 Well, I just, we're trying to get Megan Emory on the phone. She's driving back from, she had a medical appointment in Boston. We wanted to be, she's part of the flesh prodding, but I don't know if we're going to get her, and then we needed a form, but we have one now, so we will start shortly. Megan? Yes. Hey, it's Kevin. Hi. You're on the teleconference machine here, and we have a quorum. Tom and Tim and Helen are here. Very good. Thank you. Okay. So, thank you for, so I'd like to call to order the South Burlington City Council meeting of Monday, April 16, 2018, and we'll start with a salute to the flag. Bob, do you want to start that for us, please? To the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So, I want to thank so many people for coming. The first, the second item on the agenda is really to present a city council resolution in honor and in the memory of Pat Nowak. Her family, or some of them, could be here tonight. So, this was the evening we selected, and I'd like to read that, and then the family would like to make some comments, and then we'll vote on the resolution. So, it's a resolution recognizing and honoring the service of city council, Patricia A. Nowak. Whereas the members of the South Burlington City Council are mourning the passing of our late colleague, Patricia A. Pat Nowak. And whereas the community has lost a great champion for improving the quality of life for all of our residents, and one who was known for her deep devotion to the community, and whereas Councillor Nowak served the people of South Burlington in various elected and appointed capacities for 23 years, and whereas during those years, Councillor Nowak served five years on the City, South Burlington City Council, and whereas during her service on the City Council, Councillor Nowak presided as chair for over a year, and whereas Councillor Nowak served 23 years as justice of the peace, and whereas Councillor Nowak served 12 terms on the Board of Civil Authority, and whereas Councillor Nowak represented the City Council on the Pension Advisory Committee for five years, and whereas Councillor Nowak represented the City Council and the City of South Burlington on the Burlington International Airport Commission for three years, and whereas Councillor Nowak served the State of Vermont for four years as an appointee of Governor James Douglas to the Vermont Environmental Board, and whereas Councillor Nowak served the State of Vermont for two years as an appointee of Governor James Douglas to the State Natural Resources Board Land Use Panel, and whereas Councillor Nowak also served the residents of South Burlington as a member of the South Burlington Rotary Club receiving the prestigious Paul Harris Award for Outstanding Community Service, and whereas Councillor Nowak was awarded the Hometown Hero Award for Outstanding Volunteer Service by the United Way of Vermont, and whereas Councillor Nowak served in a leadership capacity at the local, state, and national levels for the business and professional women's organization, as well as chairing and orchestrating the Vermont Job Expo for 19 years, and whereas Councillor Nowak served on the Boards of Vermont Red Cross, the Vermont Epilepsy Association, and as a member of the Nominating Committee of the Vermont Girl Scouts, and whereas Councillor Nowak served on a multitude of boards, foundations, committees, and organizations associated with the financial services profession and received numerous recognitions and awards from her peers in those organizations, and whereas Councillor Nowak exemplified those qualities of importance and an elected or appointed official to include character, integrity, honesty, hard work, determination, dedication, and loyalty to her community and to her colleagues. Now, therefore, let it be resolved that on behalf of the residents of the City of South Burlington, the City Council does hereby recognize and extends its deepest appreciation for Councillor Nowak's service and dedication to the residents of the City of South Burlington, whose lives are the better for her years of service, and that Councillor Nowak exemplified the commitment to volunteerism that leads to making a true difference in a community, and let it be further resolved that we, the members of council, recognize and honor our late colleague, Pat Nowak, for her comradery, her grit, her sense of humor, her hard work, and for all she did as a team member with us for the betterment of our community, and let it be further resolved that a signed copy of this resolution shall be presented to the family of Councillor Nowak that the text of this resolution will be inserted in its entirety in the minutes of this meeting of the South Burlington City Council, dated April 16th, 2018, and that recognition of Councillor Nowak's services will be prominently displayed in the City Hall. So I want to, on behalf of the council, really extend our warmest sympathies and horror, really, or sadness of her passing. It happened way too soon. She was a friend, a colleague, and a wonderful member of the council. We certainly disagreed on different issues, but we could always, we always knew that at the end of the day we still could move on and deal with additional topics and not have a residual difference get in the way of really making so many decisions that were important for this city. We will very much miss her, and we mourn her passing. Are there any other comments anyone wants to make? That was a friend and a mentor, and I miss her dearly. Megan, do you have a comment or? Yes, I think that it's important for her family to know that as much as she gave and contributed to this city and the space, she, you could tell when she spoke to you and shared, you know, what was most important to her. Her family was foremost in the conversation. Her children and her husband, and behind any rock of a woman is a rock of a man. And I also want to recognize Bob and his service to the city. Repair. You were a team. You were a team. Tim, any comments? I'm going to miss my table mate here, just having arrived at the city council two years ago. I didn't know Pat very well until I joined the council and I grew to respect her a lot. We had our differences, but I really admired her defense of her own values and her commitment to the community and her commitment to her family and her really broad knowledge of finance, the way she applied it to the pension committee and her ability to help a lot of people financially. She was an invaluable resource that way and she'll be greatly missed. And I will miss her here in the council. Does the family want to meet? Do we present this to them? Should we present this first? Is it possible to speak first, please? Oh, absolutely. Do you want to come up to the table? I would be happy to. Sure. My mother, as your resolution points out, was an exemplary public servant and a woman of incredible grace in class in an environment that was not often conducive to doing so. And I just want it to be known that I find the timing of your vote to join Winooski and Burlington in the F-35 completely undermines anything that you have said in the previous moments and I find these actions extremely disingenuous. On behalf of my mother, I know that if the situation were reversed and she were still the chair of this council, she would never choose to set the agenda the way that you have this evening. That is all. Well, I'm very sorry you feel that way. It was not an intention. An agenda is intentional. It's a very conscious decision. And I think it's something that you need to own. It was not meant to demean your mother in any way. So I'm sorry you feel that way. If you meant to honor my mother, you would have opened it to a public vote as they did in other cities and you would honor the people of this town and this city the way that she would have wanted to. Well, we will have a hearing on that tonight and there will be comments. Are you saying that there was potential for a public vote? No, we haven't received that kind of and that's not our intention this evening. It's really to pass a resolution to support and join two other communities. So that three or four of you will decide for the entire community something that other cities were allowed to vote upon? Well, I guess we can argue or discuss what a vote is for on something we've had numerous resolutions and actions and public hearings that have allowed us to understand the sentiment of the community. We've had people run against different council members on that very issue and they did not get elected. So I think that is a way you can judge a community's support of individuals' actions or issues. I'd just like to say I know Pat would not support this resolution on the F-35 and I just want to say that my experience with all councilors have been very respectful of that and I think it's just an unfortunate circumstance of timing as to why it's being considered tonight. For that being the case, I agree it is very unfortunate that it's tonight when Pat's being honored but I just want to say my experience with every councilor on this body has been has been respectful and in both the discussion of Pat's passing and in the appointment of her replacement. Thank you. So can we ask you to come up and present this or? No. We'll receive it. We'll get you a copy of this. You're very welcome. We'll move on to item three. Instructions on how to exit the building in case of emergency. In case of emergency this evening all members of the public should and the council should go out these side doors and into the parking lot beyond and if for some reason these doors are blocked then back out into the hallway and out to the front of the building and around to the parking lot. Nobody should stay in the building. Tom and I will be responsible for ensuring that the building is clear. Item four, agenda review. Additions, deletions or changes in order of the agenda items. Are there any? I have one item to add well for 17, item 17 a possible executive session to discuss labor relations agreements with employees. We will have an executive session and it will also include appointments and real estate. I'm going to make the statement later on in 11 but I would just strongly advocate for more time for item number 11 and or a dedicated public hearing for some other time this week. So I don't know if that factors into how we worded this number 11 but that's something I'm going to press for during that discussion item. So seeing no other agenda items for change. I have some questions from the public not related to the agenda. Are there any seeing none? Six, consider and possibly approve updates to the local emergency operations plan that are known as the LEOP as required annually by the CCRPC. Chief Brent will be presenting that. Good evening. As we do every year we have to update the local emergency response plan. I believe that you received it in your packet. It's not a public document based on some of the telephone and contact information that's inside. So I gladly answer any questions. It's really the same as last year's with the exception of the update of the childcare and daycare centers. The hazardous materials information is a that's in here is just a sample of what they look like. They are always a year behind which makes it difficult sometimes but generally speaking so that you folks know there's always any facility that we go to there's always a copy of that information right inside the door for us all the emergency information relative to what chemicals and so forth are used in the building. So that's some of the more important stuff and we know that that's always up today versus stuff that's a year old but that's just how the reporting process goes in the state it's not very timely. So I gladly answer any questions that anybody has as you know this has to be approved by this board who had authorized the city manager to sign it on his on your behalf and then we send it into the centralized collection point which is the CCRPC. Are there any questions? How do we test this plan is there some sort of an annual test for sections of it every year or well the interesting piece of it is called a plan but it's really a template it's not such a plan that this is what we're going to do it lists every possible thing in there it's more of a prompt than it is a plan it tells us who to call we obviously know who to call but it's a statewide template so we do test certain portions of it we frequently train on portions of this all the police officers all the firefighters and EMS people are trained and reviewed annually on incident command systems and so forth the chair and the city manager and assistant city manager have all taken the ICS training as we've offered it and so we do to answer your question we do have plans does somebody go and dial each phone number to make sure it actually is the right phone number? I can't say that I have I rely on the city manager and the deputy manager to give me their proper telephone numbers as well as the school department's numbers that are in there and so forth shelter managers, Red Cross and so forth but maybe I should do that it's