talked? No, I have a call into VEPI. I was not able to speak with them yet. It is something I want to chat with them about before we have Bill sign this, assuming council authorizes it. I don't have any change since last time. I still believe it is a very high likelihood of award. But I do want to follow up with the VEPI program. Still on my list of things to do. Great, thanks. On that point, so if we did not get it, how would things play out from there? I mean, it sounds very encouraging and hopeful and optimistic. What would be the kind of plan of the year? Right, so we would have the engineering work done. The city would own basically the engineering to date. So we would be able to use that to apply with ESG the next year on the standard offer program. So we would go back again. It would be a year delay. Correct. Which attorneys are we working with on our end on this? They always have the question, you know? Joe McLean with Sitzl Page and Fletcher. I have a whole bunch of questions. To be fair, I don't necessarily... I meant to send them to you earlier, and I just didn't get to doing that. So I may send you some questions later on that are not necessarily things we have to go into right now. Like, let's remove as many acronyms as we can. You know, for example, like PLC, as an educator, that means something totally different than I'm sure of what it means to you. You know, things like that. But there are a couple of questions that I have that I think... that I want to bring up at this point. One is that... I just want to note that the... this is clearly a... a PDA that ESG is used to working with, that they've come up with, and it has a lot of protections for them. I just want to make sure that we have some protections for us. And those, in my mind, include just some... specifications about warranties. So... I know it does discuss warranties a little bit in this, but supposing anything, you know, fail... Like, what if a warranty is only like one year long, and we're depending on that piece, and then is... I would just love to have some kind of assurance that if the warranties are shorter than the term of the contract with ESG, that they would end up covering something like that. So just want to make a note about that. Second thing is... I think it's a little confusing that they're guaranteeing 50% of the feedstock by volume. And specifically, I just think that that term by volume could be clearer, which is to say, is it by volume of what is considered the capacity of the digester or of the plant, 50% of what is taken in, in general, of just whatever comes to the plant. And so, presumably, the city or just our staff will be responsible for finding the other 50%. Is that correct? Or is it operating at 50%? This particular item is something that ESG actually asked to remove from this agreement, the 50% feedstock volume. So the reason is in order to qualify for the VEPI program, you have to have 50% food waste going to the digesters. So that actually will go into... There will be a second contract, assuming we get the award and the interconnection agreement. There will be an actual construction contract with ESG, a design-built contract that will include that 50% feedstock volume as well as the warranty items that you mentioned. So this is really just kind of the precursor till we get the project and then there will be a much more lengthy agreement that will cover those things. That's good to know because the food residuals part was also confusing to me knowing that I feel like we had talked about other types of fluid feedstock that would not necessarily have been food. So that makes... Is that in line with where we're still at? It's just organic material. It's not necessarily food stock, food residuals. Right, and there's a classification through VEPI that kind of defines what's eligible under their program for that standard offer program. Okay. And so a couple of questions about confidentiality. I just want to make sure that we get to keep the records that we need. If we have data, the fact that it said they would be collecting back all of the... Well, some of the information that would be considered confidential, I just want to make sure that we have our own records to be able to track things well for ourselves. I understand that there's probably some things that do need to be confidential, just flagging that. And then I just wanted to note that in this development agreement, there was a section... Gosh, it is section 4CND. I just wanted to note that that... I mean, I can talk to you about CND offline. I just found it a little confusing, so I'll ask you about that later. Okay, sure. Okay, I guess that is it for me. Dan. I had a couple of questions in exhibit A. I mean, at least the form I got, it didn't have the engineering drawings and designs and the warranties, and you indicated that that's going to come with effectively the next phase. Is it your understanding then that if there's an issue at that phase where we can't come to agreement or you can't come to agreement with ESG, that we'd be able to end the agreement and end any obligations for further payments? Yes, that's correct. Okay. So essentially, this is sort of an umbrella agreement setting out the framework that eventually will be fleshed out by these additional documents and these additional agreements as we go along. And then I had a question on the... And just that was somewhat a rhetorical statement, but it actually was a question just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Right. This document is just enough work to apply for the standard offer program to do the engineering work needed for the interconnection agreement with Green Mountain Power. Okay. Which is required for the application, but it does not include the full design for the generator and all the electrical on the facility, at the facility itself. But it anticipates those... It anticipates that as soon as we get the award. Yeah. Okay. And so ESG wants to remove the 50% food volume residual. Right. From this phase of the contract, they feel it's more appropriate to have in the second actual construction contract, the design build. Okay. But I mean, isn't that something that we would have to essentially prove or represent to VEPI? For the application. For the application. Right. They feel comfortable that they can meet that. They just don't feel that this is the appropriate location to put that requirement in. So they want to put it in the latter document as a way when they actually get around the design of that. Right. Just as part of the... It's part of the guarantee process. So the actual construction contract will include all the guarantees, all the warranties. Okay. That's really part of this. The meeting that food stock requirement is really a function of that, of a guarantee in the contract. Okay. And you said this is the product so far of some negotiations with Joe and the attorney for ESG. Correct. Okay. So I was looking at the confidentiality in the public records component. So my understanding is that there will be some documents that will be considered trade secrets and will be held confidential. And so it's my understanding that these would be designated by ESG as confidential trade secrets. But it looks as if that would expire after one year following after the agreement expired or the lifetime of that. Is that... They essentially have a one-year non-compete clause where we wouldn't go with another firm to develop a power sale agreement for one year. I believe the confidentiality piece has to do more with their contract language. Okay. So rather than the technical specifications, it's more of their bidding and pricing. Correct. Okay. That's... I think that's all I had on my notes. So thank you. You're welcome. Any further questions? And this will be reviewed by our lawyer before we sign anything. Correct. I'm just asking for you to authorize this bill as the designated representative for the city to sign upon final review and approval by the city attorney. Is there a motion? Jack. So we authorize the city manager to execute the project development agreement with ESG for phase two of the Water Resource Recovery Facility. Subject to final review and acceptance by the city attorney. Second. Okay. Is there a motion in a second? Further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Great. Thank you so much. All right. And we are going to go right into what is listed as item 11, discussion of P-FAS at the Water Resource Recovery Facility. Sorry, question? Oh, we have the state representative here too. Right. So yeah, a few folks from DC have come to speak on this topic as well. So you can bite them up to join us. Awesome. Welcome. To get more students. Welcome. If you wouldn't mind passing around the mic as you introduce yourselves. Okay. I'm Kurt Monaco, City Engineer of Public Works. Casey Kaffen with Waste Management Solid Waste Program. Hi, I'm Chuck Schwerer. I'm the director of our Waste Management Prevention Division. I've also been fairly active in this whole P-FAS issue since 2006. So we decided to bring all our experts to make sure you got all your questions answered. So sorry we're overwhelming you with people, but we want to make sure we help you out. I'm Amy Palacek. I'm the wastewater program manager. Chris Cox, Chief Operator. I'm Nick Gianetti. I work in the pre-treatment section of the wastewater program. Hi, my name is Amon Tueg, and I work in the residuals management and emerging contaminants program. So this discussion was instigated by an article recently in Vermont Digger that discussed P-FAS at the wastewater treatment facility. And Chris and I put together a memo to sort of outlining what P-FAS is. It's really an emerging contaminant. I think the state could detest who we're still doing a lot of sampling and try to get a handle on where things are with it. There is no discharge limit in Vermont for surface water. So really what our intention here was to provide an opportunity to answer questions. We've got a whole lot of expertise here with the state of Vermont, which we really appreciate them coming tonight. But basically the limits from the plant are parts per trillion. So those are the levels from the drinking water standard is 20 parts per trillion. Our plant, I think, based on the most recent sampling from the state was around an average of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA standard for drinking water is at 70. So we're right around the actual drinking water standard as established by EPA, but Vermont has a lower one. So I think we really covered most of the information in the memo, so I was just thinking of opening it up to questions from Council on this. Just for the folks that are watching at home, just so we can level the playing field a little bit for those who didn't read the memo. Can you explain a little bit about what we're talking about, just other than it being a emerging contaminant? Right. Thank you. So PFAS is a... many different contaminants. Maybe I should turn this over to the state because I have more expertise than I do. What do you want to speak to this? I can keep just an overview of it, if that's good, and then I'll ask you guys to jump in. So again, when we discovered the problem in Bennington, it was the ChemFAP facility. It's a compound that's used to access a surfactant for Teflon coating, and it was first discovered as an issue in Bennington, 350-odd wells contaminated. Subsequent to that, the question was raised by the legislature, by the public, by cities. Where else is this stuff, and where should we be concerned about? So we began a two to three year, it's actually almost four years now, sampling program, and most recently, we submitted a number of reports that kind of culminated all this work. Some was asked for by the legislature, some was directed, or some was chosen to be done by us to see if we could learn more about this contaminant. So from that report, we found that landfill leachate is a considerable source of PFAS in the environment. We also did a study, which Casey can definitely answer much better than I, but materials deposited in the landfill turn out to be the source. A lot of residential, like carpets, furniture, textiles, other clothing type products. So we're all contributing to the source of PFAS that ends up in the final resting area, the landfill, and then the leachate, it accumulates. So in the testing, we did eight different rounds of testing of both the leachate and the wastewater treatment facilities that accept it. And the levels reported are accurate. Coming out, the affluent is about 70 parts per trillion. In developing this program, we did initial calculations of what would be an impact on streams, and our guideline levels were much higher than what Mount Piliers accepting in leachate. So that was the good news. But what we don't know, and Amy and Nick can talk more about that, is okay, we know from just testing in the stream that we're not detecting it, but is it a problem for long-term loading of these compounds? Are they accumulating in fish? Is there issues with aquatic biota? We don't know that. And that's something that the state, and we hope EPA will help us figure out over the next few years. But really the good news is the leachate that Mount Piliers accepting is well below those initial guideline levels that we came up with. Again, we're not saying that's the end of the story. There's certainly a lot more we need to learn, but at least initially, we're not thinking it's, you know, an acute problem, a huge problem at this point. I don't know if any of you guys want to add to that. Thank you. Okay. Questions? Connor, then Donna, and then Dan, and then Lauren. So just like looking at some of the adverse human health impacts of this, and you know, DC will be working with the EPA to see if anything happens at Fish for Wildlife, right? Do you contract with an epidemiologist to see if there's any instances of sort of the things listed in this memo that are kind of out of whack with just a general population in these areas? Well, to come up with our standards. If you wouldn't mind. So to come up with the water quality standards, we work with state toxicologists, and we have water quality chemists, you know, in the DC. So we work with people that are, you know, qualified to assess, you know, toxicity in humans and aquatic biota and in fish and in surface waters. Nationally, there are considerable data gaps, though, and so that's something that holds back both Vermont and the EPA from being able to make faster progress on standards. Since it takes a long time to make things evident enough or sick enough to then say, oh, this is a real problem, what's our prevention mode assuming it is going to be a problem? That's a great question. So, right now, we have a standard for drinking water and groundwater, which is 20 parts per trillion, so for five of the 4,000 PFOS compounds. So we know what safe levels of drinking water are, but for surface waters and for fish consumption, like we've been saying, we need to collect more data and do more research on that. I think one of the things that we advocate for since there needs to be more research done is source reduction, so going upstream, going to where these compounds are coming from and reducing them at the source because what we've seen working with New Hampshire, the Mas DEP, the EPA, is that that's the cheapest way and most effective way to reduce these contaminants. So that's what we would recommend when, you know, in lack of a standard. Okay, so going back to the source, when you talked earlier, he mentioned furniture, carpets, clothing, so that means we have to have higher standards of manufacturing? Yeah, I mean, the things coming into the landfill is a difficult issue to pin down. I can speak to doing source reduction of sources of wastewater, so folks are, you know, I can speak to how to reduce PFOS concentrations in wastewater, right? And so we look at industries that are using these products and these products are getting, you know, flushed down the drain with their process wastewater. And, you know, we would look at alternatives of products that they can use to reduce these concentrations. We would look at alternative practices to reduce these concentrations. But as far as reducing the amount of PFOS going to the landfill, Casey, do you want to speak on that a little bit? I... So for the sources going into the landfill... You can speak in the mic. I am addressing you. For the sources going into the landfill, we looked at sources that were probable to have PFAS to start with. And so it was sludges, as was mentioned, textiles, soils that were contaminated for other reasons. We tried to do a broad sweep of material types that are going to the landfill but are also in use around. And as Chuck mentioned, the highest amount of PFAS ends up in the landfill. So on a mass basis, our estimate is that it's coming from bulky furniture, couches, carpets, other textile sources like clothing, umbrellas were really, really high. We looked at a very broad range of materials. And so in terms of trying to reduce the amount of PFAS that's going into the landfill, addressing those sources that are industrial in nature or sludges, things of that type, certainly would help, but it's not going to cut off the beast. And so that needs to be done at a broader level, than Vermont, even. And I think even if that word happened and we were to get rid of PFAS out of all materials, we're still going to have to deal with this because we're going to have that residual legacy product at our landfills and at our wastewater facilities. And that's why we're doing this sampling is to try and get a sense of what that looks like. Dan. Sorry, this is maybe PFAS for dummies for me. So if I understand