 All right, I'm going to call the order of the Board of Finance at 5.05 p.m. On October 24th, 22, and the first item on the agenda is the agenda. Make a motion to adopt the agenda. Councilor Cressin-Fall, Councilor Jennings seconds, any discussion on the agenda? Seeing none. I'm going to vote on the agenda. All those prepared to motion please act. I'm going to make a motion. And I'm going to post, she carries unanimously. Okay. That brings us to the Public Forum. Is there any, I'm not seeing any one of the rules that is going to be in the public forum. We have anyone online, Sharon, I want to raise your hand if you want to be recognized tonight on once or twice. All right, you're going to close the public forum and move to the consent agenda. Is we have a motion on the consent agenda, which is really regarding the minutes from so. Thank you, Councillor Chang. Second by President Paul. Discussion of the consent agenda. Seeing none, we'll go to vote. All those in favor adopting the consent agenda for the motion, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously and we are now down to 4.01 airport item greater Burlington industrial corporation lease amendment. So this is a lease amendment with GBI secret Burlington industrial corporation. If you recall a couple of meetings ago, we approved one of the beta leases and as we're going through teed and title searches, we realized that this particular lease caused some issues with that lease requiring a lease amendment. So this would actually be this amendment number two to the GBI C lease to confirm that this is not overlapping or an issue with any other lease. I wanted to make sure that we're very clear and we documented the map much better for all future leases, even though there's only a couple of years remaining on this particular lease. The importance of this lease is to hold a foreign trade zone, which has financial benefits to the airport as well as to any future companies that might take advantage of this. There are no companies within this foreign trade zone, but going through that process is something that we don't want to do right now. So holding this lease with GBI C and holding that foreign trade zone on this particular site, amending this lease to a nearly show of this. Very good. Next. Interesting. Floors open for questions, emotion, comments? President Paul. So I'll make a motion to take the action that's recommended in our talks. Second by Councilor Jang. Scheslin. Seeing none, you will go to the vote. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you both. 4.02. More act grants agreement. Welcome. Sending. So I think maybe you know that we were on the list with the grant and this has taken them many months to get to the grant agreement. They've been backed up and the state level. This is a grant that supports outdoor recreation in Vermont and typically we're going to be very old because of the strong outdoor economy. But our focus is on getting outdoor programming out to the diverse audience in South Carolina. And so we'll have normal trailers. We'll have about $95,000 to put those trailers in equipment and we'll be bringing that to residents of the type of schools at nonprofits or running programming of our own. And then it also supports the community sound like center and the diversity access program. And when you see our district with to be okay. And then it does include on towards the paper that we're going to be putting in the money. So that's pretty much what we're doing and we are excited that we finally have the grant and the person running it for us is Zach, who was one of our recreation specialists. That was a program, excuse me, a position that was frozen for a while during a pandemic. We are finally able to fill and it's just a really outgoing guy and he works this summer with our Recreation Nutrition Program is a chance to really start to build the relationships with the kids out there. And he's just already jazzed. He's been doing some trips already, but he'll be overseeing the program. Excellent. Thank you so much. The floor is open for special questions, motion. Councilor McGee, you go ahead. I'd be happy to make the motion as recommended on board docs. Thank you. Seconded by Councillor Chang. Discussion? Thank you very much. Yeah, it's exciting. We'll look at the meeting. I have a big vacation night up so we'll be meeting after that. I think we're ready for a vote. All those favorite motion please say that. Hi. Ready to post. Motion carries unanimously. Dominating the agenda. I'm a chief in today. All right. 4.03 creation of new Parks and Recreation. Yeah, so we got approached by CEDA for the physical management of the plants. CHT will be doing the people side of it. So we'll be doing the physical part of it. So taking care of restrooms, flowering, anything that breaks, et cetera. And the goal of this position will also be to not just the physical side, but the other side too is first. I guess working on helping them take ownership over this place too. And so that will be special skill sets of a person. We'll be working with the guests of the emergency shelter and getting them on board to help. It's their place too. Great. I'll say Sarah from CEDA is here. I'm very appreciative that Parks and Recreation is up in this way. Sort of making good on what we've been into CHT right coming in. It's probably better that the city would be an active village partner. That's for the team out there too. So, just one more point. It's not often that we do a range of grades, but we really had to flip this