just you know you put data in a document you think it's real the only way to find out that's true and it has been for because we just didn't know that they changed their numbers and where that that might come in handy with some of my that's not mine, thanks where that might come in handy for the people that work for me generally speaking I have all this information right on the top of my head and in my phone the last time that we implemented an emergency here in the city was when we had a severe power outage on Heinsberg Road and I don't want to say I knew it by heart but I knew that I needed to get a hold of the school and I needed to get a hold of David Young right away and I picked up the phone called David Young I didn't have to look at a plan or anything I knew exactly what his phone number was and how to get a hold of him at 2 o'clock in the morning so we're fortunate that though we may be a big city we still have some small city characteristics about it and so we pretty often know those people who need to call these are just this document is really a whole lot of reminders that are really good I guess when when the ceiling is coming down around you and you need to remember what to do this kind of prompts your way through it is there a standardized format for a contact list that each of the key you know leaders in the city has to have on their phone for every other these are the numbers that's what this in large part is but do you two have the same phone numbers the emergency phone numbers for everybody that you need to reach that are like the key numbers in this plan that are in your phone today that I've never compared to the city manager but I suspect he has pretty much the same ones that I do I mean all of the city department heads are in my phone the school district and I am pretty confident that Kevin is in the same way I took the training two years ago maybe last year it was really interesting and the school department participates in the training as well do they not they do they did not that that particular time and I said to either Kevin or Tom recently probably it was time to have it again and maybe we can go deeper into the city council as well you were the only person right there last time it wouldn't hurt certainly a little deeper one thing I got out of it is that there's a plan but given it depends upon the emergency and the person in charge is there's a whole sort of question and process to really determine who ought to be the person in charge and it isn't necessarily like the city manager or say the superintendent it depends on what the or the police chief or the fire chief it really depends on what the emergency is and how they figure out what the best line of command is and so that's part of the training which is really interesting I think it isn't necessarily what you always think but it's that's a statewide or a national platform that's really emergency so I think they know what they're talking about and it was impressive to me that the city really followed that and did the training and recognized that it varies and people were really comfortable with that I mean the police chief doesn't necessarily want to be in charge if there's a better person to really make the decisions and include the police when they need it and how they need it there was a training I'd attend if that's open if you do another one yeah it's really interesting alright so you need are there any other comments or questions yes so I move that we accept as printed this local emergency officer operations plan and have the city manager sign off the plan for us any further discussion Megan do you have any comments no so seeing no further discussion all in favor please signify by saying aye aye thank you thank you chief no problem good to see you as always and we as well thank you very much item seven is the presentation and discussion with the bike and ped committee on capital funding Bob Britt is that who will there be a couple people yep there are five of us from the committee yeah so I'm the lucky one that drew the longest drawn I just have to present that oh good she won't be here till 720 but but she'll want to copy yes thanks I want to make sure I'm not shining a light so this is exactly what we have there's been some minor revision oh the one that Dana just handed out to you yes that's exactly what we're going to show tonight correct thank you so thanks for the opportunity to be here my name's Sean Goddard Amanda Holland we're here representing the health rock and bike and pedestrian committee and specifically tonight we're here to ask the city council consider our request to add the penny for paths ballot item to the August ballot this initiative is proposing to establish a small long-term funding stream with the purpose of closing the gaps and building additional bike and pedestrian infrastructure in South Burlington this fits into our overall bike and pedestrian infrastructure goal that the committee has which can be articulated as providing the people of South Burlington with a safe bike and pedestrian infrastructure that connects neighborhoods schools parks city center places of business and public transportation as well as the paths of our neighboring cities and towns so specifically what problems we're trying to solve there's a lot of information on this slide you have a package that you've probably reviewed so I'm just going to hit on the two key points here we're trying to close the gaps we have a lot of great infrastructure in South Burlington but we also have a lot of gaps between that infrastructure and we have a lot of obstacles on a path or a more strategic approach to building a truly bikeable walkable city so historically we've kind of taken a more opportunistic developer centric approach where specific projects have come up and we've included bike and pedestrian infrastructure in those projects and that's really cost effectively grown our infrastructure we have some great infrastructure in the city the sustained funding source will help kind of put us on more of a strategic growth path that aligns with the city priorities make more efficient use of our infrastructure make our community safer, more dynamic and our city more cohesive and crucial the bike and pedestrian committee really wants to move forward trying to pull external funding through grant applications into the city having an established funding sustained funding and a strategic plan will really help us to stand out on these grant applications so we think that's crucial as well why now? we know that the city has a lot of priorities and so we feel like this is kind of the heart of our presentation tonight city center there's a lot of work that's gone into and it's going into city center we feel like this proposal fits perfectly with that it helps connect the city of South Burlington, the residents to the downtown region and we think will help realize the strategic vision for the city second prioritizing our economically and physically vulnerable citizens extrapolated from the US census data we've estimated that almost 1 in 10 South Burlington a significant chunk of those residents are lower income, elderly, limited mobility citizens who rely heavily on our pedestrian and public transportation systems and we feel like now is always the right time to prioritize those citizens third, green ride bike share for those who haven't seen the bikes around town there's a new bike share in the area phase one has just launched this is a map showing the hubs of this bike share and you can see that South Burlington has 3 of those 17 hubs it's a really exciting program and there's extensive plans for phase 2 and 3 to grow this system one key point though is that the growth of that system is going to be based on usage bikes have GPS technology so if you're planning those bikes try to understand where they're being used and we really feel like now is the time to connect and to close those gaps in South Burlington to make sure that the data suggests that moving forward South Burlington should get a significant share of those additional hubs you need the weather to cooperate too absolutely no argument here the percentage of them will be pedicest so right now out of the 105 bikes that they have 25 are e-bikes moving forward will be again data driven so and then will there be training for that or do you just get on them and you know how to use them they're really that easy yeah they're very intuitive but there are instructions you can call at the hubs as well if there's issues they just got the decals on the placard this week so now you can figure out how to do it take out your phone download the app oh I see in the final point we have here is let's not get left behind we have significant investments in surrounding communities into bike and pedestrian infrastructure this slide shows some of the key projects that are planned around us in the next three years the Williston Road work that was done last year those bike lanes are being extended this year to north Williston Road so that's going to provide a great corridor from Williston into south Burlington Burlington has about a $50 million infrastructure project that they're moving forward with that is bike and pedestrian centric including the main street rebuild and the south end work that they're doing which will continue to drive bike and pedestrian traffic right to our doorstep additionally an exciting new project is the Route 15 rec path that is being planned over the next few years I believe it's scheduled to start in 2019 that's going to connect between Lime Kiln and Susie Wilson Road on Route 15 so again that dumps traffic right onto our doorstep at Lime Kiln Road and then lastly in this one is kind of in the works now Winooski is moving forward with about $40 million in infrastructure proposals to revitalize the main street corridor completely redo the Winooski bridge and we've seen some of the plans for this and bike and pedestrian has been core to this scoping in this planning so those are some of the really big projects that are happening around us here's a map that shows some of the key kind of connectivity in the south broonton and greater south broonton area the yellow that you're seeing here is current infrastructure that's on the ground these connectors in green are things that are already budgeted and planned for 2018 and then the teal is stuff that's being planned out over the next couple of years and you can see the south end work the Route 15 rec path and this this in red are some of the key gaps that have been identified in the south broonton infrastructure specifically and then this is an add of other gaps that have been identified with local communities and local motion for other communities around us so you can see there's a lot of work going on around us and a lot of work that is needed in south broonton can I just ask you if you go back to that picture it looks like most of the gaps are in south broonton is that because we have a very active bike and pet committee and they've identified them and when uski perhaps has not or so so I think that there are some gaps in south broonton and I think yes you know we're very invested in identifying key gaps in south broonton we have another map later in the package where Amanda has developed specific to south broonton looking at our infrastructure and the type of priorities we'd like to focus on this was to try to broaden out the scope and look around us a little bit at the infrastructure that is at the worms thank you so another thing is when people come into our community walking and riding it's important at these exchanges between towns what our first step looks like and so this is the end of the broonton bike path which jumps into south broonton on queen city parkway and for anybody who knows this area on the east side of route 7 we have a spectacular rec path however the broonton rec path and the new pine street corridor work that they're doing dumps on the queen city parkway which is a major gap for connecting those two pieces of bike and pedestrian infrastructure another example is spear street this is looking south into shell bird and looking north into south broonton and for anybody who's ever bike on this street I know which section of the road I'd rather be biking on south village so you know this is really important communities around us are making significant investments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure we want to make sure south broonton stands out for the investments we're making and not in contrast and we think that this funding initiative will help us develop that connectivity is burlington rebuilding main street from where from uvm down to the downtown but not the other direction because they just did that a few years ago right have you noticed that the plows have already scraped up half the lines on the new route 2 reconstructed road even though those lines were like they graded they dug down a little bit and then they put the line on we've got a question now our understanding is that that v-trans assesses the the lines and repaint as needed so I'm really hoping that