correctly, the PFAS is coming from the source materials that then gets trucked as part of the sludge or wastewater leachate material that is treated by the treatment plant. And there's nothing the wastewater treatment plant can do to remove that. It's just in the water, it's going to go through the system and come out on the other side. So there's no part of the solution that necessarily, and I'll use a really simple idea of a filter that's going to change that. Well, the standard wastewater treatment biological treatment that is usually used by wastewater treatment plants does not remove these type of chemicals. However, there are treatment processes that can remove them. Granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis, is very expensive. And so, that's the issue with these type of chemicals. Also, once you have your granular activated carbon that's been spent, the issue is where do you take that because now it's full of PFAS. Okay. So, part of it is that there is a way of possibly filtering, but it's expensive and it sounds like it has to be a state and sort of federal answer. The other part is that we don't even know what this necessarily does down river. Or how much it accumulates. I mean, is there any sense about whether it accumulates in like the sediment or the river bottom itself as opposed to the aquatic biota and fish populations? So I'm going to tackle that kind of in two parts. I'm going to back up to the treatment discussion just a little bit. So, treatment of PFAS is definitely possible on the landfill side because the source of PFAS going into your wastewater facility, the landfill certainly is contributing quite high concentrations. There's no denying that. We are exploring treatment options with the landfill. We did have them prepare a report looking at how they could treat their leachate and that is the same treatment process that could be used on any liquid. So if you're interested in looking at that more, we're working through that process with the landfill. The problem is not only the costs, but there's still some pretty big unknowns associated with treatment of PFAS. So we have the granulated activated carbon or something that holds onto the PFAS. It's captured it. We've got to do something with it. And on a broad scale that stabilization or destruction of PFAS is complicated and unknown at this time. So it's not even just a matter of the costs. It's a matter of making sure that we take the time to explore our best options and whether that's treating the leachate or working with the wastewater facilities or a Yucca mountain for PFAS. And then for what happens when you do it to the aquatic environment, that's exactly the questions that still need to be addressed. They are highly soluble compounds, but it is going to partition and separate out into different parts of the environment. Okay. Thanks. So, I mean, first of all, I do want to acknowledge that DEC and the state has been like a national leader on PFAS response. When the Bennington Highway contamination was discovered in the drinking water, Vermont stepped up, responded, was doing a press conference within 30 minutes of it being found, whereas other states hit it for years from their equivalent DECs knew about it. So, big kudos to the state and DEC in particular who's been out front on this issue, and it's been incredibly challenging and trying to catch up with the science and understand what's happening. The work that you've been doing, and it's been a massive effort to try to get a handle on all of it, and this is like in the context of us trying to catch up to the science and we know that the companies that manufacture these chemicals have known since the 50s, 60s that this stuff was super toxic, incredibly persistent, so that's why they're called forever chemicals because they stay in the environment, so this whole idea that it gets diluted in the water, but we know it's sticking around somewhere, and it's accumulating just saying like, dilution is the solution to pollution is not a great choice in this instance, and like we don't have a lot of good options, so it's very frustrating, and we don't have good federal leadership on these issues. I mean it's been a challenge for decades, and this particular EPA is not going to be solving these problems for us, and so, you know, trying to struggle with what we do here. I was curious from you all, so I know that there's ongoing conversations, and there was legislation that asks for development of a surface water standard, could you just talk a little bit more about, you know, I know again that's being out front nationally, so there's not a lot of good models, but where does that stand, what's the timeline for that, where are you seeing that head just because that would intersect with what we would then have to meet. Sure, so the report on that just came out a few weeks ago, but I can make a summary here for you. Basically, Act 21 requires the DEC to file a rule for surface water standards by the 1st of January, 2024, and there are three or four major recommendations that came out of the report, but ANR generally recommends to not develop a Vermont specific criteria at this time due to the data gaps and the costs associated and the uncertainty associated with those. This is the first time that DEC would develop water quality criteria for something that the EPA doesn't already have a criteria for, so it puts us out in front of the EPA, as you've mentioned, but the major recommendations were the first thing was to establish a human health criteria using fish tissue concentrations, so using the human health criteria expressed in fish tissue and then issuing consumption advisory screening levels, rather than a water quality limit, a numeric limit in water, and then we're going to track the EPA development because their action plan for PFAS is to have an ambient water quality criteria standard for aquatic life by 2022. So I understand that there's a distrust of what's happening in the current administration with the EPA, but looking to them as the federal backstop is important for us because of the cost and the regulatory uncertainty with creating a standard that would be different than what we would be held to once the federal criteria comes out. So do you are you concerned about our current drinking water standard which the federal government doesn't have a drinking water standard yet and ours is more protective? No, I wouldn't say that I am concerned about that. That's based on human health and consumption. This is a more complex media issue when you're looking at surface water. The last recommendation was for us to continue to collaborate with the Region 1 states and so New England EPA Region 1 and also to I'm sorry I lost my train of thought and to, as Nick was saying, source reduction. So those were the major outcomes from that water quality development criteria development document. Just a couple more questions. So could you describe a little, partly I mean I know that it's challenging to even figure out how to filter and what works for long chains might not be as good for short chains and all these complicating factors. What, so it looked like there were nine samples taken which is what we're basing this on. What kind of monitoring protocol, I'm partly interested and I think that we as a council should think about if we're going to continue taking leachate from Cassella that maybe they should be paying for an extensive monitoring program so we can get better data and handle on what is coming out of our facility and start making, having some better informed decisions based on good data. I mean I'm a little surprised that you're not, I mean I understand stuff goes into the landfill. We all contribute stuff that contains PFAS, but Cassella also does have a role here in the fact that they're kind of being let off the hook from anything you're talking about. So just monitoring what could be done there and then I was also thinking about you talked about how the state, I know there are conversations happening about pretreatment of the leachate before it would come somewhere from a particular facility. I think you as a council, I'll bless you, should think about if we're going to continue taking the leachate that maybe we require that within a year there needs to be a plan for what's happening with that pretreatment. This shouldn't be on us to do that. We could stop taking the leachate or we could put some parameters around our willingness to take it and contributing to this problem. So I just love your thoughts on where that stands, where those conversations are going. Understanding this is a huge challenge and there's no easy answers here but just what your thoughts would be on those kinds of ideas. So I'll adjust the monitoring component and then maybe pass it over to Nick for the pretreatment discussion. For the monitoring at the landfill we do require them to monitor the leachate through our solid waste certification with them and that's been a program that's been in place since the landfill has been certified. PFAS is a new addition to that and so we are going forward to be getting PFAS results from the bulk tank which is what's going to your wastewater facility as part of that monitoring report. And certainly that's available information for anybody but if we see any significant changes in the PFAS concentrations we're going to want to be looking at the landfill and then considering the applications of that. Part of this intensive multi event sampling program that we did over a few months period was to try and get it that question of PFAS does it fluctuate or are there sources coming in that make it spike way up and surprisingly to me a little bit it was pretty stable both within the landfill leachate so you know even though there may be fluctuations in the sources there's this kind of capacity of the system that's evening things out. So could you speak to just on the monitoring point I mean developing a monitoring protocol for our own effluent that Kasella I think should pay for is there any precedent of there's no precedent that I know of for that and it is not something that Kasella currently is doing I think you guys can explore whatever you want but we do have data available for you to base that of what's going into entering that. I just wanted to add one thing too and I think Nick did mention that but when we looked at the different wastewater treatment facilities how many did we test? So the ones that didn't take leachate still had PFAS so even if you eliminate leachate you're still likely to have PFAS certainly it was lower levels as we said we're not denying the high concentrations of PFAS and leachate but recognize I think the approach that Nick and Amy are talking about by going after sources is really an important first step and we're absolutely committed to doing that how quickly we see results and how effective is really still uncertain but that is something the state absolutely knows is the smart and right thing to do how we stop it from the landfill is a challenge Kase's group is working really hard with Kasella to try to reduce the amount of leachate that's generated also a challenge but that's something that obviously it's in their best interest to do that so that's another thing if we can reduce the volume of leachate that would be an advantage Jack and then Dan unless there's more comments I was just going to speak to the pre-treatment permit quickly so I wouldn't say Kasella is totally off the hook with regulating PFAS I mean right now so the state authorizes Kasella to discharge leachate to the popular wastewater treatment facility Burlington wastewater treatment facility Essex Junction Berry and maybe one more and that permit is an authorization to discharge that so we're in the process of renewing that permit which we're considering the study that Kasella did looking at treatment alternatives for PFAS and we're considering all this monitoring data that we have for PFAS concentrations in leachate and PFAS concentrations at wastewater treatment facilities in residuals and sludge and in effluent and we'll make a decision when we issue the permit as to whether or not Kasella needs to perform routine monitoring of PFAS and or treatment of PFAS and other emerging contaminants using this data that we've gathered and the difficult part in all of this is the lack of a published standard it makes regulating and giving limits on certain contaminants really difficult when we don't have a published standard so there are a few ways that we're looking at to see whether or not there's a work around for that but we are considering regulating PFAS in leachate but thanks, that's helpful and from like reading the report Kasella did it seemed like pretreatment on site is a choice, it's expensive so they don't recommend it understandably they say places like Montpelier should pay for it or do it and do a cost sharing or something but obviously they have their own study they have their own financial interest and the recommendations but yeah it is expensive and somewhere it's got to be paid for if their permit didn't allow them to discharge PFAS above X levels it wouldn't be a choice obviously they would have an opportunity to appeal that permit which goes back to the standard that's why it's important to have your permit limits based on standards and regulations so they're defensible so it's a challenging issue that we are considering and like I said we're looking at a few different we're going to be considering it in the renewal which is coming up pretty soon they just released that study looking at the treatment alternatives we're working with a third party consultant to review that study because we're all very knowledgeable in PFAS but we're not industry experts so we sent out an RFP and we've received some proposals back and I'm not sure has it been awarded yet? yeah so we've awarded this contract to a third party consultant who is qualified in PFAS and emerging contaminants in Leche and they'll review that study and make sure we've asked them to look at the costs that Cassella used and the assumptions that Cassella used and evaluate whether or not Cassella missed anything you know is there something else out there that they omitted or something like that so we're going to get that report and then we'll make a permitting decision thank you what Lauren was talking about was just what where my mind is going to you know you said well you don't want to have a Vermont standard because there's in some hopefully finite number of years there will be a federal standard established it's kind of an interesting question of economics and regulation if there's no state if there's no standard for anyone then Montpelier could say well we're not going to take it unless you either reduce the level in the leachate or pay us for the carbon versus osmosis systems and I can imagine some other plant that they could be going to might say well we'll just under bid Montpelier by not requiring them to pay for that and so regulation is vital here and I don't know how to anticipate what's going to come out of the EPA but it strikes me as a serious problem that if one actor goes it alone and we decide well we're going to be the most environmentally responsible plant we say no you're not going to do that unless they say apply and we'll take all the we take we'll take our revenue that we're paying you and send it somewhere else maybe upstream of us so is there any system in place such that if the levels the PFAS level should spike and go particularly high such that it would create a danger if it was discharged in surface water that we would be alerted to that so our monitoring program is not daily it's semi-annual from a mixed tank that is both old leachate from older portions of the cell and newer leachate so the older portions I don't think are going to fluctuate significantly the newer stuff is where the uncertainty is and we do not currently monitor on a level to address that uncertainty with that said what we've seen for concentrations to date the guidelines that Chuck was referring to in terms of if the leachate were to pass straight through the wastewater facility with no dilution and come out at the end of the pipe we were the guidelines that we were comfortable with at this point in time based off of what we know our orders of magnitude higher than what we've seen so for PFOA one of the compounds that these guidelines were established it was 120,000 ppt what we're seeing is around 1,000 to 2,000 ppt so for and similarly for the other compound so for a spike to be at a level that would cause immediate acute concern for us right now it would have to be a very significant change in the system either at the landfill or within the wastewater facility and I think we all have an open line of communication that we should know what that change would be if something were to happen before seeing it in the PFAS results but there is no sort of formal it would be more someone would happen to look at this and maybe feel motivated to call as opposed to required for the PFAS concentrations yes but we are monitoring lots of other components of the landfill and the wastewater facility so I guess what I'm trying to say is there's other things that would trigger us to look at PFAS so it's likely that the PFAS wouldn't necessarily be the sole spiking concentration level that there would be other red flags there would be something making it spike up to a level that would and then I had a second question thanks for that I think I understand that and I think from our perspective it may be something we want to revisit when we revisit our contract with but along those lines and knowing that there's a certain desire not to have that is going to be out in front before the EPA gets there or