around. And it was Tuesday that we realized this was going to be our responsibility. And in order to, we had to flip it because we've got to get position posted and ready for it. So, I appreciate everybody's willingness to go with a great range because we're still working with HR on the final grade. Thank you. Nourain, I'm sort of going to go through you. I'm sorry, I'm about to think we're about to ready for motion. Thank you. Thank you, motion. But let me ask, how do you sustain this position knowing that the POTS will be there for the employees? So, with the limited service position right now and so it'll be a decision we'll be going about 18 months in, we'll be having to look at the financial side of it because the applicant contract is clear that any position over two years becomes a regular service position. So, about 18 months in, we'll be having to have those conversations to see. And hopefully by then we've got a good sense where the POTS are going, how the funding is working. Make them look at us. Second, I'm President Paul. Discussion? Seeing none, we will go to all those in favor of the motion. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Ready to post. Make sure that the motion carries unanimously. That brings us to 4.04. Perpetual care, income assigned, fund balance, carryover. Just a quick one on that one is, we receive money every year to income and this year we received the amount. Relatively recently we realized that our cemetery budget had done well that year. We didn't need the full amounts for it. And we really have no other funding for the cemeteries. So, we asked a new wheel to take that difference of that net difference that we had and roll that over to the NCT office was supportive of doing that. And then we will use, when we go to spend that funds, we committed to the commission. We reached that just the other day that when we get to the point where we're ready to spend it, it'll be in that reserve fund. When we're ready to spend it, we will go to the cemetery commission to ask us how we're going to spend it just to be sure it fits what's stated in the process. And they were very excited. In fact, everybody in the reserve fund. I'll make a very prudent money management. I'll make a motion to take the actions. Great. Is there a second? Second by Councilor Channing. Discussion? Seeing none, go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Two more person to hear. Will pledge universally accessible playground project, the Pledge Amendment? Yes. I think Sophie's, she was just there on the phone. Is she still on the phone? She was just there on the phone. Oh, here she comes in. So if I could see others. Yeah. Great. Oh, there she goes. Hi Sophie. Sorry about that. No worries. We just just got to you. Give us a quick summary of this moment. Sure. It's a budget amendment coming from the bond vote from March in the parts category, reallocating it to the Oak Ridge universally accessible playground, which has had a very small contingency. This would allow us to address any issues that come up, but also also look at the restroom renovation as part of that project, which includes adding in a family change room with the adult change table, which is estimated to come in at 120, between 125 and 175,000 dollars. We don't have an exact number yet. We're still working with a designer on that, but it would give us some buffer given the current market for construction. It's pretty volatile, I would say. Great. Ryan, I think. No, I think I would just say, if you haven't had a chance to get down there, it's going to need to see it starting to, you know, starting to see that playground finally after I think it's 10 years, maybe? Yes. I see it start coming together. Go ahead, Councillor Jenning. Thank you, sir. Second. Second by Councillor McGee. Discussion? Seeing none, we will go to a vote. All those in favour of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Very opposed. Excellent. That brings us to 4.06, which is a quick claim related to the transfer of Alps property we put them several weeks ago. Yeah, so this was one that the Alps asked for, after the fact and our attorney said, they've asked for the city to release any, I guess you would say, ownership to something of their own, which is, what I would refer to as a social property that eventually leads into Alps Forest. We've never mapped it. We've never shown it. It's not our land, but they wanted to make sure that the city doesn't go back and say, well, that trail that's always been there. It would lead to a fence, because they're putting a fence in, but it's a trail that I think doesn't get used to something actually is against keeping because we don't have that great access at the end of the park. That's right there. Sorry. I felt that this was land that's made on edge. It's so confusing, because we voted to accept the land and now this is the Alps property that they're maintaining. There's a trail that goes across. If you get to the end of their parking lot, there's this trail that goes across here and they want the city to say, we agree that that's not the case. It's not on the land that we said we would take. I just noted we've got a great access now. We have access, future access, often or that. It was never ours to get with. In some ways, it doesn't make sense that they have to do this, but they want to do this as part of a process. We agree that getting the land is very desirable and the city's not losing anything by agreeing to their legal requests to ask for this quickly. And is there a part of their pieces that they don't really want people cutting their money? That's where by putting that, that's how people will be able to but again, I think that the access down to Kalarney is really provided what the community is looking for for a way to get to it like that. Which one? The Kalarney. Oh, yeah, I have to admit, it might be nice. Are we ready for motion or discussion? Good second. Second by President Paul. Discussion? All those in favor of motion? We say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. 