those, that that area gets repainted have you notified them yet so we haven't notified them but we were, I was told in a meeting with the ccrpc that they redo their lines every year, they reassess and redo their lines somebody should tell them it's a beautiful section that they did and we want to make sure that we keep it up so this slide is to to show the estimated revenue that we would raise with this, with this ballot initiative and the average impact to South Carolina the value of their home it's an annual impact and I'll let Amanda talk to this map over this map very useful view because it really breaks out where the clumps of residences are so thank you for putting this together we're debating whether to keep those points on there whether it made it too confusing so I'll just walk you through which button is it it's the one just to orient you on this map um orient myself on this map we have Dorset Street right here Williston Road through here here we got Spear Street there are some things that are on this map this is giving you a sense for what we're looking at when we were prioritizing projects in addition to, we came here a couple years ago maybe over a year ago to talk about just the work that we've done to get feedback from residents but on this map we're showing existing infrastructure so we have the rec path here in orange sidewalks in blue and there's a little bit of a trail system like at Red Rocks and some other spaces we wanted to really have stand out in this map is where some of those gaps are I think we've talked about or showed this one on a slide already where there's a gap Tom's house right there and the creamy stand close by important connections to make is this in the comprehensive plan? I haven't seen the purple dots before but it really does a great job of visualizing the cluster of neighborhoods in the city which when it ties into our trash collection this is where we can identify 19 or 20 sub zones which I'd love to see a single trash hauler provide to I love this visualization, I haven't seen it before and I hope it comes back again You should add future single family and multi-family dwellings as well Well and this says on there residential E-9 on one site so this is just the state's database and it has more than just residential I mean you could put commercial dots on there as well and one of the things that we don't necessarily know how many people are in those multi-family it might just be a building or sometimes as town homes but it does give you the sense of these are the connections and I think you would ask us at our last meeting to get a sense of the household impact and so this is how we did that I think it's graphically very good Yeah we looked at one mile buffer from each one of these segments to see how many people are within that one mile buffer and when you look at that other part of your packet that's where that number comes from either like you know 23% of the community is within one mile of that I think that was crosswalks Thank you I'm pushing the wrong button So the little yellow ones are crosswalks they're obviously the ones that are shown here I think there's ten of them are the ones that we identified as being high priority sites that some might be crosswalks some might be just also looking at the intersection improvements as well I think for instance the one that's in down here off Heinzburg Road needs more than just crosswalk repainting for instance it would need with Van Zicklen something else going on Yes Tom? But to Tim's point and I see Paul Connor back there I don't know how possible it would be but to overlay expected anticipated future housing that would be really helpful in this visualization another color dot so to speak of the Mill 2 and other spots but I just see this as really meaningful to see the clusters of residential houses Right, the whole O'Brien project which is enormous Sorry Mill 3 Okay, thank you So this slide we want to talk about if we do decide to move forward with the ballot initiative we wanted to make sure that the city understood that we've developed a comprehensive strategy for how we would roll this out how we would develop awareness within the community get the word out planning a pop-up with local motion show how some of this infrastructure might be manifested in a real world example getting the word out through different media sources as well as working with a lot of our local organizations and in committees the energy committee we've been working closely with and leveraging their experience on these types of initiatives to try to make sure that if we are on the ballot we're successful so we do have a strategy for rolling this out but another key point for this slide is there's a lot of work here between now and August and so I know that the decision would have to be made I believe what I've heard is by June what is the date? for defining whether we could get on to the ballot on August or not there's Donna in the back right there with the exact time how many days ahead of time? 45 45 it's not true so the second meeting in June is what we were targeting because of that to give a little question of August would that be to would that be to authorize a budgetary penny for pass or is that to ask for a penny additional tax on top of current tax rates? on top, yeah authorizing an open space fund one liner on your tax for July 2019 correct that doesn't need to occur with our budget question in traditionally town meeting day I don't think so it does not you could put it on the I think the August ballot has some issues associated with but you could put it on that ballot or you could put it on the ballot and so to recede our purpose we're here to ask you to consider our request to add the penny for pass to the ballot and in the remaining time we're going to to entertain some more questions together okay, thank you I appreciate you going through this because you did follow up and we asked as a little more granular to think about this are there any other comments from the public about this? yeah my name is Jason van Drijsch I'm a fiscal motion and I just wanted to come and listen support as an organization for the work this committee has done I can tell you that they are hands down the most organized and capable like that committee in the county doing really good work so if you have any doubts about their ability to follow through on this and make good use of that this money you can put that to rest I think the the capacity is there and we've been very impressed by the work they've done I provided one slide in this presentation the one of regional gaps and connections otherwise this is all them and again I've been just hugely impressed by their dedication and focus and organization and I can also echo what Sean said about how this really is the time in South Burlington is the place to make these kinds of investments you asked about why there were a lot of identified gaps in South Burlington and really the reason is that South Burlington is kind of in the middle of everything and so geographically if you want to be able to get from A to B through non-motorized means many routes go through South Burlington and so what that means is that even though you have good infrastructure in place you play an outsized role and therefore a lot of the key gaps are within your city limits and I'm happy to answer any questions about regional context about things that how this connects with what's going on in other communities but these guys are very much your experts for what's happening here in town can I ask you a question in terms of region and maybe someone else knows the answer are there any other communities that have essentially a penny for pass there are a variety of communities that have funding mechanisms going specifically to walk and bike infrastructure or that are dedicating substantial revenues that aren't specifically targeted to walk and bike infrastructure just in general Sean noted that Burlington recently passed a very large capital bond that covers a number of things but there's a substantial portion of that that is for sidewalks and crosswalks and another part that is for rebuilding streets and that street rebuild has baked into it the bike infrastructure that you see there the green and the teal that stuff is moving forward because of the fact that those kinds of projects are built right into the capital project same thing with Manuski they are redesigning main streets specifically to make it walk and bike friendly and the plans for rebuilding the bridge which is obviously a joint Woodeski and Burlington project will begin with building a separate bike and pedestrian bridge so they're front loading that commitment in Shelburne Shelburne passed a bond some years back maybe six or three years and funded a number of projects with that like the path along Webster Road and a number of others those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head but multiple communities are making very targeted investments in bike and walk infrastructure all around South Africa Are there other comments? Yes, Mike Great presentation Is it possible to get a copy of that presentation? I'll send it to you Any other comments or questions? Any more questions by the council? Yes, what potential is there for matching grants from various sources for some of these projects? Do we know? Do we have any idea? Is the CCRBC listed some of those? Yeah, I mean we've looked at different grants and everything and always you have to have that match to make it happen and so we want to use this money for leverage so that we can go and use it for bonding and also for matching monies. We figure that for example we could get used $250,000 a year in debt service we could raise $2.1 million in a bond just rough numbers so we would have the money to move forward with closing some of these gaps but always looking to leverage it and take advantage of either developers working to close those gaps like the ones on Spear Street we know that going towards UVM that whole neighborhood may end up being constructed I don't know exactly the status of it today but that developer hopefully we can work with them to help close that gap between the U.S. Forest Service Building and Swift Street for instance and so the committee whole-heartedly wants to leverage this money to with grants and with working with partners so that we can make a real impact and close as many gaps as possible. And are you working with Public Works now trying to help them understand the priority for repaving this summer because Spear Street from South Point to Shelbert is just it's not even a street I don't know what it is it's like Park Cavern it's a good way to bottom out you know if you're on a bicycle you take your life in your hands when you reach North Jefferson Road it's totally nasty. So we have worked closely with Justin on specifically painting priorities not necessarily paving priorities we've developed a new process for prioritizing where the fog lines and bike lanes should be repainted so existing infrastructure so to assess the quality of that infrastructure and to advise on priorities of that so we've been pretty tightly connected with Justin on that. But from a safety point of view that is the least safe street because of degraded or degraded conditions especially for bikers right so I just want to point that out that it better be really high on the list because I've had a lot of complaints for people that I know. So being from your perspective I would think that you'd be advocating to get that done first because it's just not safe at all. I believe it's not Justin's list this year. Well we get a copy of that I mean it sounds like it's of interest since we put that extra Justin's list. Justin's list just to paving schedule. Just so we know because people do ask I mean I think we all can identify a number of streets that are in bad repair particularly bad repair. Oh it's been horrible. You're only saving Grace's Brillington's worse. Pine Street. Oh my god. Yeah. Well that begs my question why don't we just go for a bond rather than going for a penny? Is there a reason why? It potentially could be a combined ballot wording that would raise both the penny because we could need the funding source and then for the bond and then also the bond at the same time. So I mean we've been working starting to work with Attorney on the wording of the ballot initiative and we've talked about how you combine those two things. And what about like you know early work that could be done to scrape the ground, put in some you know I forgot you know sure-pack in anticipation of a point in time when you'd be able to re-grade it and then pave it for those areas that at least need some kind of a path right so early connector. Just even if it's sure-pack it's better than you know than a gully or a swale that you can't walk on the edge of the road. I mean I see people walking on the western side of Dorset Street it's dangerous there's a footpath about this wide right next to the pavement. So I mean I don't know we've kind of had Justin here before and talked about that if you had one of those backhoes and