even the region gets there has there been any thought to having the various facilities such as Montpelier Newport, Berry work together with you to sort of set some basic framework for this because it strikes me that what Jack and Lauren's concerned that if we do all of a sudden create this standard that it becomes economically easier for them to truck it to New Hampshire or somewhere else it strikes me that there's a balance point too where you can impose some sort of control if the current recipients of this leachate would work together with you and you would seem the state would seem to be the logical nexus point to have that where there might be some controls that would be short of standards and guidelines that would be the sort of legally binding components that you don't necessarily want to get in front of but that we would work with you and with Berry and with Newport to say well okay these are the threshold things we need such as a monitoring system with regular intervals for this type of testing and we can agree that if it goes beyond this level we need to be warned and it needs to be action taken or even looking towards well that it's more of a partnership kind of it's the slow boil of regulation rather than the quick imposition is there anything in the process for that or willingness to sort of have us come into that sort of collective action so I think the pre-treatment permit is an opportunity to have that conversation and I envision you know maybe monitoring of PFAS is an option as who pays for that monitoring I'm not sure how that would work out but another option you have is using the provisions in your Surrey use ordinance to require you know Cassella to pay for I understand that we can do stuff individually we can even work with them you know part of it too is I should say I mean it's not as if Cassella is creating these PFAS they're just the ones who got dumped first on them you know they're at the top of the hill and it's flowing down so it's but it's a matter of okay if we have to deal with this you know what's the sort of collective way of dealing with this and you said the permits in process being renewed we're going to be renewing that permit this spring early summer so I mean does it make any sense to have you know representatives of these various say Kurt or somebody who can meet with you and yeah there will and that's typically that's that's how the process goes I mean that Vermont's one of the only states where the state issues these types of permits normally it's the municipality that issues these permits but in our case I'm the lucky person that gets to issue all of them and yeah you know typically how it goes is I meet with the municipality municipalities that are being affected or that are receiving the industrial discharge and we discuss you know what sort of modern requirements are necessary what sort of limits are necessary and what sort of best management practices treatment etc are necessary for the permit to protect the plants operations to protect sludge quality so that the plant can dispose of their residuals to protect service waters and to protect worker health and safety too so you know you don't want industries discharging toxic fumes into the collection system sure stuff like that so yeah we sit down with the municipality and we figure out all of that I will say though that it needs to be defensible sure no I understand it can't just be arbitrary capricious yeah I've certainly challenged the ANR on such things before and one but no I sorry anyway if I could follow up on that point for just a minute my winning and against ANR I'm happy to hear that but no not to get all legal and everything but if I were the lawyer for a landfill operator I would say when you're talking about collective action by participants in a market another name for that is antitrust and so that I could see that as a way of that someone would challenge it if it's not based on some regulation that can be shown to be valid right Dan did you have anything further? No I just I think I understand and I think that that makes sense to go forward if you're already working with with Curt and others and sort of setting some of these standards that's and understanding that they do have to be defensible they do have to be standards that are rooted in some authority that you have as well as some cognizable standard so that's all Jack did you have anything further? No Donna so I'd like to build on that conversation and ask instead of looking at as a rule how about a some table of municipals landfills and the state and doing best practices recommendations very strongly on the high of prevention, prevention, prevention because even when you're talking in the memo that Curt sent us he says that leach comes from all landfills have it and yet someone else said when you were testing 20 some had the PFAS and some didn't have leach did I misunderstand you said she could clean it up for me so I think we did hit a disconnect there so all landfills do produce leach okay all landfills produce leach we do only have a handful that are line landfills that have collection systems here in Vermont and so we have five of those the 20 facilities that we were referring to wastewater facilities that were sampled and all the wastewater facilities also had PFAS even the ones that didn't take leach 8 correct okay and likewise now I'm disturbed because it says it was test you tested it in 2018 and it was at 10 and it jumped to 69 point which you're all rounding off to 70 now to me that's in one year's time from a 10 to a 70 now that's concerned and yet you said from the time now you feel it's steady so help me understand that so I think the issue was the number of samples the first study only I think was just one or two samples very very small number of sample points whereas the second study had a total of nine points I believe so you get a much better representative sample of what's actually happening in the effluent so this wasn't enough data points and even nine is you know fairly small amount to really get a true representative sample of what's happening so I think part of this might be and I haven't looked at the that 2018 data in a little bit but we were looking at two compounds at that point in time and now we're looking at five for our that's our health advisory so that's what we were tallying so I don't know what that 2018 sum of the five would be but I think it's closer to the same term was used even though one had five elements right our health advisory changed during that timeline and that's that's the only thing we have to compare to you right now so that's what we're using kind of a I think 70s too many sorry thank you I don't think it jumped up I think it's just a comparison and just to follow up on that last point that the standards changed to add more individual chemicals to the same standard there are more chemicals that could be added yes so is that something we should be concerned about I think earlier there was some point in the conversation when we stated that you know that the class of these chemicals is thousands and we are testing for a very small number of those currently we really don't have a good answer absolutely great point and we recognize it the legislature did ask us to look at a way to regulate PFAS as a class it's done in other contaminants like PCBs you can measure for one of the arachlor and know that if it's at that level you can be comfortable but I think we just don't know so much about these 4000 plus chemicals that we think it's really certainly really hard for Vermont to do that there is pressure for EPA to look at that but still I don't think the science is out there but we're looking for how many now we 24 so we're looking at 24 of 4000 and our health department toxicologist is looking at those there's not a lot of health based data for those so we really can't answer that question but it's an absolute 100% valid point to jump in here I have a whole bunch of questions as well so we've talked about filtration and possibilities for filtering I know that they're considered forever chemicals but is there any known way of decomposing PFAS is science is in its infancy so one thing that we did early in the program is do a take back of firefighting foam that fire departments around the state had the older foam that had really high concentrations of PFOS and we got all these compound of all these 2500 gallons of these pails of firefighting foam and then we had a fair amount of opposition to well what are you going to do with them where you're going to take them and the best science says you can incinerate them that it will destroy it over a certain temperature that's still under debate we were going to use a facility in Ohio that had some issues and it was brought to our attention which was actually a very valuable thing that happened and we ended up taking it disposing of it at a cement kiln in New York that burned at a higher temperature but to be honest we're not 100% confident that that destroys 100% but the science as of today says a certain temperature will destroy these chemicals but a lot more study has to be done to say I also would be worried about the chemistry of what might be coming out on the other end of the incineration that could look a whole bunch of different ways I imagine and all kinds of other interesting exotic results okay so that's I've also heard that pyrolysis can also potentially decompose PFASs except for that it's effectively also incineration it's basically the same I mean I know it's not the same but high temperature, high pressure anyway I assume that's also in the if you consider incineration as separate from pyrolysis that also would be effective or we don't know yeah we definitely don't know we've heard from a local individual that's very excited about this technology and at this point we just don't have enough information to say yes or no it was not one of the technologies that the Cassellos report looked at, consultant looked at but we could ask our third party to weigh in on that I think I also heard from the same enthusiastic individual so in terms of reducing sources I mean I know we talked about furniture I thought I read in some of the material ahead of time that these chemicals chemicals have been banned in the United States or that manufacturing in the United States is not as common now is that correct am I remembering that correctly not necessarily banned there was a voluntary agreement to phase them out and it was PFOA and PFOAS not some of the other shorter chain and then we have been learning that some of the replacements can actually break down into PFOA and others so it's still there and then also remember when you're throwing out carpet in the landfill it's probably 10, 20 years old so it was used when that type of Scotch guard or stain resistant material was used with a higher concentration it's interesting to hear that umbrellas for example or high concentration source we wonder if knowing that the history of this chemical is in affiliation with Teflon then it makes me think umbrellas are kind of shiny like they're nylon is there a correlation there with the types of fabrics that one might I assume umbrellas are nylon maybe there's something else but that type of material like polyesters synthetic materials like that the kind of textiles that we're talking about I think it's more product use so it is stain resistance water repellency those types of activities not necessarily material okay but it's the function of the material that that is interesting and helpful thanks and then so just in terms of thinking about our water treatment facility so do I assume that we have different tipping fees for leachate versus and I assume it's higher for leachate it's not okay how so as we move forward with monitoring ourselves how do we have any estimates as to how much we anticipate spending in terms of monitoring for PFAS is moving into the future so far the monitoring has been conducted by the state of Vermont the city hasn't done PFAS monitoring individually to date okay and does that also occur semiannually the PFAS monitoring that we did was kind of like a one-time event where we did nine samples at approximately 20 wastewater treatment facilities across the state, influent, effluent and sludge would be yearly or no it was just kind of like a one-time event one-time thing that we had money to do the sampling and then now we have a phase two sampling that's coming up and we're trying to figure out what we want to sample some of the things we're considering our industrial users connected to the wastewater treatment facility leachates we're still talking about what we want to sample using that money and when does our contract with Kasella come up again for renewal there's no official contract there's no official contract so since this is an emerging issue it seems like monitoring moving on in the future would be logical potentially and so then I feel like the question is going to be who's responsibility is it? Does it continue to be the states? Fair enough and then how are you all paying for that I suppose that's not my issue to worry about but in case if it does come to the city to take on monitoring that it seems like that would be a logical thing to build into the tipping fee for a leachate but in addition to that as you're considering the approving the pretreatment permit, thank you I mean I wonder we sort of talked about this a little bit earlier Dan's comment but just thinking about could a condition of their permit be obligating them to work with treatment sites to share in cost monitoring or to shoulder the cost monitoring or the monitoring costs or even anticipating some kind of filtration or decomposition or oh gosh anyway I know there's more research that needs to be done so there's possibilities there but just thinking about how can we this seems like an opportunity to say you need to be helping us monitor and share the burden for monitoring and then potentially treatment you have something to say and then Dan I don't envision the permit talking about who pays for the monitoring or sharing costs associated with the monitoring typically the way the permit works is the permittee is responsible for meeting the requirement however they meet that requirement as long as it's within our standards is how they meet that requirement so that I can envision something like an agreement or an MOU or something between the town and Casella to work out how to pay for the monitoring but the permit won't get into cost sharing and stuff like that okay thank you I guess for the reaction as far as the monitoring it seems it's going to be much more effective by doing it at the source where this leachate is coming from these tanks rather than because after if we're measuring, if we're monitoring our output it's already out there whereas if we can install the monitoring before any type we know what we're receiving or at least have these warning signals like this is ultimately something that's going to be resolved by both the permit as well as our relationship with Casella and trying to work out some of those details privately that the permit won't necessarily cover and Lauren I know you had something sorry so we've talked about the affluent what's the sludge situation did Montpelier's sludge get tested and then can you remind me what happens does that all go back to the landfill did theirs get tested and what was the result of that I think Aimee's been pretty quiet all night all right I want to bring you into the fun cool effort yeah yeah we tested 22 facilities solids and I won't get into the complicated nature of what happens to all those solids because it depends on what you how you treat it and what you do I don't think Montpelier's was necessarily a lot higher than any of the others and currently it is going to the landfill so that's kind of a closed loop in a way although that's probably arguable and other facilities in the state do have various disposal options but most of about half of it goes to the landfill in the state and the landfill also takes sludges from out of state so they take I would say three quarters of the sludges they take comes from out of state so we're not we're not land applying ours at least I just one other I mean I guess it was kind of brought up the worker issues I don't know if there's any potential like concern of exposure at the facility for you all or if there's anything that you guys at DEC would be concerned about considerations that the facility should be thinking about to ensure that our workers are not being exposed we don't yeah we don't have any concerns regarding that right now when we talk about worker health and safety it's mostly like vapor toxicity from like vapors flammable substances and stuff like that but yeah we don't have any concerns with that right now we will look into it during the permit renewal I don't I haven't heard of any other wastewater treatment facility seeing that as an as an issue yeah I think in these conversations and I'm going to speak from a really high level but I think that you when we start looking at really low numbers in proper trillions and effluents and things like that you have to think about also what your relative exposure is and what the real health risks are when we end to contact these materials through household dust and hopefully not through your water and that's really the state's primary concern is making sure that everybody is drinking clean safe water I don't I know that I drink from Lake Champlain and there's a Burlingtonian but and that water is tested and so far so good and I think it's a pretty big dilution factor there but you know I think the nature of this compound is very difficult because it can volatilize, it can be in the air it can be