 Good evening, everyone. I'm going to call over to the Port of Finance for Monday, April 24th at 5.35pm. And the first item on the agenda is the agenda, of course, and we're actually hoping that the agenda could be moved with a bit of an amendment. We'd like to move 4.14 the community infrastructure projects. Early in the agenda, it could be the first item after the consent agenda 4.005 to because one, at least one of the later items is sort of dependent on the community infrastructure approval. So that would be my preference if someone would move the agenda with that change. Thank you, Councilor McGee. Second by Councilor Jang. Any further discussion on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll go to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Motion carries unanimously. The time we met is the new Board of Finance. There weren't too many people in the room. It's exciting to have everyone in person. And we have a meeting agenda together for tonight. Before going to that, we do have a public forum and I think we'll go to the other members. I think we'll go to the other members. And then we'll have the former city Councilor Sharon Bush's with us and as our end raise. So go ahead. Sharon. Yes, can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. which talks about the items that now are eligible to be reimbursed with TIF. You talk about what the audit revealed and they were ineligible items. And I understood that, but how are those going to get paid? That wasn't clear in the memo. And if it had been discussed before, I've forgotten. So I don't wanna belabor your agenda because I know it's a meaty one, but it would be helpful to know how those are gonna be paid. Thank you. Okay, thank you Sharon. And Director Brian Pine is here to speak to the TIF item and try to speak to that briefly. Any other public forum comments? I am not seeing anyone in the room. Don't think there's anyone else online. Check that. It's not appear so. So I'm gonna close the public forum and move to our maybe too abbreviated consent agenda, which is really just the board finance minutes for April 10th and we'd want one motion for ready to approve that. So. Great, thank you. President follows our second. Thank you. Councilor Barlow, a discussion to consent agenda. Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those are favorite motion. Please say aye. Aye. I oppose motion carries unanimously. You have approved the consent agenda. Okay, we will now move to the item that was moved up to the beginning of the agenda, the community infrastructure projects. This is hopefully this is fresh in people's mind. We had a work session about this last week and as promised, we are back to try to move this forward together. And again, of course we're looking tonight for a recommendation for council approval. Next week, if we're ready to move on it, I would just be clear that with many of these items certainly I think probably without exception, every one of these items will come back for further votes from the council when we have contracts to approve, so we have sign contracts, construction contracts. So I don't, but what we're looking for tonight next week is important directional approval that we should be moving in these directions with these allocations. And with that, hopefully that was a helpful summary for you, Kara, but what about anything else before we dive in? No, you can dive right in. I'll kick us off a little bit. Refresher, the city received 27 million of American Rescue Plan Act funds. The initial iteration of that legislation was quite narrow, mostly related to revenue replacement and COVID and pandemic response. Since then, the final iteration of the legislation has been released along with a lot of FAQs that were gathered from municipalities across the country and has broadened the projects that this funding is allowed to be used for. And so in light of that and in light of our ARPA survey that was sent out and received almost 4,000 responses, and of note in that and related to this item is our BIPOC respondents chose community infrastructure as one of their top selections, spaces where people could enjoy food, music and gathering. And so the city sat down and as we know, we set aside $2 million in our budget resolution for fiscal year 23. $2 million sounds like a lot of money, but for projects like this, it's not actually a lot of money. We had many competing demands within the city, many departments with many great ideas. We did end up narrowing it down to five projects throughout geographically spread out throughout the city. It involves three investments in public parks and two new indoor community rooms, all of which are in qualified census tracts. And the next slide, yeah. We'll give you a little bit, can you do a presentation or no? Or maybe just, yeah, thank you. So we have the Fletcher Freed Library that has their new North End branch. And they were looking for $50,000, there are some walls in that facility that they'd like to remove to have larger gathering spaces in there. We have the Redstone Cottage. We have Director White here. And we would like to build an annex onto that cottage that would allow for a community space and another gathering space. As we move slightly further south, we have Roosevelt Park, which we desired to put a pavilion in there. It would be open on the sides. It would be a shade structure and a water protection structure. It would aid in food dispersal that's happening in that park. And then Waterworks Park Moran frame amenities include signage and some upgraded walkways to allow the public to enjoy that space more readily. The City Hall Park kiosk, as you all know that park was always envisioned to have some sort of food service in it. I currently have been working with a restaurateur in the city who is interested in donating the proceeds, is interested in operating there and donating the proceeds to CODS. So we would be looking to set up the RFP in that sort of manner to at least have partial profits donated to a community nonprofit as sort of an ongoing way to utilize these funds. And as we get to the south end, 405 Pine Street, the BCA building, we are looking to build a community room with an industrial-sized kitchen, which from my perspective, working with micro-businesses and entrepreneurs, they're always looking for a space to prepare foods, to test their foods out in markets. It will also be able to be used as a full community space to have gatherings with food there. And as many of you know, we don't currently have a community space in the south end. So that really adds to that amenity there. And then the next page is very rough. Yeah, it shows you some blueprints that we have and some of the ideas that haven't quite moved forward with a more detail yet pending this discussion with Board of Finance and Council. And you can slide down on that a little bit for the other three. And now I'm ready to answer any questions. Great, thank you, Cara. The floor is open for discussion. Councillor Farley. Thank you, and thank you for recapping that. The Mayor answered one of my questions, which is we'll have an opportunity to revisit specifics on- Yes. So for example, that pavilion design is an initial design. It's not quite right-sized for the park. It won't exactly look like that. So as we get into issuing RFPs for these projects and all of that, yes, this will all come back. And the other one, the one that sort of has the least specificity and has the biggest price tag are the Moran Water Works Park amenities. So I'm wondering if there's any vision on beyond like a walkways and signage what that might be. Yeah, I don't know if Director Pinemon should have been on that. You don't have to. I'm happy to be here. So we have all sorts of visions and millions of dollars of thoughts for what could be great there. I think what we are proposing is instead of jumping to conclusions about what that should be, that we set aside a significant kind of foundation of funds to anchor a second phase. We expect to be able to raise privately two to three times that. So this could be somewhere between a three and $5 million second phase, ultimately. And obviously, depending on how much we're successful or raising, that's one thing that could determine how much is in there, but also that with the city commitment, we would be able to start a discussion with the community that would include these interactive friends of Ferriame events where we start using the space this summer in that through the actual sort of experimentation with events and activities down there combined with a resource planning design effort, bringing on a designer that we end some active efforts at securing other funds that we would settle on a phase one somewhere over the next, I wish Samantha unfortunately is on vacation this week, but I think, Ryan, we said probably six to nine months from now, we would be able to say to you, this is what we actually think we'll get done. So we have lots of ideas, and maybe Brian's presentation has some more detail on that, I'm not sure, but that's, I think it's important the right way to do this is not to be overly committed on this point until we've done some planning with the community and felt the budget all over there. Okay, that's helpful. President Paul. Thank you. So the first thing I think is a very well-written memo. Thank you. I think the fact that we're really looking at as you well-documented from the New North End to the South End and everything in between, which I think is one of the best ways to be able to build proper community support and spread the money around. And you're right, it seems like a lot of money, but when you start breaking it down, all of a sudden it's not so much money, particularly when you're talking about some of the things that you're planning on doing. And I think they're all great. I mean, I think that I am really impressed with the fact that the kiosk, which was the in city hall park, which was probably the most controversial aspect while not the most. The trees. My, Laura. Yeah, it was about the trees, but besides the trees was the kiosk. And there was a thought that this was going to be yet a way to commercialize the park. And the fact that this is, I would hope that there would be a strong way of conveying to the community what that kiosk, what the greater mission is of that kiosk. Number one, I think it would probably be great for business. And number two, it would send a great message to people and something that engaging in community and that sort of education information. So I mean, everything sounds, it's come a long way since it's original envision, the way that it was vision. So, I mean, I'm happy to make the motion if others want to speak to this further, I'm happy to play. Why don't you take it off the motion to be great? If I may, as the motion is written on the memo at the bottom, you'll see 250, I believe the words of Roosevelt Park have been left out of the motion. So you could just amend the motion to reflect that 250,000 is to be dedicated to Roosevelt Park and then we can clean this up. Yeah, my apologies, the typos. So in other words, it's just simply left off. Yes. The others are correct. That is correct. So I would just make a motion as recommended on board docs but the amendment of an additional $250,000 to Roosevelt Park. What did you call that, Roosevelt Park? Pavilion. Pavilion. That's my motion. Thank you. Press a pause or a second. Second by Councilor McGee. Discussion? That's straight ahead here. I know that we haven't had the chance to go to the cottage. I don't exactly know where it's in there. There is a couple of challenges. How did you know? Right next to Cambridge, right? Oh, the greenhouse. Yeah, that's it, that's it. That's a good one. So I mean, it's in the logo, but it is. Yeah. So. That means move because of the one side. The one side is the one side. The one side is the one side. The one side is the one side. The one side is the one side. I know, but the one side is the one side. The one side is the one side. The one side is the one side. It's receiving basically $50,000. So I mean, I appreciate you trying to make some effort here. I think it's always, but this effort itself also, I think made it very clear, creating opportunities for physical activities. I think you did really very well, but also should expand to improve the lives of those these are probably an impact. And I don't think you see that element here. This is just a great physical infrastructures for gathering, but it doesn't technically improve the lives. So it seems like it's missing in here who are just wondering what else, what else have you done to compensate? Yes, exactly. So I would point to the million dollars that we just distributed to our local nonprofits and spread that out to a broad variety of nonprofits. Our grading criteria for that grant heavily favored BIPOC community and work done in those communities hardest hit. And that's how that grant was written. And so if you look at the three million total that's being spent, I would say that one million was very targeted to helping those communities survive that had been the hardest and that this two million is creating space that they too and others can enjoy. Thank you. Yeah, my pleasure. And also, I mean, I think like many of the physical spaces in the city of Puerto Rico, people have to pay fees to access it. Now, within these contracts, are there ways for city departments to waive those fees at least for a certain time? Yes, yes. There's absolutely ways to have fees reduced, waived, reduced for nonprofits who might want to use the spaces. Some of them are in parks anyway. So they're generally open to anyone and on the waterfront as well. That is obviously an outdoor space as well. Yeah. And we are, when we looked at these projects, we were definitely looking for to maximize access. Yeah, and I appreciate the one city hall park with cars. Yes. I'm interested in that because it sounds big. And we'll bring that one set that RFP gets written and we have someone there. We've definitely been working with local restaurants to see what the interest level would be. And we do think the interest level is there. And you know, again, well, pretty good. Thank you. Thank you. Happy to see you. Awesome, thank you, Councillor Jen. If there's no further comments, we are going to have another motion on Moran. So we don't have the discussion early, but so seeing no further comments now, we'll go to a vote on the motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Councillor, for your hard work on this. OK, this brings us to several CEDO items. 