you just I don't know how much engineering is needed to do that if there are drainage swales or whatever but I would say if there are sections that we can rip up now and we have somebody to do it and we've got equipment and it's relatively cheap do it now and get the sure-pack and then at least people can use it until we get the money to pave it. Captain's voice that several times to us and we want to work with Justin just that very thing and get enough people in the room so we can figure out is there a quick and dirty way to get it done where you don't have to go through it right the first time but sometimes the first time can be done a certain way and then you'll have something that's useful for the two years it takes before you get the magic grant before you get to something to get you know. Expert. Can I just follow up? Thank you for saying that Tim. Bob and I have had this conversation numerous times and Christine's here you've got to cover your ears Christine and Paul the planners. It drives me nuts to see how much the percentage of money that we spend on scoping and engineering and what's left to actually construct the path and I totally agree with Tim I'd rather hire I'd rather hire some tired guy with a backhoe and tell him to dig a mile long hole eight feet wide and eight inches deep and fill a full sure-pack and so we have something and pave it eventually rather than spending half of the money we get on engineering because that's what the grant requires you know my own the committee could take a look at the relative value of just spending if the voters were to agree the one cent on just building something like that rather than than using it to apply for grants most of which is going to go to the scoping and engineering stuff. Donna? Just having been a member of the White and White Committee for over 10 years I want to tell you that a lot of developments that did come before the committee who weren't in a position to connect to existing bike paths were in fact required to provide right-of-ways so the right-of-ways are there for a lot of properties and it was just a matter of and the money was actually allocated to the fund whatever the fund is called but that money I'm not it's sort of been combined with the whole budget with the general budget now but just so you know there are a lot of places that have rights away and that kind of work that I really would applaud to just go in and put the sure-pack in or whatever there's a lot of pieces that can that can be done in. We've got a major developer in this room who's looking at his iPad right now he builds a bike path or a sidewalk he's not spending half of his money on engineering and scoping No way but he calls DigSafe first Well, yeah Yes Looper's a past member of the committee to Tim's point 80% of the money is spent before he even starts to pave it so just getting quick it's very difficult to pull off By the same token there's a section of path that is on Dorset Street around the corner just south of the mill that the city put in and did that there was a section there that brought it up to the little section that goes back to the side of it. The city did that came in had a discussion with the neighbors the neighbor had a very definite thing that they wanted the city committed to do they wanted a rotten pine tree in front of their house cut down that took 10 minutes and it was done in 6 months until a drive project which went through all of the things because we went and got a grant couple hundred thousand dollars too it was a $200,000 project got the grant but because it went through the processes from the time we said this is a neat project and the council said go for the grant until we cut the ribbon in six years and that was one of the fastest that they had run through they built half the interstate highway system in five years no they that's a ten year process so I have a question in terms of your recommendation for the one cent is that is it for like ten years or is it forever or we're certainly interested in hearing the council's recommendations on that front our discussions internally have been a proposed ten year funding stream and then that would be something we would come back and revisit in the future as we understood better what the landscape was at that point and are the uses for that money to build to close the gaps to build new pieces not maintain what we have that's exactly right and that would be part of the ballot language that is still working on Kevin I have a question in terms of um I mean you've made your comment about let's just get someone with a back up we've heard this conversation and I think it resonates with most of the council um but do we have a concept of or an understanding of how many miles or whatever it is of these right of ways that and the cost to do it on the cheap with you know with the back up or with whatever we have internally what that would cost to sort of give us an understanding of um you know maybe one cent for one year would pay for a whole bunch of it and I don't know I think that just would be kind of interesting to know what we have that we could possibly do in a shorter time period a lot of in fairness things like the Wilson Road streetscape and Alana's here she could talk about that better and I can't you can't do what I was saying but there are stretches probably where you could and I'd like to meet with the committee and perhaps and see if there are those stretches where we might just make an estimate we'd absolutely be open to you know working that into our strategic approach for our infrastructure I think that would be great there certainly is one right away between Bansiklin into um what is that property Oak Knoll is that the one on the on the east side of Heinsberg Road across from Bansiklin across from Bansiklin or well there's a right of way from Bansiklin to Bollard Farm no to the one on the east side what is it called pardon me yes it goes right to Knoll Circle we own the right of way there used to be a road there because that was all going to be developed I mean that's another place where I mean I know we have that right away because I asked about it but I think it would be interesting to know what right of ways we have that we could potentially address this way that would give a better picture in terms of so what could we do with ten years of one cent Megan 6.7 million dollars is what's on the pages that you give us and some are still to be determined so a lot of work to be done yeah well that's 6.7 million is that with all the formal scoping and I mean that's like Tilly draw that pathway I don't know how long that was it wasn't very long but it was $200,000 airport partway alone was 2.8 some of them do work another thing so for instance the airport one works in like a intersection redesign at the space but it's not just for the bike and pedestrian infrastructure and that one would have to be a partnership with the airport and some way to get a bunch of people pain but it will not just on this day I know we're running out of time so I'll just close with a tempering remark first of all I'm a strong supporter of this I ran for council twice and I strongly believe that our creation paths are the community glue that connect every corner of the city so I'm fully supportive of committing the resources to improve our walkways to Tim's point earlier I don't think the August is necessary if this is going to go on the July 19 tax bill so I'm not seeing a pressing time or the reason to get it on the August ballot versus the November versus the March because it's all going to take effect next July is that mistaken am I off there no matter when we pass it this year the tax the penny wouldn't come in until next July is that a true statement so we have time I think there's some strategy behind it there's a little strategy behind it in March we weren't able to put it on the ballot because of all the other issues that needed to go on the ballot the other thing too is this ballot initiative awareness work we really feel like the summer is the best time to be out there interfacing with the community talking to them doing the pop up doing that work and then rolling right into the ballot initiative it would be something that really fits with the August time frame versus November so that was one of the reasons why we're... or even March absolutely that was one of our considerations okay any other comments or questions well thank you very much thank you that was a great presentation okay item 8 public hearing we're a few minutes late but second reading and possible adoption of amendments to the city's public nuisance ordinance so Andrew oh Andrew Bulldeck city attorney just a quick outline so I think this was warned in the other paper as the third second reading the second reading is the city charter language for adoption of ordinances there's a first reading and then a second reading at the first reading the initial proposed amendments were both to the what was a public nuisance related to the care and control of dogs and cats as well as an exemption in the exemption language taking any land use that was a permitted use in a specified zoning district and having that be a function of the land development regulations and not a nuisance under the ordinance there was a discussion at the first reading about the hours of operation of trash haulers and trash pickup and so at the warning of the first second reading that the hour was extended by one from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. in the morning we heard some discussion from haulers at that meeting and it was re-worn for a second second reading with that language taken out at the second second reading we heard from some residents about the hauler hours as well as some business owners in the community about the hours for the care and control of dogs and cats and in the currently warned version the warning in the other paper discussed that there would be some potential future discussion about trash hauler pickup and the timing when that would be considered a public nuisance as well as it's now currently warned that the language for the exemption of noise from a permitted use in an applicable zoning district of the city's land development regulations provided complies with the regulations specific performance standards for that district the concept behind the exemption is our ordinances typically are about regulating behavior of individuals and different property owners our land development regulations that are a legislative body there is the planning commission they regulate land use with approval from the city council the concept being that if we're talking about land uses then there should be an exemption in the land development and our ordinances so that we aren't regulating land uses through our ordinances and those are staying with the land development regulations which has its own enforcement authority and ticketing authority and that goes through a process of our administrative officer and then the DRB and then environmental court or a direct ticketing authority as well so that's what's currently warned and I guess with that preface I would recommend opening the public hearing alright so entertain a motion to open a public hearing on the noise ordinance so moved second all in favor we are now in a public hearing are there comments from the public concerning these ordinance changes yes you want to come forward please hi I'm Christine de Blasio I was here last time I guess I just wanted to get clarification was the first part are we still talking about the time change to the noise ordinance or has that been resolved we haven't yet we haven't so I think one of the things I talked about last time was my concern about changing the time to limit the noise ordinance to I think it was 8pm to 7am for the nuisance noise from animals and my concern was that if that is indeed considered a nuisance noise a nuisance 24 hours a day depending on what your needs are and where you are if you happen to work the night shift and you're home during the day then the dogs barking during the day could be a problem if you're working out in your yard if you have a young infant I'm not sure why it would be less of a nuisance during the day than it would be at night and so we talked a little bit about that last time and so I'm concerned about limiting that particularly since we were talking last time about the trash ordinance it was to make it more restrictive in terms of nuisance noise this makes it more permissive and so I'm a little confused as to why that might be in terms of the exception from permitted use my concern about that is that at this point in time my knowledge is that there hasn't been an establishment of buffer zones and that kind of barriers would be necessary to try to contain that noise whether experts in noise as part that you're doing your best to contain that noise I don't think any of that's in place I also don't think there's anything in place after something is permitted to determine whether it actually complies with whatever the intention might be and there is for all other issues I know Ray comes by and