right on the surface of water it can glean to solids it likes to stick to certain charges so it's a very unique compound perfect water repellent all those things and I would say that it's certainly something to think about I mean I think exposure at a wastewater plant is something to think about and I think that hopefully to be ongoing research in that area in the future that's probably something to leave for academia and for grants and for funding to figure out if there's an issue but no I think that you know I think we all underestimate that we are exposed to these compounds pretty regularly and it's usually through your household dust or your food packaging or things like that or your coats or things like that and I I know we made a report and I know we presented data comparing five compounds to a drinking water standard but we got to keep in mind that this is effluent from a wastewater plant not drinking water we're not drinking the water from the Manuski that said the fish tissue consumption is something that needs to be worked on and it will be there's a lot of states working on that well not a lot but there's there's handful of states working on that and whether or not there ends up being fish tissue consumption advisories it's too early to say but we already have some in place for mercury and things like that at the Lake Champlain that are probably already protective enough one other thought so I'm just thinking about the if there's any risk of liability the city now knowingly taking in and even though you know at this point levels are low but you know all the research that comes out keeps showing lower and lower levels are more toxic so that's the trend and knowing that there's the 4000 chemicals that we're just beginning to understand so in the kind of precautionary model is there risk of liability to the city now that we have you know a memo on record and this conversation of knowing that there's this this toxic chemical that we're you know releasing I know there's been a lot of conversations at the state house about medical monitoring for people exposed to toxic chemicals there was a bill that passed that unfortunately the governor vetoed that exempted municipalities but now that doesn't exist and there was a court decision recently that said people could go after medical monitoring so for example the fish tissue was making me think of it if somebody fishes I mean if you're fishing right outside the wastewater treatment facility but and you know could somebody be exposed and make a case that they were exposed and now cities are on the hook because of this court decision and lack of a statute that exempted municipalities is there any risk that the city is taking on to knowingly continue to do this and I don't that's not your that's just the thing and keep in mind you know your wastewater facility is passing through right this these materials are coming to you and they're passing through it's it is somewhat similar to the landfill in a way there's they're accepting garbage from everybody in the state and it's passing to the system and it's coming out the other end and we have to do something with it and it's not a perfect solution but you know everybody in society is contributing to this problem and you know outside of liability it's it really is I see wastewater treatment plants being referred to as sources and they're really not the wastewater plant is not adding PFAS in between when it comes to you goes out the back end so that may not speak to liability but it's a way to look at it so one thing I don't know if we mentioned I know it's been in the press but the state is going after the manufacturers of these chemicals as Lauren said there's really solid evidence to show that back in the 50s 60s probably even 40s they knew the stuff was bad so the idea would be if we were to win and were to get a settlement we would hopefully create some funds that we could help municipalities about being certainly a prime one deal with this issue but as we know how lawsuits go it's probably not going to be anytime soon that we reach that end game but the state is certainly committed to trying to help us get resources to deal with this problem any further questions anything else I just want to thank you all you have such knowledge and you've been so open about it and I hope when you go to your job realize you're very valuable to us keep it up thanks for having all of us and I'm definitely proud of I mean these guys are doing the work and they really deserve the credit so thank you yeah thank you and part of me wants to go back to the high school where I teach and say hey chemistry teacher you need to watch this section of the council meeting because chemistry matters and here's an example do kids take chemistry okay what's that exactly yeah now this here it is like in the world so thank you all so much we have to ask them if they thought they'd have to be in front of city council when they got their degrees thank you all for your time thank you I just wanted to make one further adjustment in the agenda which is to move item 12 the homelessness task force item two right now just because I know there are some folks here interested in talking about it so right so so there we have a request and actually I'm going to turn it over to Cameron invite the members of the homelessness task force to come on up and so I am a staff representative for this committee I do want the homelessness task force committee to really talk about this since it is a funding ask I have no opinion thank you we're acting sitting there if you would mind introducing yourself sure Ken Russell chair of the homelessness task force Zach Hughes member of the homeless task force Jody Kelly member of the homeless task force it's a little bit of a mouthful thank you for hearing from us you should all have this memo that city staff i.e. Cameron worked very hard on and did some really good work and I think we've sort of made the case previously to you the importance of sanitation downtown kind of follows nicely after the last conversation and it's a need that I think would help address the concerns of the downtown merchants certainly the need for downtown bathrooms has been expressed by merchants Jody is a representative of the MBA on our task force there you know we came up with a couple of citing ideas and based on the mayor's feedback today we want to make sure that one of those bathrooms was near the downtown business downtown which makes good sense and it's a port of John and I think it does seem like it would be really good for the vitality and quality of life downtown for better public bathrooms to be put together in time and somebody had mentioned the information booth that probably belongs to the state but you know I can be a beautiful building for it something to think about I know that people have asked about the transit center I know the GMT owns that I don't know what the what sort of negotiations could look like at some point but we do appreciate Cameron and Bill's responsiveness on this topic and and then the lockers is I think we've explained it before but the basic idea is folks are out there, get their gear stolen gets wet you know their lives are in chaos and so this is a good inexpensive practical way to help give people a stronger platform and help them move along towards a healthier way of being so do you want to add anything yeah so I represent the Montpelier Business Association and recently I sent a survey out to the business community asking them what they thought the most pressing issues were with regards to the homeless situation and many of the consistently it was the accessible bathrooms 24-hour accessible bathrooms many of the businesses including myself spend a lot of time cleaning up you know excrement from our sidewalks from our yards it's not only a terrible eyesore but it's also a human health hazard we have laws against public urination and defecation but there isn't a solution I think it would be fair to say that most people would choose to be inside a bathroom then to lose their dignity having to go to the bathroom out on the sidewalk it isn't any mystery that we only devoid if we don't we die and so we really definitely need to give people the opportunity to do that in a dignified and a health conscious way sorry I lost my train of thought here the other the other situation that helps to support the need for 24-hour bathrooms is from the business community in that there's lots of people that need a bathroom to use not just the homeless we our businesses sit right within the farmers market and which is a wonderful place to be surrounded by it's such an amazing event from spring until fall and we really love to be there and be in the hustle and bustle but you know last year during that time on a Saturday a 4-hour period of time that the farmers market was going we would have on the average 20 people come through our front area into the bathroom and use it and it's not that we had said they could use it but the vendors decided that that was what they were going to do and I love farmers but they tracked that through the hospital and I'll tell you my staff was just like enough we're not doing this any longer so we did towards the end of the season just say you guys we can't but the problem is they'd have to walk to city hall to use the bathroom and they can't leave their stands for that long so there's definitely you know the situation for them also is to have a reliable source which it makes sense for the one of the bathrooms to be down on Taylor Street area and then the one other concern would be monitoring it keeping it clean if we have you know we have a lot of tourists in the area and they love coming to Montpelier it's such a wonderful place but we don't want eyesores we want to make sure that it's being monitored and you know last thing anybody needs is to go into a bathroom that's really dirty so that's the viewpoint of the businesses right and just to be clear that this is you know a stopgap measure and there's this what Cameron found is a company that does service the units once a month but we're looking at expedite you know more frequent and Zach you have some words yes I do have some words you know I do I did end up sympathizing with the business community on a Sunday I was transiting through the main street and the strong smell of urine was very was very strong it was all I wasn't just in one area it was straight down to the corner and I even let Ken know immediately that I was concerned and that we needed to prioritize this I think I've also heard from others what are we doing about those bathrooms because you know and I've even ever since joining this committee I've had pictures of myself being out there what would I do in those situations and I think it's you know I have to agree my colleagues here that it is an important issue lockers are equally as important because the people are placed to store their belongings basic stuff we're not talking about the grandmother's photo album today but a basic dignified way of doing it and I continue to thank the city and the city council for working on this process with us we are the leader here in this right now and so I just thank for that I want to close real quick just thanking Glenn for his service on the committee okay I know he was welcome to come back if you wanted to he said he was done okay so we really appreciate that we would invite anybody to come by the committee during our time you know because I think learning about the processes and stuff is really important you know and especially when you have new councilors come on that would be really cool so thank you for your time tonight Connor so I think the first thing that comes to mind is we probably all agree once a month service in the portable bathrooms is pretty insufficient so the question might actually be for Cameron what city staff would be responsible for this? None. The capacity? No so the proposal would be to have a company provide the bathrooms of their portagons so it would be monitored and cleaned by that company it would not be coming from the city staff so that was something we could definitely look into if we contract out with for the service how often they're coming and servicing the bathrooms. I'll echo Connor's comments because it could be worse than having none if they're insufficiently monitored having been on many a camp out that means the price we have is a once a month monitoring price that's what they quoted me so that's up for debate if that means if this money is approved we go into contract maybe it would start in April instead of March just to fit within that budget constraint. I just want to note the location of the portagons well it says near Taylor street we're off the bike path the X's at that point probably I would advocate that it not be quite exactly there because that's the site of the new confluence park which I know was still in progress but that's kind of a vista right there and so it would just be I think it would be an odd place to have Porta Poti there. I think once we get this if this is approved if y'all do approve this we can work with staff like the committee can work with staff to come up with a more appropriate place in that area. And I agree I think having it somewhere in that area that makes sense and to be fair we that's a piece of property that we own and so it makes sense for it to be somewhere on that piece of property you don't have to ask anyone else's permission but I would be willing to host it knowing that it's going to be serviced by somebody else if it's in a logical place so I just want to keep that option open depending on who might be willing to if there are other places that might be willing to host it. Other comments? Jack? I think this is there's a real need for this I we're in we're faced with the situation of once again having a request for city funds outside of the budget process and so it's a small funding request but it has the city staff identified availability of funds and source of funds for this. I've been told by our director that we could make this small amount work within our current budget. Thanks. Another question that occurred to me looking at the should we talk about the bathrooms first and then the okay I'll hold the other question. Any comments about oh yes go. The only other thing is I mean this is very clearly a temporary solution and has the committee talked about more permanent solutions. I mean just roughly I mentioned that information looks like a nice has been used as a well yeah excuse me but no I mean that no not really in detail and again I think this is a good partnership with the business community good common cause. Well I mean it strikes me as something goes beyond simply this immediate need to a larger you're talking about the farmers market and we're talking about no longer talking about really the homeless population but we're talking about the public that circulates downtown and it's impact on businesses that the businesses don't necessarily provide these facilities but a family comes to the farmers market that you know the kids need to go you know what kind a lot of towns that attract this type of population of visitors will have these facilities and we don't necessarily have them I mean there we've got some in City Hall but you know this may be the sort of next step and it seems like it would be you know while this may go beyond your charge it does seem like it would be nice to see a more permanent solution proposed and given you're looking into this already. Okay so we'll be renamed the Homelessness and Bathroom Test. But I mean it does seem, I hate to put my dirty work on you but at the same time I mean I think that this is you know this meets your solution but I think it can have a broader okay yeah I think that's and frankly it's I think for us it feels good to this is a solution that just is a no-brainer and certainly in response to the merchant complaints or concerns, issues. So I think we speaking not for the whole committee but it sounds like we should that makes good sense. Did you have something to add? Yeah. Hi, Mike Miller, Planning Director so I hate to be the one who's going to be showing up to go and let you know this is not the first time that this has come to my office and this actually hasn't come to my office but you can't have Portageons in the flood plain. It's just a flat out no-no. It can't happen. We did move one of like the Task Force did have a first proposal that did have Portageon in the flood plain and we were... Okay, so obviously this is why we have not I mean this is a proposal and we will make sure we work with you and get that cleared. The flood plain goes is a very large area. For State Street it's going all the way out to the pit so from the river to behind all those buildings is the flood plain. There's less flood plain than Berry Street. So as you go down Stonecutters way there's portions in Stonecutters way but that's away from the farmers market and that's away from the downtown solution that we're looking for. There are ways of getting around it but it's something again it goes to a more long-term solution. You have to build up and elevate where you put the Portageon onto something. We've talked about it has to be on a platform elevated and once you're doing it now you're talking needing to have the ramps to be ADA accessible and all these other pieces so it can be done in the flood plain but it has to be elevated above the flood plain so in a flood it doesn't discharge the waste and that's and other communities in the state can kind of get get away with it for a little while. DEC, they live and work here. They will go to our farmers market and they will call us and say morning I will have a phone call telling me that Portageon can't