4.01 is the UDAG. Pleasure amendment and welcome, Brian. Why do you keep this up? Thank you, Brian Pine, CEDO director. And I'm here to first start out with the budget amendment related to funds that we refer to as UDAG, which is a federal program that acronym stands for Urban Development Action Grants. This was only a grant program available in the 1980s. It was highly competitive. Wellington was once referred to by HUD as the UDAG capital of New England, because for a little teeny city, CEDO went after every single UDAG grant we could get. And what do you think of places like the Maltex Building and corporate plaza, which is where Key Bank is next to Henry's Diner, and a number of other properties that were developed or redeveloped with UDAG funds. It was a unique program. The federal government would essentially grant the municipality these funds. And it was understood and expected that they would then be re-loaned by the municipality to a economic development project. And the repayments of those funds would be available by the municipality to fund future projects, future community economic development projects. So as you see here, the allocation that we were playing to do from UDAG funds, which were repaid in 2017, is to we're asking for your approval for the Budget Amendment. It's a budget neutral amendment to move UDAG funds from restricted cash accounts, $950,715 of UDAG to the Moran capital account. And this is in accordance with the promissory note between CEDO and BED, which was entered into to outline the contributions owed by BED for the cost of cleanup, basically remediation, abatement of contamination found at the Moran frame site. And so essentially what we're doing is we're using UDAG funds to lend it to BED. And BED will be paying it back in people yearly installments for the next eight years. In addition, we are requesting $632,500 in UDAG funds from the restricted cash account that would be basically moved into CEDO's budget for non-Moran UDAG activities. And that essentially means funds that we would have available for actually taking the next phase of the project. So essentially doing design, doing conceptual designs, doing the work that Director Almasrao we referred to earlier around the next phase of Moran, basically. So even though it says non-Moran UDAG activities, we are using some of that for purposes of taking us to the next level with the project. So excellent. Thank you. Floor is open for discussion and questions. Oh, sure. Go ahead, Councilor Chen. Yeah. How do we ensure that UDAG funds utilizing them this way for Moran UDAG have like replicated a better future? So eligibility and things like that. We have a pretty, I think, a thorough review from a former city attorney who now works on tip-related issues, Richard Hesler, who opined that UDAG funds have the expectation is that they'd be used for eligible activities. And when we define eligible activities, we look to the requirements of the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program, which Moran, because of its location, is eligible use so that we've determined it's eligible. Happy to make the motion as indicated. Great. Thank you, Councilor Chen. I second. Right. That's a requirement. Thank you. Further discussion? I'll go ahead. Thanks. I mean, I just have a question because I may have missed this. Where does 632,500 dollars, so 26-page document, I didn't see that number. Right here is the MOU. Actually, I think two copies of the same MOU. One is signed and the other isn't, which is fine. As for it, it makes it look like there's a lot of pages. But there is a lot of fair number. Where is that number somewhere in here that I missed? I think the MOU speaks specifically to the BED's responsibilities for the cleanup for the 950. So the additional 632,500 is essentially asking for approval. The city's accounting system essentially views the UDAG funds as restricted cash account that can't be basically used or obligated for anything else. And what we're asking to do is to move those funds into our budget so we have them available to undertake work related to the next phase of Moran. And so we'd be coming back to the council to ask for those approvals on, for instance, design contracts and whatnot. So that's really to set us up so that we have the cash available to know that we have money available to do the next phase. So I mean, it's not a round number. So there must be a reason for 632,500. It's the remaining balance of the UDAG funds. OK, that's the answer to the question. So that's why you're taking what's left. Yes, exactly. All right, got it. And our goal is to usually invest them in ways that sure we're going to see we like it to be revolving. We don't want this resource to be going away. The BED loan is a great example because we see that money come back. And a future council in the future, C&O will be talking about how to ensure that it be used for the intended purpose. So what happens if 632,500, which is being taken because that's what's left, doesn't get used? Can you use it for a meter just? You're basically taking it for your budget. Exactly. Not for an operating budget, though, only for capital costs. Yeah, yeah. So if it wasn't used in FY23, of which is only carried over. Exactly, carried over. These are funds that have been with us since 2017 and we really, they're restricted accounts. So yeah. It probably, you know, I mean, maybe I'm the, you know, I mean, they're probably, there may very well be others that are interested. I think that that sort of background is probably fairly germane as to why that number is not just a, it's obviously not a round number. Pick it out of a hat kind of number. It's a, or is it something with the sources and uses kind of budget? And the reason is because that's what's there. So it probably, I don't know, again, I might be the only one. But I think it's just interesting to know why, why that amount is there. But that's all, that's all. Thank you for answering my questions. Thank you, President Paul. Councillor Jang, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you for all what you shared, Mr. Richard Hesse. So we saw it's letter, it was dated since 2018. I think my previous question was like, we suck. We don't have a reason because the project is still, the project is the same, you know? So we didn't, we didn't ask for a new opinion of that. I'm just asking because Assistant City Attorney Pellerette's sitting right here. Have we looked at, we've reviewed this, I actually met with a Richard prior to Smith submitting this demo and proposed all of the same opinion in the Facebook. Thank you. That's enough for the questions. Seeing none, I'm going to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. That's aye. There you are, Post. Motion carries. We have a second. Excellent. This leads into 4.02. We're going to frame Buzz and then back to you. Sure, I'll attempt to explain what is really kind of a complicated scenario here. But we're requesting the Board of Finance and eventually the Council next week to approve a budget amendment to reflect the use of eligible Moran frame expenses or invoices, I should say, totaling $500,842.46 to be precise, to be paid from the Waterfront TIF bond that was issued through the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank, which was a 7.8 million, actually two different bonds, but the total was 7.8 million as part of the resolution of the state auditor's report on the Waterfront TIF that identified that we, as a city, had some essentially accounting errors, if you will. And this is essentially allowing for or enabling the city to read, in order to correct those errors, basically what we're taking is, is we're taking ineligible expenses and covering that with other sources, which earlier in public forums, former Councilor Forcher asked to detail how we're paying for those ineligible expenses. I would ask you to look at the memo that CAO Schad issued in February that explains the resolution to the state auditor's report, because in there it details the sources of funds that are being used to cover the ineligible expenses. So basically a freed up TIF dollars from projects which were, or I should say project costs that were ineligible and is making those dollars available for Moran-related expenses. So this is a budget amendment that allows us to comply with the state auditor and ensure that the Moran invoices can get processed properly. Thank you. That's me. Thanks for having me. I guess my question was, what was the source of funds for covering these invoices before we came up with this? So we paid for them basically. We built them to TIF. So we basically paid for them with the bond proceeds from either the 2014 or 2016 bonds that were issued. So we have right now, we basically pulled those out of TIF and this is ensuring that we can use those dollars from Moran expenses that are eligible, which have already been deemed eligible by the state auditor, by municipal bond bank and by the bond council and the city's lawyer that looks at these issues. And for, again, how the ineligible expenses were covered, that memo, which I think is February 13th-ish, outlines that it's attached as part of this package. That's right. I don't have that memo in front of me, but what I remember is this and tell me if it's correct. We will be paying for those eligible, you know, expenses to one, the fees accumulated from the banks, like the interest, right? And second, unassigned fund balance. And then with the third one in China. It is pretty much unassigned fund balance, the balance of interest from the checking account. And then unexpended sources from Waterfront Access Door. And Waterfront Access, thank you. Waterfront Access is part of it. It's one of the things that is part of it. OK. Thank you for being great. I know it's as clear as blood, but it's a bit hard to get it. So I'm ready to go. Oh, thanks. I mean, I know this has sort of been asked before. So forgive me if I ask it again. Is there are you fairly confident now that there is a system in place so that we're not going to find ourselves in this situation? Yes. And many systems in place. Many levels that used to just be staff doing the best they could. Yeah. Unicap reviews every single invoice to make sure it's being handled perfectly. So there are stickers. Yes, well, that's what you want. I'm going to hand it over to you. That's me. Happy to meet you. Thank you. Is there a second? I think my present Paul, excellent for the discussion. So thank you for the importance to working through this with us. I've seen that. I'm not somewhere excited to have to be doing either. But it does. It's just that there it's and it's not just the media cap. That's we have this capacity within the current treasurer's office. We have segregated discreet accounts out to isolate the flow of funds in, you know, it's really a point of number, plus just the overall context of our treasurer's office is different than when a lot of these areas were made back, you know, ten years ago. So. We certainly have my my commitment as well, that