checks your plants and checks your lighting and your sign but I don't think there's anything in place routinely where they check to make sure that the sound is within limits that it should be so without that being in place I'm concerned that if you make an exception that you may be opening the door to a lot of noise that is potentially bothersome to neighbors at this point the other thing I would say is that residents and myself included as we purchased a property with a noise ordinance in place that's been in place for many many years so we bought it assuming that would be in place the other irony is that with this noise ordinance I am obligated to comply with the noise ordinance yet I won't benefit from it and this business doesn't necessarily have to comply with it yet they will benefit from me having to comply with it so it seems a bit contradictory at this point in time if you have a business that can by its permit be exempt it seems that they are getting a benefit that other residents or the other way to look at it is that residents in land that is near this sort of permanent business won't share in the same benefits that all other south burlington residents benefit from with this noise ordinance they don't get that benefit I track the noise the noise from the business next to me for about two weeks at the end of march following our last meeting what I found was on a daily basis there was a minimum of 30 minutes of barking and a maximum of hours of barking this was audible with my windows closed and so to me that's problematic if I were to open my windows I wouldn't be able to conduct my business regularly because this noise is intermittent it's unpredictable it's disruptive and it can go on for varying periods of time so I'm concerned that if because it has a permit it can now violate the noise ordinance it really impacts my business as well as the houses nearby and I understand that the idea is to move this away from the noise ordinance to the to the planning DRB or the administrative officer to enforce it but what I want to say about that is they've been in business for about 18 months if I were to log how many hours of barking and whining I have listened to it's been over a thousand hours it takes a long time understanding for the process of the administrative officer to follow through and make any changes or any kind of whatever consequences there are so it could take months and I do understand that Ray has heard the barking and he has sent out a letter but I'm also told that it could take months before anything really happens so I guess I ask you to consider very carefully whether you want to make an exception because what it might mean is that people are listening to nuisance noises for long periods of time without the ability to have anything happen and Ray does a great job but he's one person he works from 8 to 4 and if these businesses are in violation after that he needs to hear the noise himself is what he told me so if this noise occurs when he's not working I'm not sure how that will work so I just ask you to consider it carefully I do have audio tape of the barking if any of you are interested in hearing it I've taped it from inside my office it might give you a good idea of what I listen to and my colleagues listen to on a regular basis if you would like to hear that I'm happy to forward that to you if that would help in making your decision that's what I would say I would like to hear it so I will is it best if I forward it to you I have it I can play it now play it all the time it's up to the rest of the council if they want to hear it played why don't you send it to us I think that's better is it a wave file I have it on my phone I'm not an acoustic engineer and I recorded it when I could when I wasn't busy working but I do have a variety of recordings that I can try can I just ask you in terms of the noise with your windows open closed or closed either one I spent a little time sitting outside and I heard in within about half an hour about two dogs barking and distracting were the large trucks that stopped, downshift and then turn into meadow right meadows well, no, turn into the industrial part really big trucks and they're very loud and I'm just curious if that's if you would consider that a noise violation as well because it was louder than the dogs to be honest with you, that doesn't bother me that's more background noise it's more at a steady pace I used to be on Dorset Street so when I was on Dorset Street I heard the fire engines there's all sorts of noises there that kind of noise never actually bothered me this noise, something about the character of it and the duration and the frequency of it there's something about it that's more bothersome so I do hear some of those noises that sort of fade in the background and I don't consider that problematic for me anyway and none of my colleagues have complained about that it's random impulse frequency noises what it is it's a real range of frequencies with a sharp roll off the human ear and your psychology of hearing gets used to things that are background noises right, so an engine is the same RPM usually and if it changes that's fine but when it's and they're all different frequency groups that's the kind of thing that can distribute that's a good characterization of it because I think I kind of know the different marks and lines by heart they're all different sounds and frequencies and sometimes there's a whole chorus it all depends so if any of the neighbors the people who live there have a dog are you concerned about their dogs barking? I'm not concerned about a typical neighborhood dog barking I have that in my neighborhood it's just by that and if it was just short burst and not as often I don't think it would be problematic it just can go on and it's so unpredictable sometimes it's just a little bit barking and it's no big deal and sometimes it goes on for hours and it's really hard to it just gets bothersome in terms of the trucks Tim I'm not talking about the traffic that goes up and down when the user engines slow down and stop the brakes squeal and then they wait to turn from your house all the way to I was right outside their office I was trying to listen to get a sense of what is this dog barking I was just trying to find out if I mean because I think people have different levels of can be annoyed differently with different noises and I found that trucks being far louder and not constant so it was that big truck it wasn't the traffic Megan just a couple questions thank you for your comments I wanted to know if you I'm sure since you were already in place was your business already operating you had an address did you receive a notice of the building going in next door who was there first when did you go up we moved in May of 2016 we've been there almost two years so we were there before they broke ground before I did not know they were going in there and my second question I realized if you don't want to divulge but has this impacted your business absolutely I have clients often stop in the middle of session and make comments it's very disruptive it kind of makes you lose your train of thought I have colleagues routinely come to me expressing their concern about it again it impacts the work we work with I couldn't imagine two businesses that could have been more incompatible in terms of being next to us we do psychotherapy we're clients who are traumatized having sort of a steady background is pretty essential but even aside from that it gets on your nerves and I have to say just for the records I love dogs that isn't the issue it's the noise if you think about any background noise every now and then it just keeps playing and then it can go on it's with the windows closed with the windows open and sometimes I try it just to see I can actually because I might have to get up in the middle of session and close it that is disruptive but when I started recording it I found that I had to stop after a couple of weeks because it was just taking too much time to record how often the dogs are barking and how much they were barking and I tried to rate it I tried to be very scientific about it but it became like another job because it was so frequent and so disruptive and I thought I had enough data for me to feel okay this is a problem I guess I have another question do you have a white noise machine I have an air filter in my office that I only use to create white noise and if I turn it up anymore to block out the dogs then I can't hear my clients so I can't do anymore with white noise and I do feel like I should be able to open my windows I don't feel like I should always have to have the windows closed and I think as I said last time we're small business owners I work in the yard myself I work in the yard I've got to wear my earbuds because it's just again the noise is just too much and it's not the background noise it's the irregular beat it's the dogs barking and whining and sometimes the shouting of the people trying to control the dogs who are barking and whining Tom, any questions I have questions about this no whole noise audience and I met with the haulers in the election and learned a little bit about how other municipalities I don't know where we are with this current ordinance and I don't see the changes being proposed in the document before us I feel like I've lost track of what specific proposals were I know I was looking for them too and I maybe you can at the last meeting when we discussed this it was sort of tabled for discussion what the they were initially taken off the initial proposed changes and so as it currently stands there are no changes to the hauler trash pickup portion of the ordinance unless we propose them tonight I propose to move it to 7am what I would say to that and I'm not against that in my conversation with Jeff Myers Burlington has 7am but they have one difference with the haulers from collecting before 7am just residentials after 7 so Burlington allows commercial pickups of trash at 6am as long as they still stay within the noise decimal levels that are permitted so if they do it quietly so they are allowed to do church street and other industrial areas before 7am non residential areas before the 7am and so they have to be quiet and that seems to work and all I'm saying is if we consider something like that where we explicitly state residential consumers after 7am that's consistent with Burlington I've had emails from people that live on East Terrace that complain about the staples being done at 5.30am and that's a commercial business and they're using a huge dumpster and dumping it like this and it's bang bang bang coming up the hill so that's one of those instances where even though it might be 6am there that would still be banned so if they were to violate that noise threshold that would be explicitly stated so that way we wouldn't stop in the industrial zones so out of Tech Park so they could still pick up at Tech Park at 6am and on the other hand if we just if we move it to 7am and then leave it to see what happens I mean right now I don't know how many complaints the city actually gets about trash from noise hollers and I don't think it was actually solicited until we asked for it until I asked for it from them and I got a lot of feedback I got over 30 emails about it and only a couple people didn't think it was a problem most everybody else thought it was a problem so I think if we give people the opportunity to say let it be 7am and then see where it goes from there in the sense that you've got to complain about it being prior to 7 in order to get some action taken right so either you call the holler and say stay at my neighborhood until 7am call Ray that doesn't work and you come here and complain right and then we bring the hollers in and say why you keep coming into these residential areas before the time it's in the noise ordinance right what do we have to do issue you a ticket which would be glad to do right because this is a quality of life issue that people have been dealing with for a long time you understand the nuance that I'm describing I understand that but it's like so if you have a purely commercial area but that it says 7am and there's nobody around to complain about it I don't think it's an issue but if you have a residential area and it's 7am and people are like upset about it they're going to complain in which case then someone's got to take some action so if the ordinance still prohibited certain sound levels before 7am but explicitly stated no trash pickups in residential areas after 7am it just says no ways related to trash picking between 8 and 6 but if we moved it 8 and 7 it leaves it open but it leaves it as it was it just moves the time so I've lost track of the status of the changes that we considered well C8 is the trash pickup this page is the way it was originally where our attorney is but he's at the table and then D has the exemption the permitted exemption you're so quiet for C8 if it said residential trash pickup between 8 and 7am but still make sure the ordinance speaks to the limitation of noises that haulers would still