stay there and so it's just the reality of living in Montpelier. Is that true for both sides of State Street? Both sides. State Street from the river all the way to the back of the pit is all flood plain. It goes into State House Lawn it's a very large area a lot of our downtown flood and it's weird to think of it because you think when you get up to where the transit center is it's actually uphill from State Street so it's actually a kind of a weird thing that actually you're almost out of the flood plain at. That's my question because on this little map in the memo there's the two places marked are one right across Taylor Street from the transit center I think and then down in Confluence Park. Am I understanding that right? So I didn't think that that little balloon was I thought that balloon was just consequential of we're just trying to find this location that was not like we're putting a Portageon at the place where the balloon does that make sense? I think I was reading it differently and I should have figured this out in the Task Force meetings all this time but to me location one near Taylor Street off the bike path was the balloon the second one to me was location two we don't know somewhere near downtown and that was the first the X in the Confluence Park which is obviously not going to happen but the Taylor Street possibility also is I believe they would both be in the flood plain unless we put it on like a fire tower unless it's elevated in some some place. So would it be appropriate to ask both planning and DPW to work as staff with the Homeless Task Force to offer other locations to the City Council to consider or do you we could certainly provide maps or if there's locations that you're thinking of or would this be out we could certainly go with that and if we're looking at a larger elevating something so it's above the flood plain then we can get some I mean you know the new transit center was built above the flood plain so if you're looking at the floor of the transit center if you were going to elevate something in that area you'd be elevating to about where that where that floor is and certainly if you were standing there looking toward State Street it goes down to State Street so if you're right on State Street it's going to be something that will be you know four or five feet up in the air Langdon Street Court Street definitely three or four feet it would be maybe even more than that on Langdon Street because of the north branch that's a flood from the north branch so that's right on the river too City Hall as well yeah we're we're flood plain but we're in a building so we fall under different rules I think my question at this point would be does it make sense to approve this money now anticipating that you'll figure this out or should we wait until there's a location before approving the money and I don't have strong feelings about that I'd have stronger feelings to let's find locations for these things given the limitations because it may push it so far out that either one or two doesn't make sense anymore yeah I mean depending on your agenda we could probably get the flood plain map tomorrow and go from there and do some thinking it wouldn't take much that's right Lauren in that we could get the Connors question about the maintenance see if that would change the estimates to get that answer as well so we could have a more solid understanding and so let's anticipate having you all back at a future meeting is there any consideration for the lockers as a separate ask I just wanted to make sure we deal with that first sounds like we're generally in agreement about the bathrooms I'd like to see staff talk to GMT and why that facility isn't open more both for riders and other people because City Hall is 24-7 even if it's not 24-7 it's a lot of hours that buses pass through there and I think we should be encouraging them to staff it so that would give us two ready-made inside bathrooms and we can supplement it with Porty Pots just to be clear I don't think City Hall is open 24-7 there is a bathroom police station police station okay yes Lauren one more clarifying question that goes to both the lockers can you just remind me so we had allocated we had approved up to $10,000 to open the shelter early that whole amount was not spent because of the time lag and getting it open and then we got the good news that the shelter can open early is that whole $10,000 has been allocated for the shelter for both ends of it or what's the status of that money that we had previously already approved so the shelter is still open and plans to stay open to the end of April so I won't know what that funding looks like where that money is at it might cover it but I don't know until the end of April but that's being held for that $10,000 to thank you okay any comments on the lockers Jack I think it's a great idea as I was looking at this again as a legal aid lawyer whose career involves a lot of the time challenging what government is doing I think I'd like to see some there's some stuff that just wasn't clear to me that I think needs to be addressed I didn't see here how many lockers there are which is one point another point is assuming that there are there's more demand than there are lockers how would the government decide who gets them and if the if the government decided to kick someone out of their locker or bar them from the locker what would the process be for the what's the standard what would the process be for making that decision what would be the process for a person to appeal that decision because it would be an adverse government action that the person would have a right to challenge possibly possibly right or something yeah but I think these are questions that should be addressed points well taken those are good points and it could it could be something as simple as first come first served up until there's all the resources is fully used up you know there are government programs that are like that where there's a certain amount of money appropriated and when that's all spent the next person even though their need is as great as the person ahead of them online doesn't get it because there's no more money so in terms of that initial allocation would a lottery suffice to be equitable and fair I think it might yeah and then the other thing is the appeal if you get kicked out and make sure that that's there's due process or I would want to see some kind of due process protection yeah well or at least I mean it may make sense enough sorry jump in is that whether or not there is I mean due process is due when there's an interest involved whether it be a property interest or a liberty interest and they may not have a property interest in a it is rental locker and it may just not I mean there's no reason to necessarily add it if there doesn't have to be there but if we don't have it and it has to be there that's where we get into trouble and understanding what interests are created because I'm sure other cities have done this before and you know what what process I'm sure we can just crib from something that's been effective and that's been to a certain extent so that we don't end up in a situation where you know the last thing we want to do is do something nice and then end up costing ourselves a lot of money to to an when one of the other lawyers in my office exactly exactly just stay out of it the homelessness task force did benchmark this there's actually not a whole lot of governments who are doing this work and by not a whole lot I mean I didn't find any so I did find a couple nonprofits who do this work on behalf of localities is that the one you put in here yes ma'am do you have any data on them or any their policies I did I took the the draft that you're looking at for the locker program the homelessness task force did a lot of work on that but that came straight from the organization I found that's been doing this the longest I would bet the VLCT to have some language to avoid this kind of thing you know it's it just strikes me that if it was very clear from the beginning that you know you don't have a necessarily a right or an interest in this only to say that this is something you're you know will give you access to this locker it's really a service and a gratuity but there's no guarantees here you know that might help and and while this there may not be this exact thing you know this proposition is regularly tested in in court as to you know whether there's whether something constitutes a property interest in something that requires extensive due process and if there is we don't have to have it's not like we have to have a major trial every time somebody wants to get kicked out a lot or we want to you know someone's removed from a locker but I think has to be sort of thought out and then create some system created so that there's a fairness there and an opportunity for them to grieve if they have a right to grieve the question that often comes up in due process questions is how much process is due and it's more if you're evicting someone from their home and less if probably for something like this so what if I assume that this has not been the locker policy has not been reviewed by our lawyer so none of these things these are all proposals yeah so I wonder if a review from the lawyer would would generate these kinds of comments or suggestions and I'm not sure it would do you think that would be beneficial yeah no I mean I think they can do a little bit I mean they can do the research to see if this has been challenged to say I mean the benefit of having them as opposed to say Jack and I is that their professional licensure is on the line we're just hobbyists right well and if it's something that ultimately helps prevent lawsuit in the future that would be useful exactly so okay so we don't have to try to figure this stuff out I I think if we ask that if we went to them with these particular questions in mind these concerns I imagine they would come up with some suggestions okay go to the city attorney and say these lawyers on the city council these are all these questions about due process they would let it build in the flood plane and the other says absolutely um my oh sorry darling go ahead a different kind of question it has to do with when you did the budget can you didn't use a number to get there like how many lockers you were thinking of at what cost or did you just pick a number I'm sorry I keep answering these questions well you did the work on this I still have no opinion but that was benchmarked against some companies who were selling used lockers which is why we don't have a number you know it's really based on what's available on the market at any given time I priced out new lockers and they're exorbitantly priced so used it is and so it's really based on availability from some of the sources that we found so I don't know a number I was just sort of estimating what I saw as averages of costs on websites to buy used lockers the senior center lockers there were like eight of them right they yeah they're not which we can't use but that was a ballpark we were in I just don't know how you come with a number if you don't decide 10 used lockers 20 years well they all depend on how they so when I was looking for used lockers there's many variables how used they are how big they are so I just tried to use the average price of lockers that I thought would be appropriate how many 6 to 8 to 10 I couldn't I don't know that's fair okay I was thinking you might have a number that you thought we needed so I guess I'd rather not do 10 when we need 25 I'd rather really know what the need is and then come from there that's all I was trying to put you on the spot I was just trying to hear the answer some number there of we need this many lockers I think I know Don had an opinion on this and I when we come back sounds like we'll come back on the bathrooms anyway Glenn I agree it would be great to know just how many lockers we would need for the for the demand at the same time I think we know we need more than zero and we have the potential for a relatively small space for them basically like right out the door that way which I don't think would easily fit more than maybe a dozen or so I'm envisioning it at least so my sense was again for this initial like we just want some 6 to 8 felt like 6 to 8 to 10 felt like kind of what we can tackle with the 16 to 10 at least that's what's been in my head the whole time in the conversation it has been very big can you look at a place and you already have a mine location I missed that just behind city hall behind city hall between city hall and the police station basically within range of the I knew it was in this range I just didn't know of an actual the back side of the back wall oh I see I guess I'm not that specific but I'm thinking like tucked in right alongside city hall there's a concrete block over here so I wasn't thinking if you were going to put it on top of that the general idea would be to put it and like I said this is all proposal none of this has been approved or permitted we'd have to go through that process is put it right behind the building against the wall underneath where the firescape is because it blocks nothing or no egresses and there's nothing there currently okay so it sounds like you all are going to come back anyway I think it would probably I would even with the lockers it would probably make some sense to come back with some information about that does that seem fair? yeah thank you and this is all part of the process all of this is great thinking and a good idea well thank you very much I'm hoping you feel our support no sorry for all the questions I mean just before you mentioned GMT and those people said it's a no-brainer why isn't that facility hosting lockers and bathrooms I mean at one time we talked about lockers for bicyclists so they could bring the break in, stow stuff you know even showers I mean there was a lot of in the vision that didn't happen so I think we should still revisit that yeah I mean if you can't turn the bus around maybe you could have a locker I want to make sure I don't forget to say this I'm just thinking about that tree that's behind city hall I just want to make sure we protect it somehow no did thank you that's all okay alright so we're jumping back to item seven thank you all by the way thank you for your time your efforts on this alright so to the Center Vermont solid base management appointment Donna come on up so you do actually have an applicant it's Donna so we did advertise we had a couple of applicants they had conflicts of interest because of what they do for a living oh sure so we had a conflict of interest in the couple of applicants Bill and I had a conversation given that July one of this calendar calendar year there's a major change in the solid waste regulations food scraps have to be diverted we're actively working with a committee here and that some of that decision making on a regional basis will happen in the next few months with the Central Vermont solid waste district I did offer as a staff person to fill that position until a resident could be found I have a long history of solid waste management several different states here in Montpelier with the Central Vermont solid waste district for 15 years as their executive director so I'd be happy to be in that position and to help us achieve what we want to achieve in the interim and as soon as a viable candidate comes forward I'd be happy to step back and do what I do on a regular daily basis for the city but we would but if it's going to be you then we need to make a formal appointment yes so that's a discussion but we can also go into executive session if you like Dan given your other obligations to the city is this I don't want to have this be something that might break your schedule being a person who over commits himself as well I understand but is this something that you'll be able to manage I think I'd be able to manage it my understanding is CVSWMD board meets once a month the preparations I'm usually looking at their agendas anyhow the other work that I'm doing is on my roster anyhow with the committee so I think it's a very minor addition to my regular work load and I'm just I know a lot of the folks at the Central Vermont solid waste district and it's just been a long standing passion of mine for years so I don't mind fulfilling that role and I don't think it will extend me in a way that interferes with the other work thank you though for asking Lauren thank you for being willing to do that I mean obviously you couldn't really ask for more expertise in being able to jump in and as the appointee but I turned out and this was a lesson learned for a first year counselor the meeting time just doesn't work for me so I've never been able to go and I was the alternate so I didn't feel that guilty I read the materials but having somebody who could actually like we're not being well represented right now and I'm sorry to say so but having somebody even if it's interim until somebody else or you could assess if it fits within your other many obligations but I would love to be able to have us well represented there because I feel very guilty that it turned out I can't make the meeting times Donna I would love your application of your expertise and it really fits in well with this transition into the whole food composting so I would like to make a motion that we accept Donna Casey to be our representative of the salad waste district second for the discussion on favor please say aye thank you thank you very much okay alright and on to the rental inspection program hi so Mike Miller again planning director so I'm here to talk about Kevin Casey our community development specialist had been working on