we don't want to see this see this repeated. And we're working hard to ensure that. So with that, I'll go to the vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. All right, I oppose motion carries unanimously. The next item is updating the tax or financing district consulting services contract with Whitenberg, another one of the resources we have. And then a tip work correct, less on the compliance side. And other elements. Even when it continues to play a big role week to week and on the team and critical year in the city place infrastructure project, you know, say anything else about it. But just that the service, you know, you get what you pay for. And we think it's a service that David and his firm provides is top quality, top notch. We also want to make sure we only pay them what they need to be paid for. So they're not here today. Your regular staff are here. And I would say that the the investment that we're making, which is all covered by tip revenue, this is essentially what this is what's called a related cost. Obviously, it's well worth it. We'll get into that in the conversation on the next site of your agenda, which is the bond issue. The notes discussion. Lurchin, I'm sure he was running on. Thank you, Catherine. So I'm going to talk to you, Jane. Please. Is there any discussion? Yes, Jane, go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I love about the check and balances and in the memo, I appreciate that, you know, just make sure that we have about two minutes and was just wondering across the board's commission in the city, which one is leading the state? Do you want to go on the board's commission? You're probably it. This is why we're going to finance the city councilor, really, where we go and I don't think there's anyone else who's. Yeah, you got a number of staff working on it and you've got White Burke as the consultant. And obviously the city attorney's office. I mean, that let me ask another question, like, how is White Burke set up in the first place? Was it like two out of the four? They were down this organization. That's a great question. Well, we did announce I've worked with this firm. Since, I think, 2008, 2009, they tried to develop a different concept of Moran and that didn't come to fruition. That we together, 2011, developed the city's application to establish a TIF district for the downtown. And that was a CEDO, White Burke. We went through a selection process then. And so we sort of set the groundwork. We got that TIF district and. I don't know the firm did any work, a whole lot of work after that, the city, 2011, 2012, maybe. Until this. Till we run back to Jeff. Jeff Blasper, just before. So you recall, we actually, I mean, the city police project, of course, has had a. Long history at this point. We had Ken Braverman. I think we had a time, Counselor Jang on the department, then, then Jeff Blasper worked for a number of years and and I don't think we had during this administration with David White until Jeff Blasper left the summer of 2001. And so I think I don't recall exactly if we had any competitive process at that time. I think we may not have simply because this is one of those, unfortunately, you know, not ideal situations in Vermont where there's just a very few professionals that are qualified for this pre-specialized work. And so we judge the fairness of this contract based on its comparing comparison, you know, based on the hourly rate being charged, using a pair of other comparable work that we've contracted as opposed to being able to have sort of competitive events on it. And so I think it's an event of procurement guidelines for that reason. I mean, it's my memory. Yeah, part of the part of the justification for sole source was that this firm has handled, I think it's either seven out of the last eight or eight out of the last nine district districts in Vermont. And there's really only is only the only entity available really. So we're in some ways fortunate because they're based just down the street and many of them live in the city. The folks who work here. So we have them with them. That's really good. And I mean, basically we are in April and this contract is from January to December, right? Why is it coming now? Why is it coming now? Honestly, it's just a question of bandwidth and capacity that we were able to meet the expenses till now. So we're at the point now where I got money. Let's see, then I should add, we had to go to Vermont Economic Progress Council to get their approval to increase what are called related costs because essentially the project has been through a very long developments or pre-development stage. So all those expenses that were incurred previously while they were really important and they were legit, we had to kind of redo it again. But David, on the substance, it gets extra convincing. I really appreciate David's way of explaining to a third grader. I think. Oh, no. President Blanings, I don't know if you have these numbers, Andy, but I just wanted to make sure. So last year in March of 2022, we approved a hundred thousand dollars then related to do with Whiteburg. And I'm not sure if that was all for the TIF or if it was something else. It seems like it was city downtown as well. In January, in July of twenty one, we allocated two hundred thousand from July of twenty one to December of twenty two. And then there was another amendment in March of twenty two for another hundred thousand. Now, this is January to December for one hundred and twenty. So I guess I don't need the answer now. I mean, I'm happy to support this, but I do think that it would be helpful if we sort of try to divide up if we can. What is water? What is downtown? What is waterfront? So that there is an idea of exactly what Whiteburg is being paid on. And this isn't a criticism of criticism of their work. This is more just simply trying to account because these are large dollar amounts and it's hard. It's very easy to lose track. Actually, this one, the two hundred thousand was from July of twenty one to December of twenty two. But in March of twenty two, there was an amendment for another hundred. I think I think the amendment should have been to clarify that the original one was just for safe place. And then we came back in March of twenty two because the scope of services expanded to include the downtown tip. Well, actually, the two of the the. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. I have to really read this closely, but it just seems like there's a lot going on there. And I realize it's all going to the same place, but it would probably be helpful. And again, just simply for perhaps for even better transparency, better accounting, as long as they're working on watching every single tip. Tell her we should probably know which is going to wear even if it means that we're literally sending white work to checks. And I'll be happy to run a report as well, showing what is going to downtown and what's going to water from maybe over the last two years, if that would help. Yeah, I mean, yeah, when you when you can. Yeah, we can do that. All right. Thank you. Yeah. OK, and we're ready for motion here. You do it on one. There you go. So I don't think we have motion. I think we can make it to your requirement. Yeah, I mean, I'm sorry. You second. Yes. OK, so we're going to vote. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. All right. Hey, post motion carried. Thank you very soon. Absolutely. 4.04 brands almost out of the hot sea here. In addition to public improvement bonds or notes from the city's waterfront tip district. I'm happy to. Speak to this as well. This is really a significant milestone in this. I've just been discussing long effort with city place. This proof or seeking from the board finance in the council next week is the approval to go out and take this consequential step of borrowing the 18 million dollars that the voters approved back in 2016 for see place related public infrastructure improvements. I'll. Leave it to the question to see how far into the details you want to go. Just at a high level, just want to say. I think the way that Brian and David and the team of professionals that we work with on these issues, Catherine, as well as our outside consultants have found a way here that is quite elegant in allowing us to meet our statutory deadlines to occur this dead while preserving preserving flexibility and very zero cost to the city, essentially, and very limited, you know, really with the city well protected for us to finalize the decision on exactly how much long term tip that we borrow until two things happen. One, we hear about these big federal grant as a big federal grant that we are pursuing that could bring down the need for tip borrowing and then ultimately long term. And then secondly, that city place developers finalize their financing and their construction timing such that we know exactly how much long term revenue the district is going to generate. And those two things will determine the ultimate size of the bond, probably a year to two years from now, we'll be back seeking that long term decision from the council at that time. And so I want to make sure that was clear that there's another moment coming some ways down the road with the exact size of the long term that will be determined and what you'll have more information to review and and sign off on in terms of I mean, you know, that exactly how that long term financing is going to work. I would just add that the use of the notes is really an important part of this project or this approach versus bond. When you bond, you do a long term commitment. 10, 20, 15 years, whatever the number is, you go way out, whereas with notes, it's short term financing that you then repay when you refinance and take on your long term bond at that point. And that's what I'm asking you for is approval to do notes to raise. We need to meet this deadline of June 30th. We don't borrow the funds by then around it's it's the time has run out. That's our absolute. So. All right, so our attention. OK, Councilor McGee. Thank you. I. Is that just my only question was, you know. We don't have an estimate yet in terms of what public improvement is going to cost, if you like. And one of these conversations and some numbers that are tossed around, but we do have some. Yeah, we do. We do have we do have a consensual, you know, pretty strong consensual sense, too. Yeah, this this amount here, the 18,000,840 is is the projects that covers the project scope. We also have additional funds on top of that, which we've already secured from the. Congressional Directed Spending dollars. We, on top of this, have an application that will go in in early July for what's called the sales tax reallocation, which is state incentives to do this type of project to cover some public improvements. So all together it's a, you know, it's the 18 plus the 12 CDS funds. So you're at 30 million there and you've got, you know, an incremental amount above that. It's not very significant, but it's it'll be it'll completely rebuild Cherry Street from Battery to Wienewski Avenue, and it will handle Bank Street from Pine to St. Paul and then the two new streets, the connections on both Pine and St. Paul. So nine blocks total is the goal. We've never been positioned to totally promise the public nine blocks, but that was what we initially initially talked about eight blocks. We went to the voters, made it clear what the kind of order priority would be and that it may not be possible to do it all with the infusion of federal funds. We are now hopeful that we may be able to get to it back to nine blocks, not eight. And, you know, sounds like a huge number, three million dollars, more than three million dollars a block. But when you're talking about this sort of deep reconstruction at this level, that with inflation, that is not out of that is consistent with the more than two million dollars block we found on the St. Paul Street, which are best sort of comparable in terms of sort of feeling, you know, that's the word. That's there's bidding and there's some details to be refined there, but it's in that it's in that range. My only reason I have is just thinking about how the grant should be provided for perpetually on some need for borrow. Absolutely. We're going to be as as prudent and cost effective. So we do see additional federal funds from this raised grant. You can see a much lower number when we come back to do long, you know, the permanent financing for the bond. That's our hope. Yeah, that'd be a positive thing for the ad fund for our revenues. If you're not needing to borrow that much for test accelerate when we get a big tax affusion to both of us. Because even though I should just get a little wonky here, but even though this part of the district survives to 2035, once we're