4.07, authorization to execute a contract for support services at Elmwood Community Emergency Shelter. Looks like we have Brian Pine here as well as Sarah Russell. Sarah, do you want to give us a short summary? Sure, yeah. Before I start, I just want to again express appreciation for Cindy and Derek at Brooks and Rec for helping to pull together the position request on such short notice. It's certainly, it's going to be a great partnership between our departments. But also I think the healthiest and most beneficial thing for the guests at the shelter as well. So moving into this contract is for CBOEO to provide the support services such the case management. Basically, they are called the positions either housing navigators or housing advocates. And they are the staff who will be dedicated to the Elmwood location to provide ongoing case management services to ensure that folks who are staying there are moving toward permanent housing. We have the contract, I will say and note that it is for 36 weeks. We needed to have a reduced instead of a one-year contract. We will develop a new contract with CBOEO starting for July 1st when we receive our full 12-month grant from OEO to support these services. Because we're not starting, we're starting past the beginning of their grant year which began on July 1st. We are receiving a pro-rated grant for the remaining 36 weeks of this grant year. Just a question as to what this does or doesn't. It seems like a low amount compared to the total contract. I think like an understanding of what the other categories of staffing will be that are included through the CBOEO contract. So this contract is just providing the two case management positions. So it is just those two positions for 36 months. The CHT contract is for significantly more and that encompasses seven positions. And that was for 52 weeks. So that was for a full 12 months. So that's why I think may be contributing to why this looks like a much smaller contract. Does that answer your question? Yes, that was great. Thank you. Unless somebody else has anything to add. Thank you. That's right. Is there a second? Second, Doug. Second by Councillor McGee. Discussion, vote? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Thanks for all your work on this. Getting close. 4.08, requests for approval to execute a contract for emergency repairs in North Avenue, Stonewater, Outfall. Are you hearing that one? I see Chapman's on the line here. All right. Megan is also here but needs to be promoted as a panelist if anybody can address that. Thank you. Catherine's doing that. So tonight we have an emergency request for the Board of Finance and Council. We had planned to come in November to seek approval for repair of a stormwater outfall that is deteriorating quickly. But as Division Director Moyer will let you know, it has eroded much more quickly and has the potential of impacting North Avenue. So we are here looking for your quick concurrent approval. Megan. Thank you. Yes, as Chapman mentioned, a sinkhole, rather large sinkhole, appeared. Can't really be seen but I think a joining neighbor noticed it, probably walking in the woods. But I think I have the dimensions in the memo. It's larger than your average sinkhole and its cause as these things often are by a corrugated metal pipe that once it starts to leak can erode the ground around it, then the ground gives way and doesn't support the pipe and then therefore the pipe snaps and you kind of end up with this exponentially degrading situation. This pipe had been identified as many of our outfalls were identified for relining. But probably we would have had to reline it five years ago in order to kind of get ahead of the degradation that is now causing this sinkhole. So not exactly what we wanted to do but we have a plan in place to address it and are seeking your support for a contract as well as to use fund balance. The stormwater fund balance is very healthy. I believe it's about $2 million at the end of FY21. And so using the $324,000 or up to $324,000 is exactly why we keep this type of cash on hand for these types of funds. Great. Thank you, Megan. So the floor is open for questions, discussion, and motion. I'm happy to, I'm happy to make the motion as recommended on board talks. Thank you, Councilor McGee. Seconded by Councilor Jang. Discussion? So it appears as though it's just an unfortunate necessity when we are pinning a premium here. A pretty good premium on a percentage basis to be able to do this in an understand way. And so my, you know, I mean, obviously that's part of a longer discussion we can't do anything about what is in front of us. But I think it is worth noting that when you come to us with needs that we should really bear that in mind because this shouldn't not be costing $324,000 if we had planned it. Is that pretty much correct? Yes. Had we been able to reline it, so had the pipe been in good enough condition that we could reline it, it would have been about maybe $21,000 to $25,000 and instead it's just a repair