be mandated to to stay under before 7am that would allow them to still do commercial pickups before 7am one brief comment we have no decibel levels specified Burlington does we don't all I'm saying is I've lost track of where what changes we're looking at maybe it requires some more discussion 4 I believe is original wording and it's on 5 where the number 8 is the added language am I right the only change and then the piece and where was that the only change is to D8 D8 or C8 D8 that was the original reason why you came to us that's the permitted use yes that is the permitted use my question with regard to that you came last time with the performance standards which showed that there were performance standards with regard to dog barking there in regard to any noise any noise from my permitted use could you read that again then because I might be it was pretty short as I recall so there are in the appendix A the performance standards of our land development regulations the following acts are declared to be loud disturbing the necessary noises and shall be deemed detrimental to the health and safety of the residents of Burlington noise in general any noise which is deemed objectionable because of volume frequency or beat and is not muffled or otherwise controlled and our specific standards talk to the creation of permitting or operation of any of these above sets instrument devices or vehicles causing said noise in such a manner to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the building structure or vehicle from which noise emanates shall be prima facie evidence of a nuisance and a violation of these regulations it further goes on to talk about some decibel levels that shall be a violation of these regulations for any property owner to create the creation of noise in excess of the following state of the limits in the city during the hours of 12 a.m. and 8 a.m. a 45 decibel dba based on a one hour average measured at any points and there's a for residential purposes and 60 dba based on a one hour average measured at any point where the property on which noise emanates adjoins any property used for commercial purposes that's midnight to 8 a.m. and 45 dB is that an average dba one hour average it was different for residential yeah it was lower 45 for residential lower 60 for commercial 45 for residential and that's between the hours of midnight and 8 it is also in the first clause of that catch-all anything that is 50 feet away shall be deemed from which noise emanates shall be prima facie evidence of the nuisance and violation of those regulations so that would be at any time of the day so my question is does this d8 with regard to permitted use that creates objectionable noise because of noise frequency and beats does it contradict the performance standards wait say that again it reads noise from a permitted use in an applicable zoning district of the city's land development regulations provided it complies with the regulation specific performance standards for that district so there still is a condition that it complies with what you've just read so it must it's exempt if it complies with the specific performance standards for the district so if it does not comply then does it fall under arguably this would still apply the exemption would still apply even if it doesn't still be considered a nuisance if it did not comply with the specific performance standards so and those are the performance standards for both residential and commercial and they apply to this permitted use but it's only between 12 a.m. and 8 a.m. midnight at 8 a.m. or 50 feet away at any time 50 feet away plainly audible and that's a determination of our zoning administrative officer how best to enforce these regulations typically that's largely complaint based on the size of our staff so when you say 50 feet away at any time is it the 45 for residential and 60 for commercial or is it just you can hear it I guess I would rather not get too deep into an interpretation of our performance standards and leave that to what could potentially be appeal and future litigation related to it but and also it's somewhat of a determination of our zoning administrative officer and once it's appealed it would be a determination of the development review board how best to interpret these regulations the problem we have is that we have an allowed use that generates noise and there's no standard that's in the LDRs that is able to distinguish it as of being a noise if I interpret that correctly because the DRB was using the LDRs not the performance standards those performance standards are in the LDRs and it's an approved use that I don't think that the approved use listing anticipated the possible noise that could be coming from a doggy daycare type business when the dogs are outside so it's a type of use that generates a type of noise that I don't think was anticipated so if the building were totally enclosed and there were walls on it I don't think it would be an issue but since it's an outside play area that probably echo off the building and head towards the stonehouse associates that's part of the problem so the question is how do you reconcile the approved use in that zoning district where there's probably not quite the right performance standard because I don't know how the 50 feet applies there because there's more of the 50 feet between the two businesses so is that a question where we need the planning commission to refine that to come up with some acceptable performance standards within certain zoning districts in general because there are probably other uses that could generate noise that would drive everybody nuts as well you could have a use which is it's an event a small event park or a dance studio where they have loud music let's say it's a wedding venue that likes to have it outside and then they have a summer stage in the tent and they glare the music across a meadow towards a huge residential area which actually was well so I mean that actually could have been a problem in your neighborhood with some proposed businesses that would have blasted music possibly at cider mill so just because you have an approved use doesn't mean that it shouldn't have performance standards for various things including noise so I think we've hit that wall in this case so what is the solution do we allow the permitted use and then have it go back to the planning commission to develop some standards do you apply them retroactively I mean that's a real conundrum we've got a going business two going business next to each other and they both are permitted for whatever use they have and then there's another piece of property in between them so that owner is that who wants he's concerned you've got houses behind which were butters so we knew when they knew they were going to build houses there and they never that's not true why don't you come up to the table my name is Brad I'm one of the developers of Ride Meadows which is next door so this is the same neighborhood that Christine is involved in we sold her a lot and built her building point of clarification is that because there is a 50 foot strip between our neighborhood and this building we were never notified as a budding landowners so as a developer even though we're putting in 50 houses here we never knew the building was going up I was equally as surprised that I learned it was a dog daycare facility when it was being built we just weren't notified nor per the code were we required to be no one did anything wrong there but we were notified because of the 50 feet there's just a strip line between us we're on a budding landowner smell, noise is that really true? that's my understanding after talking to Ray but I think the DRB screwed up here I think they put a use here that should not go where it is where we are I think part of the problem is all the complaints that we've logged in both Christine and I to South Bronson PD are going nowhere because they're telling us they can't do anything because they can only ticket the owner of the dog not the owner of the facility which seems ridiculous so there's this constant struggle of we're complaining nothing's getting done and then we hear that the ordinance is going to be a change to only night time hours and I think there's some clarification that's happened here that's not really the case is my understanding but I remember going through the planning commission minutes when this building was approved because I was curious about the process and the noise was discussed the DRB did their due diligence and talked about the noise what was stated and Tim might remember this it was stated let's approve it it'll be an enforcement issue I'm paraphrasing obviously but that that concerns me that it was stated that it was going to be an enforcement issue and there's no enforcement thank you are there any questions for Mr. Dusevich thank you from the law firm and I represent the business that's currently being discussed here and I want to first say that this is not really the appropriate avenue to have a new zoning hearing on a final and binding permit you're discussing a change that's applicable across all zoning districts for many different types of uses he has a development business he has a permit for that development I can guarantee you the construction noise for that development will be plainly audible 50 feet away does he want the same enforcement applied to him that he's advocating for a permitted use that is final and binding that was granted the right that was discussed you can't just do it based on one person's complaint when you're looking at a total change to your noise ordinance there are tons of businesses in South Burlington that I guarantee you noise that is plainly audible 50 feet away I make noise that's plainly audible 50 feet away you make noise that's plainly audible 50 feet away cider mills got a car business right next to it I represent them too I guarantee you they make noise more than 50 feet away the whole point of this change the whole point of this change is to have one vehicle for enforcement and that's planning and zoning it uses that's the only logical way you can have any sort of enforcement now I'm not ignorant to Dr. de Blasio's concerns my clients aren't ignorant to Dr. de Blasio's concerns but I guarantee you the noise from the dog to the offender but not the noise from the home construction but I hate construction noise that will drive me nuts and maybe that will drive you nuts but maybe that won't bother you the whole point is when you have a zoning hearing a very specific process and procedure for regulation and the point of this change is to ensure that a business owner that got their permit that is operating in accordance with their permit perfectly in accordance with their permit is regulated consistently and fairly under the zoning regulations that they applied under and got their permit under now to answer one of your questions Ms. Emory the business was in place prior they got their permit prior to Dr. de Blasio purchasing her property six months prior so I just wanted to clarify that as well and second of all you know to say that nothing is being done is completely inaccurate I sent a letter to last week to your counsel, Attorney Bulldock and Mr. Belair proposing some changes that the dog room and facility was undertaking to try to address this issue we're not ignorant of the concern but there are hundreds of people customers in South Burlington who rely on them to take care of their trusted family members I've heard from almost all of them and you should have because there's rumors right now that you're all trying to shut them down and that ain't right well I don't think that's our purpose well that's what's been said to them they got a permit and they're operating quarter rooms with it they spent two million dollars on that building they've done nothing wrong one person doesn't like it hundreds go there they got tons of customers and they do a great job of their dogs I implore all of you to go visit that facility at some point look at how amazing it is got an indoor splash park for the dogs that's amazing care they text the owners what the dog was doing all day long and their noise was discussed they actually proposed more noise mitigation at the DRB hearing and the DRB said don't do it and now one person is collaterally attacking the permit and we're having this discussion tonight that's not appropriate I don't mean to be aggressive about it but my client's livelihood is being attacked by one person who doesn't like it and it's not the right venue for it and they're trying to make changes did you get any response from the letter I called the attorney bulldog we had a conversation you're working on it what letter are we referring to he sent a letter to counsel and Ray Belair apparently with some additional mitigation measures that Happy Tails is willing to put on the table and that's under the zoning provision and that's the whole point of the change you're asking tonight because you can't have a dual track system if I'm working with one person that should be I work with that person I meet their