done with this project, we're not. There's no more projects necessarily need to be funded because we've met our debt incurred debt line. We can't can't then go out and borrow and do plenty for tip. So yeah. Yes, and, you know, I know that they would be written on investment for about seven thousand dollars a year. Because I think yes, at least that much. But I would know that you have your son sitting the business personal property. And so when the tip ends, that ends too. And so the new revenue, the windfall will offset the loss of tax revenue from the business per person. Almost exactly. I think it went to an issue. Yeah, it's good. Yeah, so basically they go hand to hand. Exactly. We tied it that way. I mean, I should say, yeah, we did. Yeah, you did. We did. Yeah, it was a while ago. We knew that we knew that was coming. Yes, it was smart. Yes, it was smart. Yeah, and that's an important thing. Good policy there. I think. Yes, this next, but just to make sure we're on the same page, that's the near term deadline with the waterfront. But if we are, if this is if when this just we haven't, we haven't spent the very sizable new infusion that will be coming when city places built and not to district expires that it was projected at something like that. 750. Maybe more. Yeah, maybe more. I mean, I'm right. Maybe it's maybe over a million, but it's somewhere between 750. And that's just the municipal side. Yeah, exactly. The municipal side is twice that. So it's it's a lot. But now, you know, the possibilities of energy are going wrong again. It's a big question. The crystal ball that I look at says it could go wrong, but just because it's life, but we've got so many protections in place. So I think that's the key thing is what do we have in place to mitigate risk? And we're doing everything we can to mitigate risks in the city and the taxpayer. That's what we're doing here. And that's what this does. That's the way we feel this structure is the the best balance of making sure we don't lose opportunity to be making on a table, but also ensuring that we structure it so that we only borrow what's needed to be borrowed to do the project. It's important that people be done with the scene for a couple of years. But I think it would be better to decide what question we see. What board and coalition is looking at this, too. Not only despite, you know, people's expertise of the circuit. Outside of these consultants. The people in the show. That's right. Thank you. My question is more of a mechanics. So the short term project notes, we would basically borrow. Please find a local bank that we would like to let us. Eighteen million hundred forty thousand. And then depending on how much of that we needed to convert to long term debt, we would decide based on the amount of raise grants that were awarded. Raise grants and the end in the final. Back to Councilor James question, like if somehow as we speak right now, you know, it is not the revenue that the tax revenue that's going to flow from the city place project is not 100% bankable because they have not. You know, they're still working as they've been quite public about. They still have not lined up all their financing. They and until they are financing is secured and locked in their exact construction time table is could could slip could change. And so basically to Councilor James question, this allows the city to kind of continue to preserve. It's to really ensure that we aren't borrowing more than the taxes are going to be generated there. We will have much more information on exactly the taxes that will be generated in the remaining life of the district by the time we go to permanent. So the project is still called by as correct debt. Absolutely incurring debt. He's already confirmed that at our bond council. It's that that is. And so then we would repay some of those and if they were offset by grants, grants, or less long term in the bond. Yeah. And there's no there's no special consideration or essentially repaying that debt that's incurred in the project notes. You mean by the lender? By the tip. Oh, by tip. Oh, because that compares. No, you're allowed to refinance. That's allowed. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, you can't change the amortization, if you will, cannot go beyond a certain date. That's either June 30th of 35 or December 31st of 2035. So that day stays the same no matter what. So eventually you're going to run out of time to amortize your debt, but we're not anticipating that being an issue. You actually have that in the resolution. You say subject to early redemption or? Yeah, you covered that. I'm happy to make. Excellent. Thank you, President Paul. So second by Councillor Jang. Further discussion? Go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Yeah. There's a board. OK, 4.05. Lease of Bender Space and Zero College Street. Plenty of dress, bike racks or bike rentals. Welcome, Cindy. But you could just give us a brief summary of the big rate. Sure. And I'm just going to hit 4.05 and 4.09 at the same time, just because they're similar. Both are vendor spaces. This came out of this interest came out of what you remember some of the concern from the local bike shops with the bike share program. So they, you know, we ask them to think creatively on how they want to be able to get in on some of the action. And they did. And both of these come from that effort. So one is right at the base of college where the bike racks. And then the other one will be a space under frame that we're currently working with zoning on. We'll have to do some zoning pieces there. But and we both of them are competitively bit. So you move 4.00 to 1.00. Yeah, I just was describing both. I think you're only only just to. Sorry, it didn't mean to confuse it. It didn't mean to confuse it. So if any of these questions. Great. Thank you for sending questions. I'm happy to make the motion. Both of these have been extremely well vetted. And I appreciate the effort that's been made. If I can just make the motion to move items 4.05 and 4.09 and take the actions as indicated. As indicated on board. Excellent. Second by cats McGee. Councilor Marlowe. Very good question. I noticed that in 4.09 we're only getting 5% of the gross revenue. We're getting 10%. We put a minimum of 5% on there. And they have the opportunity if they want to bid higher. And that through the RP process. And that one they did. I just want to acknowledge Alex listening in here too, Alex, as our operations manager down there and so on who put together the zero culture. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. I think we're ready for a vote. All those in favor of the motion will please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all for sticking with you for some more purchase of a bucket truck for the arborist team. Anything special to say about that? That's a great word. Thank you for a motion here. Councilor McGee. Happy to make the motion. Okay, great. Seconded by Councilor Zhang. Back to you, Councilor McGee. So I understand from the funds that were using the green belt, that's it. Okay. So that is the funds have been set aside over the last few years, anticipating it, making this purchase. They wouldn't normally go to something else. That's correct. So they've been saving kind of things. Just careful with the spending of funds knowing that that second bucket truck is one that we have to be funded out of there. Okay. That was, I guess, one where when they just wanted to, at some point, it was indicated that that was going to be the expectation is that we'd have to come up with the funds to replace that one. So they've been sending money aside. And that green belt fund is a portion of the street tax. And that's been, yeah, the funding on that has been just a little bit less than we're hoping for in the future years, but that'll be something we'll just work on with the administration. Okay. You're welcome. That's a big cost so much. I don't know, because most of the time the city will miss and not push us. And also knowing that, you know, the electric department is dying of drugs. The GPW has this kind of problem. Like, how can we save this for $300,000? They're knowing that they won't do that. They haven't really used it. Let me just clarify, they used it year round. We have a contract with B&B and our crews clear trees all winter long. So they're doing the lines for B&B. So they do work year round with the bucket trucks. Our trucks are smaller than the B&Bs, because we're doing city streets. So unfortunately, it's not the same size trucks. But at the least part, I have to be honest, I don't, that's kind of a, so I went with the recommendation of what was, you know, to purchase. Councillor James is basically saying most of recent years, hasn't always been the case, but in recent years it's a bulk of our, many of our vehicle purchases that have been through vehicle acquisitions have been through at least. Why is S1 being purchased that way? I believe that is because it has been taking us, because of supply chain issues, it is taking quite a while to receive the actual vehicles when we build a lease. And I'm happy to provide more details, but once we start, once we create the lease, everyone's paying on it, regardless of whether they have taken the vehicle or not. And as the rates go up, it's making less and less sense to have people and departments paying for vehicles that they don't have yet. And so it is my understanding, we don't have to make payments until we receive the bucket truck. So we don't want to be having to pay for the bucket truck until we get it. Yes. Happy to support it, but I mean, let's also try to find ways to utilize existing city developments. Like, you know, what mechanism can we bring is the argument along fire trucks are bigger than fire trucks, but you need also just the services switching they control for those ways that you get. I appreciate that. And as one of, I see at least four or five people maybe on the fleet committee who are in this room. The fleet committee is not well-funded. This was a difficult decision that required a lot of lobbyists from Cindy because we are very cognizant of the fact that we as much as possible, need to share vehicles, we don't want to invest in new vehicles unless there's a strong need. So just to reassure you, like we are completely on the same page, if at all possible to share, refurbish, that is what we are absolutely trying to do. You touched it. You touched it. Yeah. I said no, no, no. It's okay. I touched it. Thank you. You wanted a bucket truck. They wanted to get them. No, we need fans. They said no to the VCA fans. We have tremendous speed. I'm not going to argue with them now. Where are we going? Yeah, sit down. The court, Cindy. Yeah, we don't see all the ones we said no to. Okay, very good. Some of them are ready to vote. All those are there in the motion, please say aye. They're opposed. Motion carries events. Redstone Cottage Restoration Contract Amendment. That was the reason why we had to move the other one up earlier. So this project is, as everybody realizes, the front end of it we've been working on and the contractor, we're already under permit. Contractors there, the contractor could continue. So that's why we are quickly turning this around so we don't lose the contractor to go off to another project. So we brought this forward. So this is an amendment to the contract and it was in the original bid that they gave us. So we don't have to read in that portion. And that's that. Thank you. You know the details, because you just talked about it with the $2 million one, but if anybody has any questions, feel happy to answer them, but we're really excited about being able to wrap this project on this. And I'm so pleased that Farringham has done. Save me too. That's okay. My devotion is recommended. Thank you, President Paul. This is our second second by Kelsa Barlow. Further discussion? Go ahead. I just have one question. First of all, thank you for showing me the cottage and see if it's been done there. Will this complete the cottage or will there be additional work that needs to be funded in the future? They don't pretty much complete it. I mean, they'll be trying to think if, yeah, I would, I mean, that's, I mean, it's hard to think that like, there isn't something down the line that I'm not envisioning for the project, but that's pretty much it for the cottage. But again, I do like, why don't we leave myself some window for something I didn't even think about that we wanted to do there. But all the work that was originally contemplated. Pretty much, I mean, we've done some value engineering. I mean, even when you add this all up, it's still not that full. I mean, we need some different choices along the way, but substantially, we will get one more point. Okay, I think we are ready for a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Exciting. Thank you, Cindy, for your team's work on this project. It's going to be a great work once done. You know, it changed the way that public engages the conservation programs, the parks programs, the community space. Yeah. It's exciting to see that. Okay, almost done with parks items, authorization to accept grant funds from Callahan Park Shared Use Path. I have the notes in front of me, because this one is Sophie's project who's on vacation, so I'm happy for her. Basically, as you've read the memo, the key part for this is, it's something that community has been asking for. You may remember the drawing of the crosswalk that the community did in, I think it was paint that they did across the crosswalk there, so we're able to, the DPW put that crosswalk in, so now we'll actually be able to connect a, when you go across there, you'll be able to connect to a sidewalk, which then leads to our playground to make it accessible, and then that then leads to the parking lot. So we'll actually have an accessible access point to the playground, to our, and to our parking lot. So it was really exciting and it is something that, with our Callahan conference, the plan that we did, when this grant opportunity came up, we were able to jump right on that because we had a plan in place. And we have an amazing grant, the quality doing the grant, so. Great, thank you. Cindy, are we ready for our motion? 