which was the rental inspection so this was one of the tasks one of the actions that was on last year's list of things that we were supposed to look at and it was an inventory or survey of rental properties in the city to determine if rental units in the city meet minimum housing standards and so this has been kind of a little bit of a challenge I've had as somebody who worked in Berry City and managed the rental inspection program over there rental inspection programs are really looking at whether something does or doesn't meet minimum housing standards whether it meets a certain level of quality you know are people getting a good value for their dollar it's really about is it meeting minimum housing standards do they have refrigerators and stoves in the kitchen do they have GFI outlets in their bathrooms do they have smoke detectors do they have locks on their doors so what Kevin put together and what you have in a memo here looks at puts together a proposal because before this is going to be a labor intensive process we wanted to make sure that we kind of put the process out this is what we're going to do inventory 30 units and we would do it in a random sample and we would then be able to go through and analyze those and so we wanted to make sure before we did it that everybody's on board with this is this is the inspection sheet we would use these are the number of things we would be doing so if the council does choose to move forward with this we've got an approved process to move forward so Kevin did prepare this it is rather labor intensive it will take away from other activities and duties that he's doing but it is something if this was still the council's desire to move forward here's a proposal that we could do to fulfill what was on last year's strategic plan for this item and I guess I'll leave it open to questions I mean I'll just kick it off I'm really interested in this program I think it is a lot of value I think a good blueprint for it is laid out in this memo but we can't be added like 120 hours to some of our staff here especially Kevin, Kevin's like a bumblebee there he's everywhere with his hands and so much so I think anything worth doing is worth doing right and I think I would take issue to sort of you know just doing it halfway here and I think if we're going to do it let's do it through the budget process let's have somebody come in and do it let's add a part-time staff if we need to because we're going to have higher staff turnover if we keep burning them out with all these new projects so that's just where I'm coming from right off the bat here so interesting you brought that up I was wondering if this would be a good project for like a some kind of an intern or a Vista AmeriCorps kind of person I don't have any Vistas on my right but I mean in thinking about next year if we were to budget for an AmeriCorps person that could look into this what do you think about that possibility I mean I know it puts it off a little ways but I mean it puts it off there is always an oversight it doesn't always take away it doesn't always save time to take somebody and teach them how to do something that they don't know how to do so you spend a lot of time teaching them which has value to that person but I don't know if it necessarily takes away that that much time but it's certainly something I talked to Kevin about he's managed the Vistas in the past to see what that would be but Vistas in the past were about sixteen thousand dollars so if you're looking for a number of what the Vistas are that's been what we budgeted in the past for them but that would probably be less than say like a part-time person oh certainly would be less than a part-time person right Lauren so totally understand the the need to like thirty units or whatever we pick that seems reasonable to pull off I mean it seems like that certainly concerning that the permission is denied like I get that but the people who might be most motivated to deny permission might be some of the worst housing so you're getting a skewed sample and how do you account for that which maybe there are ways to but just be curious your thoughts on that and it was also making me think of you know is there some way to make this more enticing and I was thinking about like our energy efficiency goals could it be like can we come do an inspection and we'll do an energy audit while we're there and leave you with some materials or is there some way to make this something that's a meeting multiple city goals and that people would actually want to participate instead of something that feels punitive and like you might get in trouble or something if you participate so people would have an incentive to say no and if there's no downside then at this point it's strictly a voluntary survey I mean the question that was out was is there a problem that needs to be solved so this wasn't meant to be going out and trying to solve any problems this is this is simply how do we go out and try to determine if a problem exists and how big of a sample size is that it takes it takes time to organize it is a as somebody who managed this in Berry City on a larger scale the contacting landlords contacting every tenant giving them 48 hours notice scheduling those blocks of time making sure people are there on time to be able to let you in for a period of time these it's not just a time of the inspections there's a considerable amount of time in preparation how do you take the paper surveys convert them into digital surveys so we can then do some data analysis afterwards those types of things that we would have to solve and I think how big a sample size is you know and how do we entice to get more people to participate it still comes down to I think the underlying question which we don't know which is the minimum housing survey is really about determining whether we have a lot of units that don't meet minimum housing codes and our plan with the 30 was we figured if we surveyed 30 and we got a reasonable sample of 30 and all 30 came back and passed it's kind of coming back to the rental housing survey is probably what which is what we think the opinion of the building inspector the opinion of Bob gallons myself Kevin is that we don't have a housing minimum housing problem minimum housing code problem this is these are usually looking at much much more significant issues what we have is units that are going for $1100 a month that you know are in poor quality and probably are worth $750 a month and people rightfully upset but that's a market thing and it's not as long as your roof's not leaking and you've got GFI outlets in your bathrooms then you're going to meet the minimum housing codes I hear you there I also have to balance that with stories that my friends have told me about when the landlord didn't fix their broken window for a month which would be on something like this so and other housing authority people telling me you'd be surprised at the things that you find in Montpelier so I'm telling you this because it's hard to sometimes know how to navigate all of the stories and the experiences and the other piece to keep in mind is we can only look at the units that are known so people who have perhaps an illegal unit we're not going to be surveying those because if somebody has a unit in the basement that doesn't have proper fire egress that's probably not on any of our lists that even exists the end point and we have a couple of new faces just to make sure people remember when I did these in Berry City one thing to keep in mind is the rental inspection program if we went as far as to do the rental inspection program the council has to be comfortable with the city evicting people and making them homeless you know I do that five times in Berry City you have to be able to do that because if this unit doesn't meet standards and if your landlord will not fix that unit I will be condemning that building and we will be finding you we will obviously try to connect that person with as many services as possible but that is the reality a possible reality of an end point to a minimum housing standard which is that you actually end up being the person who pulls that trigger and says I'm sorry this doesn't meet code the landlord won't fix it we are here by condemning this building and everybody has to move out and I had to do that I did it in February I did it to people who were not English speakers it is not a very enjoyable process but it is a reality going down that route that yes there's a lot of benefit to doing rental inspections if you have a lot of poor quality and you can work in strong arms some landlords to fix up some qualities but for a stubborn landlord you can also get to a point of doing things that are in your core just don't sit well but it is the inevitable end point that you have to be prepared that this could end up on your plate Mike how have we had any sort of comparison with the building inspector with Chris vis-a-vis any of the you know he regularly performs inspections of buildings and it seems like some of his purview is going to overlap with some of these inspection qualities I mean is he noticing a deterioration in quality or coming back with reports has he weighed in on some of this so there is some overlap between them so what Chris is responsible for is for building codes and for health codes which is slightly different than the minimum housing codes so the health codes are highlighted by tenant issues as well as landlord issues a landlord may call Chris to investigate for health reasons because somebody is a hoarder or somebody is just not taking care of their trash and you could end up with a tenant so that can work either way we do have those issues we have a number of Washington County mental health units that periodically come back through because the tenants sometimes have life challenges but we always work with them and work with Washington County so we do have some of those that come through and the building inspection as violations come up as Chris finds building code violations then those are addressed but I mean is he noticing I mean has he weighed in on this has he noticed any deterioration or you know surprisingly high number of building code issues or health code issues on his inspections not as much a number of units over his tenure here have been fixed up there are a number of good landlords who have purchased properties and fixed up a number of older units and fixed them up that's not to say that there are a number of units that are deteriorating but I think I don't know what the ratio would be between the bad ones that have been bought and fixed up I mean the reason I'm asking is we do have the rental housing code in the state that he enforces through the Department of Health as well as our own building code and wouldn't a better effort to sort of get out the word to tenants that this resource is there if they have an issue with some habitability or some quality that aren't installed or the water doesn't always run or even I know the housing code even talks about like 65 degrees that it has to maintain a minimum like three feet from the wall and off the floor kind of thing I mean isn't that a more effective way rather than this sort of survey to sort of actually get out and fix some of these issues I'm sorry that's a loaded question so there is a lot there and Chris does a lot of these we will get these calls anyways so we will get calls from people some things we do address some things we don't there's certain ones there's some mold in the bathroom or something like that that may or may not fall into the health code and he does somebody calls and says they don't have heat he's going to go out and take a look at it it's just you know if we get a call whether it's Bob Gallans and you know sometimes it's related to other issues but it's just something that we're going to check up on it and we'll make a determination if it's something that we deal with but usually if people have a question they can always contact the building inspector and we can find out about going in I think your point is well taken though to really work on our communication with the public about what their rights are as tenants I think the issue that has come up with Chris and because you're sitting new to the council is Chris has been is a fabulous resource and has been tasked with many things and has been doing a lot of work over the past couple of years so his workload is overwhelming so sure but that would be a logical place if we need to expand that to expand his function because I understand he takes care of new construction he takes care of existing construction I've tried to get ahold of Chris and I know how difficult a man he can be to reach but it strikes me that this may be an issue that we already have an effective solution to and if we can increase awareness in the community for those kind of things I don't know where doing a survey is necessarily going to be an efficient or effective use of resources and it comes down to the question of whether you want a reactive or a proactive process the rental inspection the idea of a rental inspection program is that you're going to be proactive no tenant has to worry about any retaliations because there's going to be a random inspection inspections are going to come through every five years so it becomes a proactive inspection and doesn't put it on that we can use the departmental resource now whether we have enough resources in that department we can talk about separately but certainly building inspection would be a place where we could do some reactive on a complaint basis which we do anyways on a complaint basis go and investigate for any building code or other violations Jack I started working in tenants rights work in the early 1970s and I was one of the people who worked on the committee to develop the proposal in 2004 and I really have always thought that the only way to effectively enforce the housing code is to have a periodic universal and periodic inspection system because it with a backup for complaint driven inspections because if the as Mike said there's a serious concern about retaliation and landlords do retaliate against tenants for complaining about the condition of their homes in the in 2004 I don't remember I don't have that report anymore the city may have a copy of the Ray O'Connor's report but I think the proposal which got pretty far it got as far as presenting it to the city council I think it was going to require at least two full-time inspectors to make the system work and it just got to the point of the council not being willing to devote that amount of money to make that kind of inspection program run the proposal we have now is to spot check of the quality of housing rental housing in the city to see if the quality if there's enough inadequate or substandard housing to justify the investment in a full inspection program and obviously it's not exactly the same as what would be looked at because this is a survey of housing meeting HUD HQS housing quality standards which isn't exactly the same as the requirements of the rental housing health code although not that different really so the proposal here is instead of going by the anecdotal evidence that we have from some people that say sure the housing quality might not be great quality but it's not substandard by objective standards to do a systematic look of a sample of the housing rental housing in Montpelier and evaluate whether it appears that there's a significant amount of substandard housing in the city and if we if we do this survey to a conclusion that conditions are not so bad that we need to have an inspection program then we can put this question behind us but it also tells us that we need to be do more tenant outreach and do other things to make sure the tenants know what they can do to secure their rights but as a means of getting some baseline data on the housing quality of rental housing in Montpelier I think doing a study like this makes sense other thoughts Lauren just circling back to the question what kind of participation would you anticipate do you think that would be a big deal so that issue isn't a big deal or do you think that might become an issue and do you feel like unequals 30 is meaningful in statistics but does 30 feel it would answer the question in a way that we would put it behind us potentially if it came back or is it we didn't know it's really hard to know what your sample size should be because you have to know what this version is where is it and how is it clutched if it's all kind of spread out then you'll have a pretty what your rate is we'll just have to take we try to pick a number that would give enough of a sample but within a reasonable budget I mean if we decided we would do 100 we're talking a couple thousand rental housing units in the city so you know if I think if statistically we'd probably need to have a lot more to have a statistically significant but if we did 30 and found 12 that had major problems then we probably are having more of a problem than we thought if we do 30 and we end up with six but they're all relatively minor easily fixable they're all good but this one here should have an electrical outlet you know that's not as but we can put those together but Kevin did reach out to because he does have connections to a number of the landlords and he did reach out to them and said hey we're thinking of doing this would you be open to it if we contact you about it and they were all willing to we've got probably five major landlords that probably are a majority of the units in the city and for the most part to cooperate with the with the survey again they're not going to be even if we find a violation we can't enforce the violation we're just going in and doing a