of the outfall itself is around $245,000. So very, very high premium when we are not able to make investments in the timeframe in which they need to be made. You know, we're playing catch up with the collection system. I don't know exactly when our corrugated metal pipe system started to fail. I just know by the time we started looking at them in 2016, a lot of them were corroded. And then we put a project in place to try to reline as many as possible. And my hope is we're still going to catch a lot of them. But this one we didn't quite get there in time. Yeah, no, I, I mean, this is not a, this is not a slight against, obviously something happens, it happens, but I'm just, I guess it's more just simply that the cost when we do talk about lining that this is why we line. We can, we can fix a lot more pipes for the same amount of money versus the situation where we're only going to get to fix one pipe for a very large sum. So yes, that is, that is the point that we all should be talking about maybe not tonight, but at a future time. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, there is a motion for a further discussion of questions. The other thing I will say is there are a number of trees. We have been in consultation with the City Arborist to look at those trees and to, you know, only take the ones that we need to take and to come up with a plan for how we're dealing with the wood. But the public may notice some tree felling in the area. It is out of necessity. We are not going to take anything that we don't absolutely have to cut down. Good. And will there be any disturbance to the surrounding people that live around it? There shouldn't be. There might be, I think there's enough access and without having to, you know, deal with any traffic issues on North Ave because we have the old on ramp there. So I'm hopeful that it will be fairly non disruptive just that people will be noticing crews mobilizing. And again, the biggest thing people are going to notice is probably the trees disappearing and the construction of a temporary roadway down to that area. I'm sure you would make notices to people that live around the project. You always do that. Yes, we've been in contact with the adjacent landowners also making sure that we have temporary construction easements where we need them, making sure everybody's in the loop on that. Okay, ready for a vote? So go to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All right. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And it brings us to thank you, Megan and Chapin. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Brings us to 4.09, which is a market impact or adjustment for the city attorney. This is of course related to the fact that we're still searching for permanent city attorney and we're still committed and possible to keeping the current model of an in-house general counsel as opposed to having to go to, I think ultimately be substantially more expensive even with the change that we're proposing tonight. Cost and operational challenge going to an outside city attorney firm city attorney model. So it might also just be worth waiting out and then allow that for any change. Thank you. Yeah, just there will be, we're unable to quite put it all into one action, but we are planning on bringing back very quickly a further adjustment to all the other assisted city attorney salaries as well that would essentially be a once it's one grade increase for the other times as well. So for them, it's just to keep up with the market. And that's That work is underway, but we don't want to delay this. Right, so one of the things I knew on a second one thing too is people should be aware we are all of the current assisted city attorneys that have stuck with us during this period are getting kind of a multiplier on there, kind of a premium on there. I'm like, I'm there current salary to acknowledge the extra work that they are doing in this period of being sure staff just for Thank you. I hate to be a fly in the ointment, but I'm going to be I want you I would ask you to defer this to to put them all together to bring the supporting data to that you do that do not provide. I have to say that this is outrageous to me and this is something had I still been there I would have like benefited personally. I'm actually speechless at the thought of the city of Burlington paying a city attorney almost $200,000. I couldn't you all the curtain get on my soapbox about wage or income inequality. I will not I will just throw that out there that is elephant in the room and I do not think that this is justified and I love the work that people do. I was Kim's colleague for almost two decades at great respect and believe that we can get the sufficient legal resources without going where you're going and this sends a bad message to all the folks the other folks out there who are working doing essential work for the city. So you know I'd love to see as well then you know like executive compensation so I can understand this in a context because it's out of context now and we are creating imbalances or potentially creating I don't know I have to see it. So I'm hoping that this board will delay action on it if it doesn't I would just inform the president of the council that I will ask for this matter to be taken off of the consent agenda which I don't think it belongs to begin with and put on to the deliberative. Thank you for your time. Allow me not to get on the soapbox very long. Okay understood council Bergman had you is this the first work hearing