11, 4.08, so we've got you, Chang. Thank you. Seconded by Councillor McGee. Any discussion? Go to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you again, Cindy. Okay, we did 4.09, so we're now on to 4.10, which is reclassification of one position in the assessor's office. And I guess there's Tony, John, this is Rob, and here's Sharon. Could one you tease up quickly? Go ahead, John, you're muted though. Hi, thank you, I'm unmuted. We're asking for this position to have a step increase in pay. This position over time has become more heavily involved in revaluation of properties, a little less so focused on administration. So there's been some changes to the job description and it's deserved. I think it's on par with other properties that are other similar type of jobs in the city. Thank you, John. Any questions or discussion or are we ready for motion? And was this one being paid as a retroactive pay? Was it, I don't know. Yes, there is. Yeah, go ahead, Tony. Yes, we have retroactive pay going back to May 1st of last year. We made that a year from when this will hopefully be approved. And that was decided in collaboration with HR and the assessor's office and AFSCME as well, because there was a little uncertainty as to when these significant new and permanent duties were added to the role. So in good faith, we wanted to go back a year. So that was our suggestion from HR to do so. And it's just that I believe that exchange of email with John Beckery and I feel to know about the staff in person here. And was just wondering with the ASSCME, we won't be coming back with no disagreements. Will there be like some disagreements with the staff in hand or ASSCME or we're all set? This is just ready. You did the groundwork. We did, yes. Director of HR, Karen Durfee, in collaboration with John and Catherine and myself, we collaborated with ASSCME on this. So hopefully it is all set. Should not come back. The reason it was pulled before was so that we could come back this time. Should be fine. And I'm speaking from before you when it comes to here. Yes. Some emails and stuff. Yes. Yeah, are we ready for a motion? Councilor McGee? That'd be doing the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Sectional, thank you. Councilor McHenry, Councilor Jang, discussion. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. All right. We're two thirds of the way through here. 4.11, ex-authorization to execute contract for the Great Streets Main Street Public Art Project with Lydia Kern, Nancy Winship, Milliken Studio, LLC, Pixelpatch Creative LLC and Wow House. And I see we have Livia as well as Sarah. There's a bunch of us. All right, we got a big group here. So great. Yeah, you're the one who knows most. What we're here, do you need anything? Another exciting project coming to a key milestone here. Why don't you guys see it up first? Yeah, so I'll use a little cloudy on some surface. My first day back from vacation after two and a half weeks, but I had so the Great Streets Main Street Project had done some extensive review of over 130 proposals from artists all over the nation for the Public Art for Main Street. Got some really, really amazing proposals. Narrowed it down over the last several weeks, ended up interviewing 10 or 15 and ended up with the selection that you see here in front of you today. So we're confident that these selections, the objectives of the procurement process and the vision for Main Street, we would look to enter into design contracts with these artists right away so we can get that ball rolling. Those designs could be complete by the time the project is set to go out to bid by the end of June and then to keep it on track through the fabrication phase for construction later this year. So yeah, essentially we're seeking to go into phase one of these contracts, which is again, just the design phase for these contracts immediately. And then the plan is we would come back for the further authorization for the fabrication phase. So you have anything to add? The only thing I would add was this is sort of an unusual situation where we're looking to add your permission or your approval to enter into these contracts that are below your threshold, but the expected secondary step is up to an approach and beyond your threshold. So currently we're only looking into smaller design contracts, but I want to keep you all informed of the process as they get significantly bigger over the course of the next few months. Great, thank you. Okay, so the floor is open for questions. Motion, go ahead, Councillor Chen. Thank you, welcome back. Thank you. When we talk about these numbers, 8,000, 14,000, 15,000, what is it attached to? Like what the design is, can I look at it and say, well, this is worth 20,000, that's not 20,000. Well, that's not about package. Yeah, well, I've given a lot to other classes. For me, for example, I mean, I didn't see anything. These are components of the larger $500,000 budget and we are currently hiring the artists to develop designs that are integrated into the larger PPW construction bid packet. So a lot of the puddings and construction needs and inflation needs can be absorbed into the city's scope of work. I think that's a cool part about this is there's really an attempt to integrate, taking a step now, authorizing the beginning of the extended share of funds. We can really build it into the design plans and really integrate it into the construction of people. I think of like the best public art project that it's still my favorite after all these years that I've ever been involved with, although we've had some great ones since, is where I met Sarah Cash for the first time back at the airport like 20 years ago now with the Skylake project out of 50,000 years. It is probably 20,000 years, right? And the artist got involved with the architects during the construction process and I think really made a special piece. I see a similar intent here to really get these artists in on the ground floor to make these, they're not just gonna be sort of something stuck in there but they're just really integrating it. I think it's important, both from that integration standpoint as well as just making sure everything jives with the construction plans, making sure everything fits where it needs to go and not really citing these so that we're not coming back during the construction phase with change orders and changes to design to try to like just retrofit something. And so, Ashley. Okay, great. Hi, Ashley, thanks. Hi, sorry. I was just going to add an addition to all of these really great points. I think it's also good to just remember that this is a piece of our TIF district. And so one of the reasons to also come before you guys tonight asking for essentially a phase one approval is so that while these artists do the design work, we can confirm and make sure that everything is within our TIF district boundaries which will be a requirement for these costs to be considered eligible down the road. So that's just another piece of this big puzzle that is this project and the whole Great Street project. I just wanted to add that note. Ashley, another seat guard and making sure we spend it. Yes. If my colleague would like that. She is our single one of accountability in some ways in the stuff right here. So Mark, go ahead. Sorry, Council Member. My question is about have these, they're four artists that you want to engage. Have they given you like approximate budgets because so we'll know that the total amount incurred will be fast. That's probably correct. Okay, cool. And there is a leftover aside from these contracts. There's about $25,000 I believe in leftover funds that will be utilized for contingency needed. Okay. That's true. That's true. Is this the art design we're talking about or how the art will integrate with the projects? Oh, I needed that time to do it. They've already done their conceptual designs but this is really kind of a fine tuning that design as well as working with the project team to ensure that again we integrate it, we cite it properly and we're integrating it properly into the construction. So it's going to be a lot of collaborating between us, the artists, our engineers, really collaborative and free. So you have seen the concept of art design in this way, that's what I was talking about. Sorry. How do we see it too? We know that this is what we're voting. Back in November we put out a cult for qualifications and that's where 138 artists from around the country submitted just a sort of very preliminary resume and history of work. And from that 135, the selection panel selected 15 who we pay the $1,000 to generate a proposal with a bespoke idea for this project in the street. And from those 15, the selection panel selected these core projects. I think you might be asking too when they can see those concepts. At least we can get back. You're looking for an image, Sarah. An image. Yes, yes. Or. She's sorry. Sorry. So if they were not in the packet, I have paper copies of all the proposals and they were on our website for public comment. So they were all available to see. And. Sorry, I apologize. I missed that. Who do you mean? I think she had that. I think, do we have the ability to? Yeah. Maybe do. I don't think the board of finance and is to like substitute all for all the public process that has gone on to get to this point. But I think it's totally fair for you guys to want to know what where we're headed with this. So why don't we give? I can just join the Zoom meeting and chat with me. Well, I believe in the situation. Do you need the link? No, I had it up right. Do you want we can go in for a long time back to give people like a five minute recess if you might take a minute. I believe I'll be ready. Seconds. Yeah. And disabled from sharing. Oh, you were unable. OK. Wow house, which is a student. Art is duo out of Northern California. They produce a very. Their proposal had many different smaller features. That we were able to choose from. And the selection panel was interested in selecting the snail family piece, also known as Magnus. Which is a collection of three stone cut snails that shown here in front of basically North Star. We are proposed to location in front of the courthouse building. It will have a phosphorescent aggregate included in the concrete around it to give it a 24 hour. A day engagement and it's meant to be very family friendly and everyone can climb on it. And it should be robust and exciting. Maybe it comes anthology single walkthrough. That's actually there. Or a mock up of it. It will be an 11 foot tall resin arch that incorporates dried, locally harvested wildflowers and plants that she will have. Sourced and. Preserved through a series of public engagement. Programs within the community that people will be able to draw on the quilting tradition of Vermont. And it is proposed to be along the north side of Main Street near City Hall Park. Right there, just over there. She's a local. And she's local. And a merging artist. Was she the one that was using stuff that was from Havnaki, the stuff that I read so much better. I don't know, maybe not. I'm not sure. It could have been. Yeah. I just go ahead. Nancy Winship Millican, who is another local artist out of Shelburne, is going to make Lake Bones Archway, which is a little bit harder to envision, but it will be a large post and lintel structure