sample and doing it the tenants themselves would also have the right to refuse so it's not just the landlords the tenants may go and feel they don't want to cooperate as well so love to see Glen and then Jack I think I'm a little concerned about the advocacy of this only because the anecdotal stuff that I've heard is more about illegal units as you were talking about earlier that wouldn't even be picked up by this kind of survey and yeah I guess I'm just saying that I'm a little bit torn on whether I think this would be worthwhile or not it seems like a good idea in general and I hear you are in the staff's recommendations that it's hard and potentially not useful at this point in this way if the issue is illegal units we'd have to think about a different program how would how do we route out these illegal units to get them up on and do you have any guidelines about what that kind of program would be I know that's a moral question that's I mean the best avenue for that would be to tie it into the reappraisal because in a reappraisal we go in and see the insides of every building it's very difficult for us to get access to the insides of a building unless we're invited in you know from a zoning standpoint a zoning administrator can only go in with either permission or a search warrant so that's we have really very little rights to go into a building building inspectors have a few more rights that we don't but again their rights are narrow but when a reassessment comes through and Steve goes through or whoever's working for him they go through and map the whole thing out and they go and count the number of bedrooms and number of units to do the appraisal and then the only things you're missing are the ones where he had a refusal which we have cases of those in the city as well but Jack and Donna a couple of point I guess my main point is that granted most of the big landlords apparently have told Kevin yeah we would be happy to do that in my experience over many years it's the smaller landlords are more likely to be terrible landlords than big landlords at least in terms of failing to maintain their property that's just the way it is and when I go over to the state when I used to go over to the state house and lobby you would hear hear them talk about how they want to treat the mom and pop landlords well and the mom and pop landlords of a large extent don't have a problem because they're undercapitalized they think that once they they get the rent check and pay the mortgage and property taxes the rest of the money is theirs and so I don't know I'm a little unclear on what the proposal is since the staff memo says the staff recommends not moving forward with inspections at this time are you recommending moving forward with this study or are you recommending doing nothing my recommendation would be based on the amount of work that it's going to take and obviously take away from other things that staff could be working on that I'm not sure that it's worth moving forward but it has been identified and so this is our proposal so I guess that's a qualified answer of if you were asking me would we do it I would say no my recommendation would be I don't think it's warranted based on the information I have but counselors and the mayor have heard different anecdotal information from other people so if you do want to move forward as we said we put this proposal forward if people said rather than use this inspection form use a different inspection form great we want to hear all of this up front before we go out and do the work because we want to you know if the HUD section inspection isn't the right metric then let's put whatever the right metric is because if we go out we want to make sure we're bringing you all back you know if we do all this work we want you guys to be happy with what you're getting as a result but it kind of sounds like your bottom line put this on your priority list it really was not a sensible thing to put on your priority list and you your role as the head of your department would say maybe the energy of the city would be directed better directed somewhere else yeah I think I kind of said that last year when we talked about it we're just as I said when we're pretty you know staff has a lot on their plate and so we're just trying to to manage expectations but you know again if this continues to be a priority and it is a priority then we can fit this into our schedule and we will fit this into the schedule because you guys are asking us to do it so that's the answer I based on that my suggestion would be that we take no action until after our priority setting process and see what people think I'm comfortable with that Donna then Lauren I'm sorry I have a couple questions before you do that Jack one is the survey we didn't really talk about the survey you talked about the study I'm really interested in sort of an anonymous survey and how we can encourage people who are shy about interfacing with any other source of information that could possibly do this on the website electronically whatever and secondly we do have an upcoming re-appraisal that's going to happen and that would seem to be the greatest time to dovetail and to really make an effort to seek out people's opinion as well as our re-appraisal information and so I would like to focus Glen's question but I wouldn't answer the assessment won't tackle the minimum housing question they're kind of two separate questions well they are but they'll give you I think a general assessment of where there are potentially problems so it could at least narrow down where we need to look I just think there's values in both of those that would not necessarily mean a full staff because I think we need to staff it right and I totally agree and this is like the second or third time I've heard you talk about this is that we do need the staffing we need that commitment of staffing to do it right or don't do it and I was hoping that maybe with the survey and using just the input from the upcoming appraisal to help us know where we should look for the problems might help us narrow it down to a focused project I was kind of thinking along a similar line maybe like moving forward with this is a lot of work for limited value and even answering the questions we're trying to answer so it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me I was kind of to Cameron's point and what Dan was bringing up of you know if there's education and kind of an outreach campaign paired with a survey to gather information to get a sense of you know does the community feel like this is a big problem or there are a lot of people wrestling with this and it's not just a few anecdotes that's one thing and then maybe there's a better way of collating the data from what's happening on a reactive with a staff that hopefully wouldn't be a lot more work but give us a better idea of what are you seeing have some data behind that to not create new work but just better kind of summarize what are you seeing in the places where you are going into buildings and where Chris is inspecting already if I could add you know this also might be a nice opportunity to start to think about the large number of Airbnb's or short term rentals that we have in the city that may not be falling under the view but have the same impacts as these long term rentals and whether when we start to think about the quality of our housing if we want to rope that in as well we don't have any other than just going and looking at Airbnb we don't have any right place right now no but I mean you know if we're thinking about you know basic housing standards or rental standards I mean right now I don't think that we're envisioning even your survey and studies the sort of long term rental the classic apartment either multifamily duplex accessory apartment but you know at the Glen's point I bet that we have a lot of sort of overlap between the Airbnb that slowly becomes the illegal apartment because it stops being a short term rental and becomes a long term one even though it may not have all of the features in the traditional apartment anyway it just goes it's tagging on to Lauren's point it's something for us to think about maybe down the line so it sounds like we're in agreement that we're not doing anything right now exactly with possibly looking at a survey or like seeing how things arise with the future priorities and common level assessments appraisals that are coming up is that a fair summary okay alright so is that clear enough for now Mike? yeah I mean I can go and see what information Chris has a summary if he has any summaries of his data Jack one other thing is that the Montpelier Housing Authority does have to do an inspection of every one of its one of the apartments that are having Section 8 rental for every year and I think if you talk to Joanne especially for the apartments that are new to the to the program you get a sense from her of how many of those are not meeting HQS you know the ones that have been on the program year after year you would think sure because they had to pass in order to get approved and every year they have to pass but someone an apartment that hasn't been in the program they have to get approved get a sense of how many of those she finds deficiencies yeah and a good follow up to that is you know if you are talking with somebody and they are a Section 8 then they already meet this wouldn't help them because basically by being a Section 8 you are automatically in a unit that already meets these minimum housing standards it's only about 110 in the city okay alright well thank you thanks for putting this together yeah maybe we should do it well we just like I said we like to just make sure it's clear that this is what we would do that's fair okay so moving on we've kicked this down the line many times now so I would like to not kick it I can be quick I have a proposal on this I think because we are moving through this session pretty quick so originally I think this conversation started with me pitching that the city hire a lobbyist in the budget discussions and I will definitely continue doing that next fiscal year so I am not beaten by a right and candidate on Tuesday but you know there's an expression you're either at the table or on the menu I think we're on the menu a lot and being a capital city what happens at the state house disproportionately affects us so when I look at some of these discussions we're having here whether it be about the quality of our rivers the homeless population I think we're solving a lot of the issues that should be solved up there or at least we should be at the table for them so for me a lobbyist position I didn't see it as somebody giving a Cicero like ask testimony in front of legislative committees I saw it more as an information tracker and I think maybe as a bit of a pilot I think the legislative agenda looks pretty good but you know it's kind of narrow because a lot of what you do up there is play defense rather than offense and you want to know what's coming at you you got a five billion dollar budget you want to know if there's an opportunity that pops up that you can hop into it so as a start my suggestion would be town meeting week is next week they've all gone home I would ask if somebody else on council wants to volunteer with me and hey could be glad you're stepping down to come up for a plan for the rest of the session where we get information out to people who need to know in city government and talking about you know state of Vermont hires a diversity director there's going to be a big hearing in room 10 up there wouldn't it be nice if the social and economic justice heads up in case they want to send a member up there you know hearing on the PFAS is up then we know about it we should have somebody in the room TEF comes up and so just coming up with a process where volunteer driven because I don't want to put more on staff we identify all the relevant committees and all the hearings come out of the week and we have a distribution list to get that out and I think I would be satisfied if even we had a little bit more engagement just based on doing that for the rest of the legislative session so that's a proposal I'm thrown out there and I'd love to volunteer if that's sort of the will of the council here Lauren I'm happy to volunteer I as someone who also I mean I'm making a weekly legislative schedule anyway for the issues I track so adding on additional priorities some of which are the same but looking for other things I'm happy to help or play that role and we can happy to work with the staff line on how that might look and what we can do to position the city as well as possible in these conversations sounds good to me I'm just throwing out an idea still lousy one I think actually I think this is a very strong and overdue idea to have someone up there or having us engage in these conversations because I think it's absolutely correct that you either participate find these opportunities because no one says hey let's stop this legislative committee process call up the Montpelier people see if they want to come and get some of this money it's already done by the time they're talking about it and so I think that makes a lot of sense so I support it I mean if Lauren hadn't jumped in I would have but Lauren already jumped in so but I'm willing to help too I'll just I'll throw it out there but I think it makes a ton of sense and it's long overdue and to extent we can do it through the rest of the session but I would make this a priority for next year if I'm not defeated by a write-in candidate I'm going to write a contract next year with a lobbyist they have to pay for their own position by raising enough money for the city budget but assuming they do I think that's a great idea I actually have a comment on the content me too Don I want you to go ahead thinking I've said it but I'm afraid I haven't is to add an aspect for public safety particularly regional public safety and there's a new commissioner now for the state's public safety department who's really supporting regional dispatch systems and you may not know some of the towns in Vermont get free dispatching by the state but they are trying to get rid of that but the towns who have it have very strong lobbyists and legislators and keep it so the new commissioner is really more outwardly stating that he really wants to see a level playing field and that nobody gets free dispatching and that everybody has to become part of some regional system so I think public safety should definitely be here and the other piece of that is a real important one is that we have this fight now with AT&T and their proprietoriness and Verizon and our state has chosen its cellular system AT&T for emergency assistance but they want to shut out Verizon Massachusetts has made a law and all their bids they have to share and I would like to see our state do the same thing saying you cannot make this a proprietory so that if someone is on Verizon or AT&T they get access to all the build up that is happening in the state do you have any specific... so that feels like two separate items they are both under public safety if we just had even just a little line public safety do you have any suggestion for wording on that? I do not other than I guess public safety focus on regional public safety funding and support by the state and that we look at cellular coverage is that specific enough team? yeah okay thank you just wanted to make sure that was thank you for bringing that up make sure we are clear on that so my question is actually under that second green section there 2020 city of Montpelier legislative agenda number seven support resolution of rail siding down Barry street through the savings pastor property I actually thought that we would have been against that yes which is to say that because the rail right now would like to have to relocate the line through savings pastor that was just a misunderstanding on my part so no worries I think okay fair enough yeah especially as we are looking to maybe ever have some development there and we have this shared use path along savings pastor now and then to put a rail right next to it I think would probably be not so great but if there is anybody who is in favor of the language as stated I just wanted to check before we change that cool just wanted to make sure that was we're all on board with that and also I just want to note well actually anything else on this Lauren I guess just trying to figure out the balance between principles and then specificity so that we know what we're talking about and to make it easier to actually track so a lot of this is in the budget so that is what it is some of it you know like number six advocating for global warming solutions so obviously there's like a few bills that are actually moving could or should we be more specific you know bills that meet certain principles such as the global warming solutions act which is a specific bill if that passed I think it would help us meet our own goals and so that's one question I guess it's always like the vehicles can change and stuff so you don't want to lock yourself in so I think we could write it with enough caveats of what we're trying to get across but it also would make it easier and more meaningful to advocate for specific pieces of legislation and or like even the additional human services funding for homeless services like if we know what kind of buckets of money those actually are that we can track and be watching I think the more specific we could get the more effective we would be at actually being able to do that in a way that would be meaningful so I think you're going to give us yeah right so so thank you for bringing that up one of the fears I have in terms of having