satisfaction we solve the problem if there's a dual track system well I've satisfied person A but person B cannot be happy about it and that's unworkable for a business owner we're not just talking about this business owner it's about the city that's what you said so you know we had an issue there was a bar with music performances and we had a spa right next door so this is not new to us no it's not new to us it's not new to me it happened all the time I've represented a number of people involved in wedding venues did you bring up the wedding venue example it's a complex issue I understand that but the best venue for it is zoning enforcement and that's why you guys are suggesting this change thank you other comments I'm also a therapist over at Stonehouse so there isn't just one person complaining here my name is Carol Heffer I work with severely traumatized people I do hypnosis and mindfulness can you speak up or maybe move the people can you start again please you are a therapist my name is Carol Heffer I'm a severely traumatized people I use hypnosis and EMDR mindfulness all of these things that require a certain amount of calm and quiet the trucks do not bother my clients but they do every once in a while say to me how do you tolerate that barking all day so I'm getting it from my clients not from me I'm getting it from my clients only one person is complaining all respect but there are many of us in the practice complaining I'm very surprised that it's also concerned me because I am a resident of South Burlington so that this went through zoning and was permitted concerns me just as a resident of South Burlington there's an industrial park right across the street that would have been a perfect location for this kind of business where it would not have bothered a residential area at all so it is a larger issue of what zoning is doing and how they're thinking about us as a community however I think the law as it's stated would help us we're here because the law is being changed and the law is being changed instead of the problem being addressed so I don't think we address a problem by changing the law the ordinance says that there needs to be quiet during the day we don't resolve that that's like changing the levels of chemicals in the water because there are too many we don't change how many chemicals can be in the water we do something about what's in the water so if there are issues here there are many things that we have talked about at the other meetings that can help the wall should be higher there should be other acoustical things going on we shouldn't be arguing about changing a law when the issue is changing the structure so I find the noise disconcerting my clients find it disconcerting and I would appreciate if the business I don't want them to go out of business that would be very devastating for them to do something about the noise and I think there are things that can be done but changing a law is absolutely absurd and there isn't you believe there is no responsibility for your business to do anything to protect like put a screen of you know thick evergreens to you know I kind of disagree with the gentleman who just spoke I believe we were permitted before they were permitted and I'm not a lawyer so but no I don't think it's our job to put up a wall the wall that they put up is inadequate it's only I can look over the wall a wall for sound proofing I was in construction for 13 years the wall for sound proofing needs to be higher it can be done there are things that can be done that would be helpful although I think we have an ordinance that limits the height of fences that was recently reduced I mean unless it's around the police station I think that chain link fence is a little higher but my understanding is that they've already solved that by saying it only can be however high it can be but so that may not be an option then changing the law then changing the law about sound ordinance in the entire community well the other concern I have is I have clients who are very sensitive to the fact that there are dogs that are in distress and then somebody comes out and screams at them that's not the way to handle dogs anybody knows that's not the way to handle dogs I love dogs I've always had dogs when my dogs barking a lot I don't scream at her to shut up I calmly speak to her so she brings herself down and if these folks are supposed to be experts on dogs they should know that too so okay thank you yes please come up to the table and give us your name Teresa Cranes I'm actually not a resident of South Burlington but I live in Williston but I have been taking my dog for details for about a year now I think we just very fortunately discovered them and I cannot believe that there is a dog in distress in this facility I have a 18 pound little terrier who jumps out of her skin with joy to go to that place she would not go there if there was any kind of mistreatment she cannot wait it's hysterical to watch her they are awesome people they love their animals and I know they're concerned about noise but like AJ said is this the place to be taking care of it I don't know about all of the permits and everything I do know that they are functioning as their permits allow is what I've been told I understand that they did have their permit before the neighbors had theirs so I'm just here to support Happy Tales we love them and actually our dog pretty much was my husband's therapist she saved his life after dramatic brain injury so there's a lot to be said about the dogs thanks thank you very much okay yes and then I think we'll get Andrew back and figure out what we're going to do I'm Gail Rosenberg and another client of Happy Tales and when the discussion was about the ordinances in town I didn't think it was appropriate for me to get up I live in Burlington just by South Burlington but the last comment about screaming about stress is so untrue and so wrong this is the best dog care facility that I have researched that I have experienced our dog also just jumps for joy going comes home happy I have spent lots of time there I've recommended Happy Tales to a number of people who have had other experiences and we all come back and say these are the most involved caring people that we've ever experienced and the amount of time and attention they have given to putting together this extraordinary place is amazing and I do feel that the question that you asked whose responsibility it seems like that's something that could be some shared responsibility but it is not just one not one place so just as you're determining everything the question about the kind of quality care and the needs to just be considered okay thank you maybe one more is this from Happy Tales oh okay you can come up please yes and then I think we'd like to hear from Andrew well she's coming up we received a an email from a Randall K who asked that this email on this subject matter be brought to the county we have a copy of it okay yes I'm sorry my name is Robin Bordeaux I actually own an operator business in Williston and I shared a parking lot with a pet service at Doggie Daycare the noise that came out of that business was incredibly loud incredibly loud I have 300 kids that come into my facility and I can tell you that they probably said the same thing about my business going forward we were able to operate it was something that you mentioned earlier that people get accustomed to whatever noises that they have over a period of time I never heard what was going on unless kids from another daycare walk past and the dogs were outside and the dogs went absolutely crazy I chose not to send my dog to that daycare watching and listening and observing what went on in there and I did a whole lot of research and all of a sudden was extremely happy to come across Happy Tales where the dog trainer outside the facility I've been able to talk with them they follow through with the instruction they're very aware are they dog experts? I can't give them that title but they treat dogs respectfully they treat their employees respectfully the dogs appreciate being there on the flip side of that I can also say that I have spent time in the other business that has been up here and I have never been a client that has heard anything that has been a distraction to me coming from that other business so I feel like I can speak on both sides and say that when I was a client in that other business it wasn't a distraction to me but I'm extremely happy with the care and there would never be distress that would come from the employees to the dogs at Happy Tales. Thank you and then gentlemen please thank you I'm Mark Barton I'm the co-owner of Stonehouse Association and I just wanted to thank everybody here for the discussion you know I think it's a difficult situation here it's a little bit like we put the marching band school for the marching band next to the institute for migraine headaches having these two businesses kind of next to each other our position isn't that we're not anti-dog, we're not trying to get somebody else to go out of business and that we need to be able to work together here so I'm trying to I'm looking at like what's going on here and we're still to the point where if we go up a level or two is what's happening in nuisance is someone in their business and their office with their windows closed 270 feet away from another business listening to dogs barking for hours your thought about the brakes from the truck yeah but that's for like 30 seconds we were on Dorset Street for 10 years and there's fire trucks that go by and there's road noise that goes by but it happens, a jet flies overhead and it's noise that happens for 5 seconds or 10 seconds or 15 seconds I'm sitting here and going this trash hauling thing how long do these guys make noise for is it a minute or two once or twice a week we're listening to dogs barking in an office with windows closed 270 feet away for hours at a time some days it's not so bad there is something they can do to mitigate it to make it better it's not like the dogs are just barking 8 hours a day, 12 hours a day every single day so I know there are maybe it's the people that are working there maybe it's the dogs that are certain days I'm not really sure I don't work in that building so I'm not there every day I'm just co-owner of the building I see this as to me if the dogs are barking and they're creating a nuisance it should be handled under the nuisance ordinance we keep saying let's pass this off to Ray he's zoning if we go back and say is it a nuisance or is it not a nuisance what's the goal of the nuisance ordinance what is it there in the first place and one hand with the trash haulers we're trying to figure out how can we enforce it better how can we make this all kind of work almost maybe making it tighter so that everybody's happier because people are complaining that it's noisy whereas what we're trying to do here is actually make it more open so that more noise can be acceptable I'm saying well if it's creating a nuisance why do we want to make it more acceptable I think we just have to sort of sit there and define it and say okay if the dogs are happy I'm glad to hear they're happy I really am and I have no ill will against that business but that doesn't overcome the fact that we can still hear dogs barking all day long windows closed fact is a fact you can hear it whether the dogs are happy or not I'm not going to go there I'm just not my judgment about how well they run their business I'm glad people are happy there and taking their dogs there there has to be some way to look at this and go what can we do what can they do they're creating the nuisance it's not really our responsibility to have to put up bushes or shrubs and build a wall around our place to protect us from the other people that are creating the nuisance they have put a wall up maybe it is too high or whatever it might be but I can tell you when I stand in my wife's office and I look out the window looking right over the top of the fence because the land slopes down from where the building is to where the fence is I can see the bottom of the window the bottom window sill from the building so here you've got a building that's got a wall that's probably 15 feet high at least plus the roof and you've got a fence that's 8 feet high but it starts 5 feet below the building so the fence is only covering you talked about how the sound hits the building and then bounces off over the fence maybe there's a way they can build a taller wall there to protect that sound maybe the dogs can be inside more maybe somebody just has to be outside and monitoring the dogs and if there are out there barking for long periods of time that somebody does something about it I understand they have a permit to run their business construction companies Brad's building and I know they have construction equipment I know that someday they'll be done and every day the trucks aren't out there making noises that are bothering people building for long periods of time if you're going to go through and make it okay for dogs to be barking like that and for us to