over the. Over the. Yeah. Pedestrian. Greenbelt. And involve hopefully plantings of wildflowers on both sides. And hanging large scale pieces of. And meant to evoke a barn. The history of Burlington as one of the largest logging. Courts in North America for a long time. As well as evoke themes of stewardship of the lake. Moving forward. She has a piece at the Shelburne Museum. That's very. Some less. I think she had. I think she did. These are a little bit different. Sort of standing single archways. And she'll make a row of four. And. Three of them. It will be block by block, which is a. Tessellated. Model with. That will be in the sidewalks. And she also has themes of Legos. And is about communities. Builds of different components all coming together into one. He's. He's also a local artist at a Richmond. And works with a partner Brian. They're proposal also incorporates. Smaller. Satellite pieces. So we're hoping to that this piece will help. Draw people from church street down to Pine Street. And make it more of a corridor. Or pedestrian friendly corridor. Creation between the two streets. Sorry, just. Sorry if I missed the stick. Did you summarize. Just the process, the selection process. For how to get to this. I'm happy to do that. In November. Of this year or previous to November. Work together to create a call to artists. And. In November 1st, we put out a national call. To a variety of media. And convened a selection committee based on. The design team. The. DPW. Local residents. Artists. And business owners along the entire quarter. And they evaluated 135 applications. Selected 15 proposals. Or phase two. And from that 15 proposals. Found. Projects that totaled the $500,000. That we had available, which is a little bit. Unusual from our perspective. Select a single piece. But having this budget. That we wanted to. Commission multiple pieces of work that all. Added up to that budget was an interesting. Puzzles of it together. That. Culminated. On the 27th of last month. And then we brought it before as for the new public. Art and public places guidelines that were adopted last summer. And we brought it before the DCA public art. And then the DCA board of advisors. And then brought it to the mayor's office after that. And now I'm brought it to you. Great. Thanks for going through all that. Thank you. Great. Great. Thank you. So I just have one question. Aside from the fact that it's. Is that. Maybe you can help me in figuring out how to get this gets to $500,000. Because when I. Added up, it's much more than that. So I'm just trying to understand feedback. So what I did. Just, just so you know. Is that I took the. 66,000 696, which is going to be. Which is an emotion. Which is phase one. And then I went to the other, the document that you have. And added up the. 100, the 90,000 600 or the current. The 99,000 for. Wow. The other two amounts for 145,940. That does not equal 500,000. 66 is part of. So that's. Well, it says it's page, phase one, phase two. So what that assumes is that they are separate. Phase one is phase one. It's phase two. So I guess the only thing that I'm saying is that that isn't what you should be saying if that's not what it is. So 500,000. It definitely does not add up to 500,000. So it's significantly more than that. And so that's all I'm saying is that. That that is not clear communication. Okay. We'll update that communication. Thank you. Next Monday to clarify that. I have seen a summary that. The 502. So that's, I have not seen anything other than what happens. Well, we'll take that. Thank you for that. Other than that, as you and someone already made a motion. I don't believe so. I will. Thank you. Great. Second. Second. Good afternoon. Thank you. I'll be back. I think we'll be done. Okay. I'm not. Can I believe that. This is the corridor is so long. This seems to be very simple. I think. I hope we have done. But it's not more. That's just my. I'm chasing. I'm crazy. Yes. Well, if we have 66 more, just kidding. But no, I agree with you. It would be great. But this funding. I mean, I think it would be great, but this funding allows like a percent. I feel, you know, the theme, yes, this is about diversity, you know, it's about, you know, their own history, it was about plants, right? I think we need to find some ways. Although that is also something bigger, I think the nice thing about Main Street is that, you know, it's going to be, there's going to be so much space for kind of, you know, opportunities, even if it's like performance art or something like that. We're going to have that plaza there on these two blocks. There's going to be a lot of landscaping, which is almost kind of like a form of art as we see it. So as far as permanent installations, I think we're in a tough spot right now, but I do think there's going to be a lot of opportunity via the space on the corridor in the future to add maybe, you know, semi-permanent or, you know, temporary. Thank you. And there's also other amenities that are in the landscape. So I think it's going to be, you know, a lot of the benches and swings and exciting, like light posts. Yeah. And other things that are there. Yeah. I agree. Appreciate the count. The summit. And don't disagree. It's a little bit more active thing. You know, we have. It's somewhat rare to have a, you know, a lot of people who have a lot of work to do. So I think it's a little bit of an ordinance that lets us to making sure there is investment. I mean, do a project like this. So you'll have similar proposals coming back for the. You know, earlier in the night, we approve the tip moving forward. There'll be much more. Substantial additional art installation on those nine blocks. So. I think. Over time. I think it's time to have more. More public art and really prominent ways. It's a good start. If it's not, maybe everything. Really dream. Are you ready for a vote? Great. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. Opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you. College are. That's in your feet. Okay. 4.12 agreement for CAD services between. It's out. Welcome. Chief the chance. Nearly as exciting as part. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So yeah, this is, this is a collaboration with the city of South Burlington. When we updated our dispatch services to a computer, a computerated dispatch in Burlington, which has been led up really a game changer. It was always the intention to expand that. So then we could have. Capability to utilize. Efficient services with outside communities in the same system. And then we could have. Efficient during kind of high stress on the emergency system, emergency response system. And instead of, you know, making phone calls and things like that. Allow us to just see where units are and dispatch closest unit. So. This is a. Shared agreement with the city of South Burlington allows them to utilize some space on our servers for. So that's the only way they can connect services to do it. Like a connection with the, with the server. I work with CAO Barker on valuation to. Have a fair valuation for space, which covers maintenance and server upgrades. And it's a, it's a fair for both municipalities. So that's been added to the agreement as well. So that's the only way they can connect services to the city of South Burlington. And the base costs for this connection is zero to us. It's city of South Burlington is paying. Kind of like technologies, the, all the fees associated. And we will be collecting. $7,500 a year from the city of South Burlington for maintenance and upgrades to our servers with a 3% or CPI, whatever is more. Increase per year. Thank you. Go ahead. Great. Second, second, thank you. Further discussion. It's not going to question. For how long is this agreement? The agreement. We didn't put a sunset date on the agreement. It is able to be terminated. I believe it's six months. With six months notice. But it's not. It's kind of. I tried to make it so that we didn't have to go through it. Every number of years that we put a evaluation on it that. Keeps up with inflation. And we should be able to keep it almost a definitely. Give us or the city's helpful. And decides to terminate. We are able to do that based on the agreement. Thank you. Thank you. Great promotion. Sorry. Although they bear a motion. Please say aye. Any opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. And. Last, I know in section four, we still have to. To. I'm afraid I don't have the paper in front of me. So please, if I look at the phone, that's where I downloaded the things from. So they're on my phone. I'm afraid I don't have the paper in front of me. So please, if I look at the phone, that's where I downloaded the things from. I'm afraid I don't have the paper in front of me. So please, if I look at the phone, that's where I downloaded the things from. So they're on my, in my. Books on the phone. Thank you very much for having me here today. The position is the assistant director of alternative response. It's a position that the mayor has been speaking about. For most of this year or the calendar year so far, it was announced early in January. It's something we've been discussing as the police department has transitioned into a new kind of form. Where in sworn officers are no longer as large a proportion of our overall headcount as they once were. And we have developed other kinds of. Professional resources in the department. We've come to the recognition that we need somebody who can oversee those pieces. Can be the person who is going to also oversee the new thrust of alternative response that's in the police department. And who is going to be the external liaison to any number of partners. And we've come to the recognition that we need somebody who can oversee those pieces. Can be the person who is going to also oversee the new thrust of alternative response that's in the police department. And then we can do any number of partners with whom we work. Whether that's at the state level or the local level or the non-governmental organization level. And this position is basically proposed in order to address all those needs. It is a, it was graded by a human resources as a 24. It's envisioned as a position. To the deputy chiefs. In other words, a person who sits on, in the police department, the row of offices where the chiefs offices, the two deputy chiefs. And this position would sit there as well. It is not, it does not have authority over sworn officers as the two deputy chief positions do. It cannot. But it does have insight into the parts of the department that we've built up with regard to alternative resource that includes the community support liaisons. That includes our domestic violence victim. Advocate that includes our victims advocates. And it would include all of those relationships as well. So working with entities that deal with homelessness or homelessness in Burlington, working with entities that deal with mental health, working with entities that deal with substance use disorder, a stronger representation of the community. And it would also include, at some point, the crisis team that we are attempting to develop and have been working on for some time. And it would include all of those relationships as well. So working with entities that deal with homelessness or substance use disorder, a stronger representation for the police department on comp stat. For example. And so that is sort of all part and parcel to what the position is envisioned to include. Great. Thank you. Good summary. And yes. Straight. I have been talking about this a lot. The public safety plan that. The. The release. This concept. I have long. Positive enhancement of the department to have some additional senior civilian leadership at the department. This would be a big step in that direction. We did. Consult with police commission. Both in advance of that announcement and. Received enthusiastic. Acceptable support for, for the creation of this position. And. And have had. Some exchange with commission over. Since. About a week into April 11th or so. In advance. Of this. I think that. I think that. That's bringing this forward. We have Jordan Riddell led that effort. And there has been some incorporation of feedback from the commission. Into the document. They have not deliberated. Publicly on this. And, you know, I guess I would say. Certainly. Isn't the end of the process. We want to. You know, I think we'll have a further discussion. I'm sure we'll be on deliberative and further discussion approval. The council next week. And, and then, you know, we've started a listing process. And. Interpreter process on me sometime before the person is in place. So I see it, you know, I'm eager to. I think we really need this. I think. We have done. I think it's been really exciting. I think we're going to have