that you'd like to take from the consent agenda? Just so I understand. The courteous thing is to get more advanced on this. Well I actually missed the fact that there was going to be action and then it was on the consent agenda. I actually my apologies to all of you for that I did have a computer problem that was just fixed at 11 30 this morning so I could not actually get on to lots of stuff that's my fault. I certainly understand the perspective being offered by the council Bergman. I think what we're going to have to grapple with as the government is whether we're going to respond to what's happening with the attorney market. Starting first year associates the local law firm starts at almost $100,000 a year now we'll give people that are dramatically more qualified than that and that very different stage in their career and even if a lot of folks can get this it's well below what someone that you know attends here or be a state here of your legal career. So certainly understand that position as a as a clearly articulated one and maybe I'm curious to see what my colleagues think. So Kessar, how are you finding out? Yeah and I knew that Gene was going to have this comment so when I couldn't see it come through I guess I could have also not had that. I think I'm less worried. I think we've extended so many salaries both if I could only not but generally I think I'm supportive of moving our salaries in an upward trajectory to be more competitive. I think that said having the low range be above what the current high range is it's a little hard to swallow and especially I mean I don't obviously don't know like what crew of folks but I think if we had someone who had really out of experience but not many years of experience we might want to leave ourselves a little bit more flexible to still play hang on the lower range so I think I'm fine with there being a bum I think I would like to at least see overlap in the previous range with the current range. President Hall. Thank you I think it would be helpful mostly for the majority of us who don't you know live in the legal world is it possible to see the market vector analysis study that was done so that we would have an opportunity to sort of understand where these salaries are coming from you know I really would have no basis for bearing whether 164,000 is enough or 175,000 or 150 because I just I wouldn't know but I think it would be helpful if I could see that analysis and you know number one that my apologies for by honestly not really thinking about it until this moment and also you know just for the for the benefit of the benefit of council department what my intention had been although I had not put it on the deliberative agenda was that if it got to the board of finance it was a divided vote I would have taken off the agenda but if it didn't pass I'd probably give them the makeup of the board of finance so but that's that was just sort of my thinking on that that being said I I do think that being able to see that study would be a little bit eliminated and I also am I also have the express this to you know to you as well I am very concerned about the fact that we have city attorneys right now who are basically three people doing the work of six and while we well we may feel that they're very happy where they are I think it's probably important that they be financially valued especially when we're seeing such an increase in city attorneys somewhere okay so it is possible to buy more of a study and it sounds like it might understand the principle you think it'd be less if we did that come back next time and with that additional material before I think so yes I feel badly because I know that we desperately need a city attorney I I know that I am the only council president I think who has ever not had a city attorney at council meetings it is a significant disadvantage I not mislead you I've gotten used to it I guess per se but it is not good and yes we need to look forward but I and again my apologies for not mentioning it I also think it's the person that's been out there talking to this point or seriously with at least a thousand people about a position number of them not taking it was purely for and it just can make my person work in the current salary not entirely clear to me that it could work and the salary but certainly a couple of them I think so then I would just make a motion decided to start next for a finance meeting at which time or before which time we would have a chance to look at the market study and then also understand the the salary increases for the other the three cities all right we have a second question I guess I tower further discussion how many people applied for this position actually that are requesting salary in this but I mean when you say how many apply it I don't know how many actually turn in application I think I can't we've talked to like I think I personally have been involved in somewhere between eight twelve people that I had serious conversations with how many of those any and I'm actually put in an application I'm not sure we had a few people who were not qualified two people that made it to the final stage and eventually said and withdrew due to the salary and then the scope of this it's just a the memo said he interviewed several qualified candidates however each of these candidates indicated so it seems I just went on the bench so it seems it's too but I hope you didn't miss my points and so okay um um councilor McGee sorry go ahead thank you um I just wanted to say briefly that I agree with