this legislative agenda on our agenda is that there are a couple of pitfalls that I think would be easy to fall into like one would be that we each bring our own like super like hyper specific like this is something that we really need to see and it's not necessarily particular to just like where it's not generalized to like the interests of Montpelier but knowing that these are things that that fall within on principle that they fall within the general goals of the city you know that's sort of what has crafted the things here but I think as long as it as long as a bill I'm just going to say this out loud and you can disagree with me but as long as if a specific bill you know does some of the things that are laid out here you know like support opportunities that promote ecological protection that that then qualifies I imagine and that I mean if there is a specific thing maybe we can just bring it back to touch base that's something that you're going to circulate to us it could be that we leave it this big for this and then we can try to work on here are bills that we think meet these principles that we so that might be a way to kind of split the difference it's a lot of different bills that could fit these general goals so we'll probably just need to prioritize which ones are the most meaningful and where we would want to try to make a difference for the city right right yeah so because any of these things could be political mind fields or time sex and just want to be conscious of that but yeah I think it would be valuable to know what those things are especially like as any of us end up having conversations with our legislators that we can have that we can be you know specific and saying but have the backing of like no we know that this fits the council's priorities just two other brief thoughts when we could add something about just to the conversation we were having earlier there are a couple pieces of legislation related to PFAS that are moving that do reduce the use of PFAS or restrict the use of PFAS in certain products so kind of getting to what the Department of Environmental Conservation folks were saying so we could say policies that reduce PFAS that create problems for the city or something that would be happy to work with Cameron on some language in that if people are amenable um no I'm convinced it's not a problem it's going great it's a problem are you seeing that as a separate item or is that underneath ecological protection we could wrap a phrase into six if we wanted to either way um and then my last thing we have a lot of VLCT on here and I generally don't for me personally I don't find that VLCT represents my values a lot at the state house and so I don't really love deferring to them they are often opposed to a lot of the priorities we have listed and so putting a lot of as if they are representing our city values their lobbying I don't think is accurate and so putting this much language that kind of implies that VLCT stand you know that we're using the values that VLCT is bringing to the state house they could like literally be lobbying against bills that we would be supporting and I think that could happen often and so just how we word that this was just all a proposal that came out of these conversations for you guys to consider yeah there's no no one is wed to this there are three specific things that are listed here I think we do support I mean one is our local option tax that we have and we want to continue that support the second one doesn't say it to me but if and the whole thing with at 250 goes into the third one and likewise the first one I think those are all three of those clear statements I support I think the city supports so maybe we can move those onto our own agenda not reference as VLCT priorities but more failure city priorities I don't know you know it may make more sense once It always seems on these legislative agendas we can talk about these different policies and we can't wordsmith too precisely because it's often driven in part by what's going on and what's really important. So for example, they're always talking government ops about changing how city charters are adopted, which we always have an interest in because we have a city charter, we amend it from time to time and if it involves less legislative oversight, that might not be a terrible thing and more flexibility and power to the municipality. But is that necessarily our fight as a city? Well that's I think something we can talk about and discuss. I see a lobbying effort ultimately to be about things that will directly benefit the city. So we talk about financial resources or projects, you know, support from the state given their footprint or, you know, we can talk about these bills where we can weigh in on social justice or environmental, you know, PFAS ordinances where we may have a particularized interest but I think at least at first if we can keep it broad then we can start to look bill by bill and like any board, you know, that may involve it coming back here and having a brief discussion, hey there's H80 that's going to talk about PFAS, should we take a position? Yes or no or maybe, you know, but I think that could be more as opposed to drawing up a constitution of legislative priorities, I think we'll just get bogged down into some of the weeds here that may or may not even come up as real issues this time. So my suggestion would be that, you know, we can generally work with this but if Conor and Lauren are going to start to monitor that's where we start and then based on that experience then I don't inform how we actually draft these legislative priorities. Jack. It's not necessarily a thing for this year given that we're halfway through the session but at Legal Aid we have this process of people who, we've developed a form for people who want to advocate for doing a certain bill to fill out this form, say here's what it would do and here's why I think we should do it and some other information like that and we might want to consider doing something like that next year and getting started in the fall so that we're prepared when they start up in January. I agree. Just a mental note first all collectively, so when we send out the budget survey to say what do you want to see or not see in the budget that might also be a good time to be, to like, let's like wrap those things together so that they both, you know, trigger at the same time. Donna. We will be, yes. With strategic planning as part of that. So we've talked about a few changes to this document but thoughts, are we ready to have a motion? What do you want to do? Further thoughts? I move we adopt it as it's been amended tonight. Second. Should we just clarify what those changes are? Yeah, I do want to hear if you had any feedback about the last section which we, I went to our department heads and asked them what specific bills were important to them. So that was for y'all's perusal, if you will. So I didn't know if you wanted to include those or take them out. I'm sorry. The agenda is different than the one we had previously. No. Well, no, I added a few sentences based on our last conversation about it. But I'm talking about the last page. It's called the department level specific legislation monitoring. So this is what our department heads are currently watching right now. I don't have a problem including that because all we're proposing to do around this time is basically send out an email so that if, for example, the H560 about burial fee for vandalism fund comes up, shoot an email over to, you know, the Cemetery Commission. Okay. So just to recap, we are reversing the position on seven. We're adding nine regarding public safety. And what did we, what would you like to do about, do you want to like take the three bullets from DLCT and just add them to our list or leave it as listed presently? I think that makes sense. And then just eliminate the city's in town section, take the three bullet points, move the doors. Okay. I think that makes it a bit cleaner. And then leave the rest. And so people who moved and seconded, that's okay. This is why you went, okay. Further discussion? Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Thank you. Yeah. And thanks, Connor, for bringing this up. Really? And I think it's, yes, thank you. Okay. So that is the end of our regular business. So council reports. Donna, are you good to start? I just encourage everybody to show up at town meeting next Tuesday and vote. And I'm on the ballot twice. One says city council for district one and for at-large public, central Vermont public safety authority. Thanks you for your support. I just want to actually thank Tom Brown and the folks on the bridge. That was a great town meeting they spread that they do there. So I think it's a great service to keep everybody in town informed there. And best of luck to the candidates. One other thing I just want to flag, I read that the Seattle city council, I don't mean to be too provocative, but banned winter evictions from December 1st to March 1st at a meeting a couple of weeks ago. So I was hoping to reach out and just get a little more information about that because as we talk about these sort of heartbreaking matters as we did today, it seems ungodly that somebody would be in the cold here in our community, colder than Seattle even. I'll bring some information back to the council on that. I want to report briefly on a couple of meetings that I've just been at this week. Homelessness Task Force this morning was a really productive meeting. We met with Mary Ellen Mendel of 211 and got kind of a rundown of the state of affairs there that taught me an enormous amount. What someone might experience if they are in need of emergency housing after hours. What happens when they call, who they get, how long they have to wait and all of the problems and potential solutions to that. And on that note, I want to encourage council to get another member. Now that I am stepping down to attend those meetings, it is currently Wednesdays 11.30 to 1 and it's always a great meeting. I think it would be great for the council to continue to have a close connection to the Homelessness Task Force because they're doing good work. I also went to another way on Monday. I've been visiting them about once a month. And I think that is not a formal council connection. It's just something that they asked me to show up because I was doing the baggitos morning things. And I found that it is a, I've said this before I think many times, but it's a really good connection to have. Another way really is a community center and it's a place where not only do I learn an enormous amount of useful information about how people are experiencing the city, but also I'm able to share a lot of what goes on here so that the community there knows what's happening with the bike path or with the transit center at least as much as I do, which is sometimes not that much, but it's good. And I would love to see a continued connection between the council and another way as well on a volunteer basis. But if anyone is interested or willing to do that, I think it would be a really great service. I also want to go back briefly to earlier in this meeting and thank the council for considering the homelessness task force ask even outside the regular budget process, I know that's not how it, and the task force clearly knows that's not how it is usually done. And I think it's a testament to this council's good will and sensibility that we're considering it as an emergency sort of thing, whether or not it goes forward. And finally, this is my last meeting. So thank you all for giving me a place to hang out on Wednesday nights for the next couple of years. It's been great. It's been an honor and a great education to serve here. And I want to thank the staff and the council and the residents who supported me and taught me tons of stuff and been patient with me. So it's been a pleasure sometimes. Very good. Well, I want to first of all thank Glenn for his service and for his term. And sorry that we only had a few meetings together tonight. But other than that, I would echo the other councilor's call for the town meeting day to come and vote and thank the bridge for their extensive coverage of the races. And thank you all for this small interim position that's coming quickly to an end. The only thing I have to say is to thank Glenn for the time here. He's obviously spent a lot of time beyond what is necessarily required to do the job and threw himself into it wholeheartedly. And I've enjoyed having him on the council with me. So I just wanted to update everyone quickly on social and economic justice advisory committee. We do have an request for proposals out. We've gotten some questions. So hopefully that indicates we'll get some applications. It's very late, so not to talk about it now. But I did want to get on your radar. There has been a question raised of when we had approved the $10,000, originally it had been to look for it in the fiscal year 20 budget. And then we put $10,000 in the fiscal year 21 budget that hopefully on 10 meeting day everyone will approve. So is there $2,000, $10,000 pots of money or just one? And so we looked back at the records and it was not clear. And so as we work with potential folks, then we wanted clarity so we could make sure that any, and maybe Cameron can explain this better than me or provide any clarification. But we certainly want to be crystal clear with any potential consultant of what they might expect. I do want to expand on that just a bit. I'm sorry. Just we do know that the money starts in fiscal year 21. All of the consultants have been told that that's in there, that's in the RFP. My question is if we, like, do we, does it continue? So is it 10K cutoff? And the next year, is it 10K cutoff? Or is it, we didn't spend all of the 10K. Does it accumulate? So that was not clear when y'all voted. So I just want to see what the actual intent was. Donna, do you have a comment on that? Well, I thought that what Lauren asked was different than what you're asking. So those are two different questions. I was going back one first to Lauren. I made the motion and the mayor let it be known that she didn't like us to make a motion about money ahead of budget, but I was committed to make sure it got in the budget. But it was all about being in the budget for FY 21. So it's part of the budget. Even though we did the first vote before we were considering the other budget. And likewise to me, we've never decided ahead whether somebody that I remember carries over. We've never done that. Within departments, departments have it, but not for specific items. So I wouldn't assume it's carried over. I agree with your assessment of the FY 21 and then also thinking about how it works with other committees. For example, the energy committee gets $5,000 a year, but it doesn't accumulate. It goes away. So I assume it would be as it is with other committees. Thank you for the clarity. That will be very helpful for the committee. I think is what we expected, but we just wanted to be crystal clear. So that is it. And thank you, Glenn. It's been a real pleasure. I really appreciate your thoughtful and heartfelt approach. And you will be missed. That is just what I was going to say. Glenn is just so thoughtful and clearly has a really big heart. And it's really been wonderful to serve with you. And I guess I would just add to it's also been admirable your commitment to baguitos Thursday mornings. Are you going to keep doing that? Oh, right. I forgot to say I'm going to be there tomorrow. After that, no. I have other plans to be regularly in public, but it will not be in that way. I think I'd like to do some volunteer portrait sessions or something like that. But anyway, tomorrow will be my last open years at Baguitos, 8.30 and 9.30. Good on you for doing it. It's very admirable and inspiring even. Amazing. So thank you. And that's it for me. I would just say thanks, Glenn. It's been a pleasure. I'm sorry I hogged the outlet so much over the last couple of years. This one has a better battery, so I don't have to plug it in anymore. I just mentioned that early voting has been very, very light. I'm not sure what that means. We'll see. But we do have early voting hours on Saturday. The office will be open from 10 to 2. We forgot to thank Orca who also did a lot for all the candidates and for us non-candidate people having the time to share city business and our goals. So I really thank them. They're here every meeting, but the additional interviews with Richard Shear was really helpful. Yes. Thank you for remembering that. Yeah. Okay. So first off, thank you guys. It's been fun. I appreciate being up here with y'all. I do want to let you know that tomorrow I will be speaking at the State House regarding support of State Bill 216 about getting us on the exchange. So that'll be at 2.30 if you want to join me. I would really appreciate that. 2.30 tomorrow? Yes. Okay. And I will send you the information. I also want to publicly draw attention to the fact that you did get a report from the Montpelier or the MDC. So if you have any questions, please respond to that. We'll make sure that those are communicated. And like the mayor said, we have started talking about strategic planning. If you haven't been told, instead of contracting that out this year, I will be taking on that responsibility. So I have a great new format that I'm excited to roll out. So I will be sending an email letting you guys know what that might look like shortly. And I do want to thank Glenn. It's been really great getting to know you and working with you here and on the task force. So I do appreciate you. That's all I have. Okay. So without objection, we'll consider the meeting adjourned.