a lot of discussion. And then I think we're going to have a lot of discussion. And then we'll have a lot of discussion on the. Of the way in which we have added alternative resources. I think it's been one that there's no lot of consensus in support behind. I am confident. We will. Get more out of those investments. We've already made. And the ones that were on the custom making with the crisis response team. If we have a senior position like this to assist the chief. It would be great. But I think we're going to have to have a lot of discussion on. And that's a great. That's such a great effect. These very substantial investments that we've made to be totally impactful unless we have. Kind of this dedicated. Senior oversight to it. So. That's how we got here. The floor is. It will be before discussion. Councilor McGee. Thank you. I appreciate folks engaging. You know, an email that I sent earlier regarding this position. I. Can't support it tonight for a number of reasons, but I think most pressing in terms of our deliberation here tonight is a lack of engagement with the police commission. My concern is with a number of new commissioners having been on board recently to not have the opportunity to have this discussion or no informant to hear from others. Because this is a different position than I normally see in the police department. And I think it makes sense for us to take time to make these decisions to move in this direction, to make sure we're doing it right, and not going too quickly in the direction that not everyone's on board. My other reason for not supporting this tonight and I think the reason that I may not support it even with that additional engagement is that I continue to believe, as I've said in the past, that these civilian positions should not be housed in the police department. I think the intention of us reallocating resources towards alternative responses was to take those responses out of the police department and outside of the control police department. So I continue to have concerns that we are investing in alternative responses that money is finding its way back into the police department. And so I will leave it there for right now. I want to hear from others. Of course, I do want to quickly respond to a couple of things there. Again, there was communication since April 11 with the police commission about this coming forward. We had no direct communication from the police commission that there was any sense of insufficiency of that engagement. In fact, we received from the chair a written response of four suggestions, which were reviewed. And the ones that were agreed to, most substance ones were agreed to and worked into the job description. The others, and we had to share the feedback. We didn't see a way to work all of it in, but we did our best to incorporate their feedback. Did not hear from the commission any sense of concern. And we looked at it quickly on this before it had not been given sufficient time. The first ever that was today from Councillor McGee, happy work over the course of the week to get further feedback from the commission and make further amendments when the final group will come next Monday. We don't have to delay the process at this point. We can see what happens over the course of the week and see if it's ready by the time we have the final approval next Monday. With respect to that, I do want to respectfully disagree with some of Councillor McGee's characterization of what we've done this. I disagree, it was articulated that we have, that the city has taken action, that we've taken action to remove resources from the police. I don't think that that is the, maybe that wasn't what I said exactly. My sense is there has been discussion throughout the process of the last couple of years as we've been considering alternative resources almost at every step of the way. There has been discussion and a proposal of trying to find, you know, consideration of whether adding these resources in some other part of the city made sense. And to some degree, we have a little bit of that. We did add these Park Rangers, for example, was replaced with a department that got some additional investment. There was discussion of them in some effort to explore whether citing some of these resources at the CJC made sense. That was evaluated and considered. And as the subsequent approvals came forward, you know, we had Lacey here speaking. And we have made a series of decisions together, usually with broad consensus, to ultimately cite these resources at the police. So now what I'm saying, I believe the chief is saying, is that if you want us to create a lot of these resources, if we're going to get the most value from these major investments that we've made, we are currently running these programs out of the police department. We are well past the decision to run the crisis response team out of the police department as well. I understand it's a little different. It is different when we're talking about doing this, is an in-house service as opposed to managing a contract. But we debated this over a year ago and made a decision that the way Kahootz did it and my others did it is to have these contracts managed by the police department. So we've kind of crossed this bridge again and again. I don't see any viable alternative if the council wants these programs managed well, don't have another structure for doing that. So I understand the discomfort, but I think we've made a series of decisions together that has gotten us to this point and unless we're going to really reverse that and go in a different direction, I think the police department needs this position. So thank you for the opportunity to share that perspective. Sorry, further council discussion. Council Bailão. Thank you. I'm happy to support this tonight. I know that we, well, one of the things we've heard as we sort of re-imagine the department and how we resource it is, one of the problems that we've had, I think, is to create that liaison to the other agencies and things that are working in partnership with the police department. We've seen this, even in discussions we've had in the Parks, Arts and Culture Committee where we've talked about the coordination between the parks rangers and the department and how they interoperate to be most effective. And so I see this position as being essential to having that efficient integration, especially in the improving but still sort of staff-starved environment. We find ourselves as we try to deliver public safety services to the city. So I'm happy to support this tonight. Thanks, Councilor Brown. No. May I? Oh yes, Councilor Grant, go ahead. I'll come back to Councilor Jay. Thank you. So I have a few things. I feel that the position of the police commission has been misrepresented. We have given, I still say we, the police commission had given in the past input with regards to job descriptions but to say that we enthusiastically approve this position, that is not true. I don't even think we've seen the name of the position as it is being brought forth now. So for example, the use of the word alternative, one of the things that's come up is that we need to get away from using alternative because these positions are part of our community safety response. So they're not alternatives. They may be different responses for different types of incidents, but we shouldn't look at them as alternatives. I'm just very concerned because through some of the questions that Councilor McGee asked, we're only finding out today that the Howard Center had dropped out of the conversation and is not taking the lead anymore with regards to the Kahootz model. So that's very disturbing that that information wasn't actually fully shared. There's been a lot of issues around the Kahootz model in terms of how long it's taking and the lack of information. And Mayor, I know that personally myself, I come to you sometimes at your coffees saying, what's going on? What's going on? What's going on? So we're not been hearing. So part of the concern is, do we really know what is going on? How is this going to, what is it gonna look like? There's just all this information that has not been vetted yet. And I too question the appropriateness at this time of, I mean, if we're gonna put this position in the police department, does that mean Kahootz is going in the police department? And I think there'd be a lot of community questions about that. And I think the comfort level for some in the community might not be there for that, at least not without other information. I mean, we now know we have funding and it took a long time to get to that point, but we're not in any place else. So that's my concern. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Grant. I had Councilor Jang in the queue and then President Paul. And why are you guys speaking? Then I would like to speak to your active call. Thanks for saying that. Thank you. I was just wondering, I was going to add to this. And not knowing that the second was going to be in trouble. I'm not really particularly concerned about where this position is. That's not my concern. My concern is more about the trading. Looking at the job description, looking at this person, what she would be responsible for and bring the whole board, which is part of the fact that I understand it. But it's easy. It wasn't really... I'm sorry. I'm looking at the, as I said, I haven't missed then. Yes, I think so too. Yes, the range is 88,205 at the top step. So that's over the period of a very long career. Yeah. But now hearing all of these new information, I was just wondering if you can delay this morning on this tonight and then moving it until we hear all the details that we shared here, the police commission was consulting or did not give a given bulletins drawn out in order for us to better understand what's going on. It's just a promise. Go ahead, Crystal. Thanks. So I think there's, probably because of the fact that there's a lot of things that are going on at the same time and greatly to our credit as city, we are trying to work very hard to move a lot of initiatives to get forward at the same time. And when that happens, sometimes things get sort of lost. Either lost in translation or people aren't completely looped in to what's going on. The Cahoots program has not dropped out and is not going anywhere, except that we're going to make it a reality. However, the way that is going to be done because of the inability of the Howard Center to really completely do what we're hoping and we had hoped that they would do and what the RFP said, means that we have to pivot and go in a different direction. I think that there probably is a lot of arguments we made that it's a better direction because it's going to be something that we have control over. It's something that we are going to have the data on. It's going to be a much more transparent process and I think that there are great advantages. Sometimes things sort of work out for the best, but you don't know that. And so, and I would imagine that others don't know that. The only reason I know that is because of a meeting that happened late last week with the two people who brought forward the Cahoots model, which was Shay Todd and Robin Frieden-Bleider, who are both very supportive of the direction that we are going to. But you don't know that. Why don't you know that? Because you haven't been told that. And so is it, and I think that's the same thing that Stephanie is also feeling is that, yes, in full fairness, the information that they were given and that went to the police commission, I believe is the information that we had at the time. This development happened a week ago, a week and a half ago. That information was not known to them and they responded to the job description. So no one has done anything wrong. We have all tried to the best of our ability to do everything correctly. They were consulted, but they weren't consulted with all the information that's available today. Neither were you. So I think in fairness to everyone, and I truly hope because I think that this is a position that is absolutely necessary. One of the other things that you may bring me up and I apologize if I'm stealing your thunder from you is that there is a plan that was proposed how to address the issue of non-police oversight or advisory oversight in the CAHOOTS plan. And that is another level of advisory input. That's true. And again, I apologize because we know that we, I know this is something that you came up with and I don't want to take it from you, but I'm just saying that I think those are all things that we don't all know. And I think they might be things for Councillor McKee that might be compelling that you might vote yes. And I would hope that you would vote yes because I do think that this is something that absolutely is needed. But