uh councilor high tower that I would like to see the low end of the new range have some overlap with the old range and we look forward to seeing the market factors analysis as well okay we I've heard that feedback I will share that that generally the way our ranges work if you kind of attempt to build a range like that will severely limit the middle and upper range and the end of the range the way we we did not have wide ranges so it sounds like at least for a couple people for you know I hear that feedback and we may have some follow-up with you to try to I don't know how to reconcile that with trying to this to be successful um so I guess I'm still gonna probably come back advocating for the range that I think actually addresses the issue that we're dealing with understanding you know I object to the articulation this is outrageous I really find that pretty unfair characterization given that I'm trying to solve a challenge for all of us one that impacts all of our um you know our ability of function as a as a city government and one that like you know the alternative doesn't make a lot of sense to me as financially if we're going to for the same level for a poorer level of service we're going to pay substantially more if we have to go to the firm model I think that's the economic reality of what we're talking about so it's in that context not because I want to pay people big size this this this creates real equity issues amongst actually showing out of that as this person would be definitely our biggest general fund uh paid um employee and um that that is challenging um we have been that's I think so you know we have been reacting to the market in a number of ways assisted with that and they mean that there are further ripple effects downstream that's we we do this um so council member is right to I think this is a decision with some sort of consequences to it and possible future implications um that's that's the balance here do we we want to I think we've had a really good run of having this person in an in-house attorney and I think there's a lot so that's that's why we're putting it forward is to preserve that level of functionality and operations which I think has served us well for a decade so uh with that said council I know sorry just in the comment which is um for those of us who don't know how the steps are created if there is a limitation just an understanding in the memo that we get without any questions great in really quick it basically gets to be about like a one half percent increase I want to say something between one and two percent between each step and it's also the only um we place employees between step one and step seven and that's why I specify early specified in the memo that the starting range is really in the midpoint of the bull range while the top end of the range step 15 is on the higher end somewhat of their starting salary would never start at that um step 15 of the range that we only new employees entered from agents seven one through seven I'm talking about further as we come back with us could I could I just ask that you include information but I really appreciate the actions on the um the hybrid model you know in terms of the cost of that I mean I think that that is the context for this I totally appreciate that so that should be on the table and I just want to add that we're monitoring channels making this year $152,000 and the director and chief council at the ledge council is making $139 and let me just add with it our pension and our healthcare is a significant piece for this so I mean yeah I'd love for everybody to make $200,000 so I would have liked to have made that okay tough tough issues this is the challenge uh I'm going to get discussion on it here um I'm going to close well sorry I guess we have motion that's a bottom bottom all those in favor of the motion please say aye aye post motion carries unanimously and that brings us to uh our final uh item which is a board of finance approval only uh traffic signal modernization each street where she heights if you don't know who I am I'm Jeff so uh if you remember I came there a few months ago we needed funding for four signals on the riverside it was wrapped up it's a construction project they were doing over there uh that they've been installed and they're working we're learning growing it's been really nice and then we were speaking last before we locked in tech services and they need accounts on the main street I'm like we just got to do signals they do counts maybe we can get together share some funds get another signal for them on main street when you just split this fall so that we get our signal they get their accounts this way this channel based on the same line that's basically what we're doing here today is asking for approval so because it's the same vendor we're still on our own that's not the same vendor so we're coming you know it's only $26,000 asked we're still company with a bank so it is an aggregate with us for that vendor it's over the pin so I'm getting completely transparent about it because we're a little past $11,000 so big thanks for just getting a bunch of good thank you uh questions or Jeff or ready for a motion I'm happy to take the motion thank you president I'll make a motion to take the action that's right discussion all those in favor of motion please say aye motion carries unanimously thank you all thank you Jeff thank you chapelle all right there being no further just get a little business and seeing no ejection I will turn the board of finance at 5 52 p.m