that being said, I would prefer and I will make a motion that we ask the administration and the CAO to call a special board of finance meeting for next Monday at, I don't know, 5 p.m. Where we discuss and go to a vote on this issue. The police commission is meeting tomorrow. They will have an opportunity to hopefully be briefed on all of this and give additional and updated input. That's not my motion, I'm getting carried away, but my motion is that we delay this vote until next Monday, we call a special board of finance meeting to go down the side. Thank you, Principal. Thank you for all that thoughtful review of the situation. I don't have an objection to emotional, so I'm going to second it. And we will use the week to, as best we can, try to get for the consensus around this. I think ultimately it's something that given all that has led up to in this point and I think should share an area of at least in the programs a lot of ways that we shouldn't. Hopefully it will be something we can do with the product consensus. Go ahead. If I could just simply add the other thing also, I didn't, I didn't give a, I think I have Councillor Morrell and Councillor James on this email and Councillor D. Yes, thank you, thank you, Councillor. What's on this email was that the plan had been to bring all of this information to the Council of our next meeting. In retrospect, it probably should come sooner. So that was on, that's on me and no one else. So just wanted to put that out there. Principal, I certainly don't think you should feel like you need to be, you've done anything slow and right this far. It has been very much a fluid situation less than a week since some of the key conversations took place on this. You do my best to reach out to Councillor McKee since he's been very engaged on this issue in the past. Apologize, Councillor Jang, that didn't give you a heads up before the discussion. And we'll do more of that over the course of next week and the fact that the commission has a meeting this week is well timed. So, Commissioner Grant, I hope you're able to follow everything's happening. I think we're on the cusp of postponing further action until next Monday. See your hands up. Do you have an urgent comment to get in before we make a vote to essentially postpone until next Monday? Yes, please. Just a general comment about just an ongoing issue around communication. So the, I just feel like someone has to own the communication piece so that the commission and all counselors are kept up to date. I still feel like we haven't fully vetted this. Now, maybe this additional information that will be sent to the commission and then sent to, I assume the rest of the council might fill in some holes here, but I just feel right now that it's not vetted. And I do feel that there were some things said that really misrepresent what was communicated. And I'm confident that having attended up to the last meeting, and I know now that I'm no longer getting anything, but I still am in touch with the commission and I am going to be serving on the public safety committee for the council. I just keep feeling like communication, even though it's constantly asked for, we keep dropping the ball. And if we can somehow talk about that and have someone have ownership over this, have ownership to make sure that everybody that needs to know what's going on and has to make decisions and vote surround it and has to then in turn be responsive to the community about their questions, it would just be much appreciated. I feel we just continue to fail in this area. Thank you. Mayor. Yeah, so Mr. Graham, happy to keep talking to you about communication. The administration works very hard to communicate on an enormous number of things. And I think there was a lot of communication leading up until tonight. Things aren't moving quickly. We're trying to get stuff done. We're trying to move the community forward and we will continue to do our best in communicating. I stand by the point that we did consult with the commission. We just consulted with the commission chair about the announcement of the public safety plan and did get positive feedback about the concept of this assistant director position. And I stand by the fact that there was substantial commitment, communication with the chair in advance of putting this on the agenda and having discussion tonight and that the late change that is emerging that we may be bringing more of the crisis response team in house only reinforces the need for this position. So the only late, not fully communicative information just makes more important the need to urgently create this position. So I will not, I would respectfully request you to be careful with the, you know, it's a hard thing to hear about failure of communication. There's a lot of people working very hard to do our best here and to have that as a failure is not something that accept as a characterization of what happened here. So. Oh, I'm sorry. Point of clarification. Hold on, yeah, hold on. So I am not saying the work. Councillor Graham, are you asking to be recognized again? Like we're, we're, we need to, there are other people in the room here. Would you like to be recognized for another comment? There are other people who speak. We had President Paul in the queue ahead of time. I just wanted to, just wanted to say in general, but also to Councillor Grant who's joining us by Zoom that I did send out an email. I'm happy to forward that to you. I think there's just as I say, I don't think there's anything at all even remotely nefarious going on or a lack of transparency is just a lot of people working at the same time. And I think that this motion will address that issue and going forward, I agree with you. We just simply always have to work harder. No matter what we do, we always have to work harder to be more, you know, to make sure that everyone is dialed in. I'm, I've made the motion, I think it was seconded and unless you wanna bring this others. Thank you. Councillor Grant, I see you can't end this up again. Is there something that needs to be further? You know, it's almost eight o'clock. Do you want to get, speak again before we have a vote to postpone this conversation till next week? I understand that. And I'm sorry, I'm not sure if my previous statement was heard. All I was trying to say was I did not say the work was a failure. I feel that's a misrepresentation of my statement. I did not say the work is a failure. What my continued concern is that the communication has at times been lacking or missing and we need to assign a point person for the communication. So as all these pieces are moving and as, you know, something that happened last week sort of certainly been communicated by now, we really need to have a point person to say, this is what happened today. Get this out to all the stakeholders for this. But I did not criticize the work. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. If I somehow misheard it, I appreciate the clarification. I misheard it, I apologize. With that, are we ready to have a vote on the motion? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Post. Motion carries unanimously. I apologize right after, but I'll try two more for the rest of the show. Yes, thank you. We are, we have two more items. You do have two more items and the first one in this section five agenda. Oakledge universally accessible playground, construction contract amendment. Thank you, Cindy, for sticking around so late. Sorry. And I want to just quickly tee this up. Sure. I 100% confess that I forgot it was on there. Everybody just been sticking around. It brought interest. She don't want to go out if I check. We'll miss it otherwise. And so I apologize that it's taken me just, I have to neglect for a moment. Is I believe this one is for adding the bait. Is that my yes. Okay, thank you for that. And I apologize, but I do like listening to quarter finance. And I forgot that it was right at the end because it was quarter financial aid. So we have been a community, we've been, it's been a long time since there had been a gate at Oakledge. And my understanding is actually there was very tragic outcome the last time there was a gate at Oakledge. So we have been very cautious on adding the there to make sure it is one that would be a safe addition to the park. Well, he had repeated interactions from neighbors because people, the park, you're not allowed to park there at night, but we consistently have people that go into the park at night and grace around the parking lot. And we have a lot of analysts and such that are there. So we asked for funds at the end of last fiscal year for the assigned fund balance to go towards getting the gates for Oakledge. And so that's what we're here for. And it is one that we were able to get the contractors on site said they would be able to take care of it. Wow, so I hadn't followed that closely either. So can you just, it was a terrible tragedy that took place. Is this a very different design for this year? These are ones that dropped, these are the ender ones that be programmed ones that can drop down. So they're on a timer. So they're no longer do we utilize the ones that have the swing out that you could get some good tragically. Yeah, okay. Very good, are we ready for a motion or discussion? Thank you, Councilor Jayne. There was second by Councilor Barlow discussion. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye, aye. Thank you, Councilor McGee that heard that. All that may be opposed. Motion carries unanimously. And thank you. Thank you for letting me collect myself for a moment. Thank you for being in with us. Okay, and the final item tonight, and we do have is an REID item. We have a director Kim Carson and Sydney. I should have actually said you're in less than a lab before Sydney says Sydney has been tasseled. Joining us and this is a contract amendment for a gene-tient-related contract. Yeah, would you like to see it up briefly? Yes, can everyone hear me properly? This is the first time I've crawled over home. Okay, thank you. Yes, this is really quick. I appreciate everyone sticking around. This is basically an amendment. We're expanding the work for okay, okay, as we've lost and some staff members have moved on. They're taking more of the lead role in the rest of the management of Juneteenth and then we would be the supportive role to them. Highlights for this key responsibility would be redesigning and managing the Juneteenth website app and the app so that the attendees can find accurate information. It also allows and assures bilingual services, lead creation execution of social media strategies, managing overseeing the budget to ensure that we stay within our budgetary confines and then also managing vendor contracts, including payment of the vendors and management of those contracts. So that's what the additional money is for. So instead of us collaborating together, they would then take the lead role on that. Great. Thank you for summarizing that, Kim. President Paul. Make a motion to approve and authorize as recommended import dogs. Thank you, President Paul. Is that second by Councillor Jang? Excellent. Any discussion? Yes. Is there any, Councillor Jang? Yes, I just wanted to publicly thank him, Council and will see me for allowing, Okay, okay, Director. Council, on last year, we're ready to discuss this. And I think it would be helpful to have people understand if in the third year, the city is going to do Juneteenth celebration, but this one is actually being managed by a local person. Someone who has goods in this community, someone who has contributed greatly to the greatness of the city of Wellington and who served also the city in so many different capacities. Also, the fact that it's the thinking for the organization this year is just amazing. It's not all over the city, but it's in one spot, which is right here in downtown, and also working collaboration with Juneteenth. I think the level of thinking from, you know, one to save money. I think the contract of last year probably is just, this one is let's say over 10,000 dollars, you know, and this is from a local person, you know, this community, care about this community, and helping the city in so many different ways. And thank you for bringing that level of thinking about, you know, celebrating diversity and celebrating community. So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Dane. Thank you, Councilor Janeth. All right, if there's no further comment, we'll go to the vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you both for zooming in and for getting this before us. And we're just less than two months away and we're looking forward to the event. With that, we have the Board of Finance as concluded its business for the banks. So if there's no objection, we are adjourned at 7.56 p.m.