have to listen to that we have a permit to run our business too and when we bought the property I think in July of 2015 we didn't move into May of 2016 but when we bought that property and started making all the plans to build the building there was a noise ordinance there that protected us from having to deal with stuff like that I say keep the noise ordinance there enforce the noise ordinance rather than making it difficult right now I think part of the problem is with the police department you've got this excellent law enforcement agency out there that are feeling torn a little bit here because here you've got a company that was issued a permit to run a business that has dogs barking but yet they're creating they're also voiding the noise ordinance at the same time so what do they do? there has to be some clear clear rules in there in the noise ordinance describing if you're violating the noise ordinance regardless of what your building permit is if people are complaining about it and the police can then issue a ticket or a summons or whatever it is that they do but it should be the police department perhaps it's enforcing it more so than being pushing something back off onto ray and being a development planning and zoning issue I don't know I don't know the way to do it you know you've got some conflict here but it's clearly it's clearly making a nuisance we actually even thought about we like it there Brad built our building for us we were really happy with it we had a nice residential neighborhood we were talking about how nice it would be you know what sorry Brad I can't even consider it I can't imagine waking up in the morning wanting to sit on my deck and have my cup of coffee and having to listen to 15 dogs barking even if it's 300 or 400 feet away if the trash guys came by but now they're gone it's the duration of it and you don't know when it's going to be on or not going to be on I'll just throw that out to everybody to ponder and to think about I hope you have any more questions for me but I just wanted to let you know my thoughts thank you very much Andrew questions I guess I'd recommend coming out of the public hearing and either making a affirmative vote to approve the proposed amendments as proposed or some guidance as to how they should be changed and if if you vote to not approve the amendments as proposed then it would not need to be warned for a new hearing unless you wanted additional changes to be made to them in some other way okay motion to come out of in the hearing second all in favor of our public hearing what is your pleasure Tim you wanted to change the trash hauling out move to 7 a.m. is there a second to that with the caveat for residential I'd support and then I still want to keep it quiet I have residents that I'm advocating for as well I just I see haulers I want to find a middle ground where they can still do commercial service while still keeping it quiet so I'm supportive of the 7 a.m. that's what Burlington has I just I feel like in residential area fully restricting trash hauling but I just want to add the words in residential areas and then I'm fully supportive of it but even if it's a commercial property of budding residential area is that still even then they that would be a residential area so it's I mean you have commercial areas that like right next to residential area and if they're you know the you mall gas station on Kennedy Drive yeah places where they could still where the and that would still be restricted at the residents said it's affecting them they had to stay below the know these levels I would look to Burlington how they're doing it but again I would be more interested to talk about the issue that so many people have come to speak to us about tonight than the trash hauler which is a larger conversation that I do want to have and I think it's very important to have I want to thank you for doing that research into Burlington and I would be open to that amendment as well with regard to the dog so do we have a second are you with the residential so you want to freeze it exactly so I would restrict it to the 7am for residential pickup and I it you say between the hours of 8 and 7am in residential areas noise related to residential trash pickup and removal between the hours of 8pm and 7am I would do in residential areas but I don't know I would do it without I would just do 7am I see Tim's argument is that if there's no complaint let's say they come at 6am but there's no complaint right that one's the wiser right if they want to follow the law then they do well we've heard about 5.30am pickups right so but to allow them to do tech park I would also want to step back from all of this if there's no time pressure so that we could do a better more sophisticated and thorough comparison of how neighborhood municipalities and how noise ordinances look I know you've been doing a great job but I'm feeling a little lost in all of our different options and how we compare to best practices elsewhere do you want to come back so do we have what's on the table just the wording of C8 I would propose it to be noise related trash pickup and removal between the hours of 8am and 8pm and 6am in residential areas I would second that okay is there further discussion did you get that 8am and 7am 8pm and 7am in residential areas this is C8 is that not regulating in commercial areas well the rest of the noise ordinance in Burlington regulates commercial areas that you can't make noises above certain levels but it's not explicitly saying you can't collect trash if you do it relatively quietly without complaint does that make sense I think you're going to make the enforcement would be difficult in commercial zone areas or residential zone areas residential zone areas but otherwise if you don't define where it will be very difficult I think it's going to be blanket for enforcement enforcement is difficult as is that's true and complaints are irregular right irregular infrequent infrequent as it is now partly because people don't know there's this ordinance they do now some do so the same thing you just said 8pm and 7am in residential areas in residential areas and then we're silent on commercials or just figure it out yes just silent sometimes silence is golden on the other piece alright so yes we do so is there further discussion on this change are you ready for that vote ok all in favor signify by saying aye aye any opposed ok so the second issue then did you have a I don't mean to dominate the conversation what I'll say is I'd love to ask you a couple of questions in executive session I'd love to be transparent and all that but since a lawyer came down and I just have a couple of questions about what we can and can't express regarding land uses we need to support this language as is the three of you are say LaVie but I'd want to talk to Andrew and ask him a couple of questions in executive session about our legal exposure I agree alright um do we want to do that well since we've made a change we have to have another hearing so we have some time to discuss that if you have any specific questions feel free to reach out to me if you have a legal memorandum or something or also could set it up in the executive session would you prefer a memorandum or would you want a conversation I want a conversation ok because it may lead to other questions yeah that would be good ok so we will not we will not approve these we have that amendment that we're offering and we'll have a a third second hearing excuse me that would be at the second meeting in May what date is that the first one is yeah it's the 21st for the record we passed like 10 ordinance it's very smooth I know I know it's bound to be one so I would recommend a motion to award a second a fourth second reading of the nuisance ordinance with the changes requested the changes that works for 730 at the second any further discussion all in favor signify by saying aye aye ok we'll see you in a month we'll probably see you before that do you want to have the executive session on the 7th we can would that be good in the beginning of the meeting 7th yeah so we'll have that conversation on the 7th ok thank you very much thanks to all of you ok ok item 9 is possible appointments of public officers to fill recent vacancies in the city council airport commission and PAC my understanding is that we have only one appointment to make we've agreed upon at this point airport commission the PAC and that city council replacement is still pending for discussion yes but we there was a process and I thought we should discuss that as a process to make sure everyone is on board ok I thought we were already there but that's changed um I don't know I think we need to have that conversation and tonight is not the night too wow that raises concerns for me when I was listening in I heard that there was going to be an executive session and that's when we would discuss that and when is that item 11 I mean 17 excuse me 17 oh ok so at the very end at the very end I think I'm willing to go with the flow here I'm not sure of the process that in my memory what we agreed upon I hear a councilor having a problem with that is there a possibility of having a conversation right now in executive session I guess we could do that it would be brief you can't hold it till 17 I'd like to do it now if you'd support that to discuss appointments ok if that's what you want to do we usually have a break at 9 so we'll have the break now and hopefully we will be back by 9 and start again we don't get a break alright so I need a motion to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing appointments second with Kevin in attendance along with the council second all in favor thank you oh you got it yeah pull up your oh oh oh oh oh yeah oh oh oh oh oh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah Okay, so I would like to call back into session, the South Burlington City Council on Monday, April 16th, 2018, and going to item 9, possible appointments. We have a motion? Yeah, so I just want to say a couple of things. I am happy with the process and the candidate that's going to be selected to serve at Pat's term. This candidate, out of deference for the family, didn't know if tonight was the night to be announced. And we will be announcing the candidate at the next meeting. I can't speak for Pat, but I think Pat would support this candidate. And I just want to say again, this council, all every single member has been very respectful in this entire process with Pat's passing and with the appointment, the selection of this person. So the person serving at Pat's term will be announced at the May 7th meeting. And again, I hope Pat's happy. We are going to appoint temporary positions to the other two roles that Pat served. And I'm going to make a motion because I don't think Pat would object to either of them. And this is the best representation the city could have. So I'm going to move that Helen really represents the South Burlington City on the airport commission to serve at Pat Noak's term through and tell the end of this summer. June. No, under June. June. Is that what the motion you were looking for is to complete the selection? Yes, and at a time, I'll second. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. I'd also like to motion that Tim Barrett serve the rest of the term or the rest of the term on the pension advisory committee for the city of South Burlington. And I'll second. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. So I will do my best. You have a meeting Wednesday. My first meeting. I will too. I'll miss tomorrow's meeting. Sorry. Okay. Item 10. This is the presentation of the exit 14 bed pike cross ped bike crossing phase one scoping report and consideration of approval of the recommended preferred alternatives. Alana and several other people will be presenting. Good evening for the record. Alana Blanchard, project director. Thank you very much for having us tonight. We're presenting the culmination of the first phase of the bicycle and pedestrian exit 14 crossing study. And that's over 89 at Wilson road. And I'm actually not presenting. I'm introducing Christine Ford, who is the project manager for the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. This was part of their unified work program for 2017. FY 2018. Some somewhere around. Anyway, it was the for the last year. And so as part of that program, they completed phase one of scoping for this project. It's also part of the city's tip financing plan. And it's eligible for tip district financing for 30%. And so we really appreciate the support that we've received from from the Chittenden County Planning Commission. And I'm going to introduce basically Christine. She's going to talk a little bit. And then we have a presentation. My name is Christine Ford. As I said, I'm a senior transportation planner with Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. I won't take up too much time just to say for the audience and for the record that CSRPC, as many of you know, is land use and transportation planning organization that represents all the communities in Chittenden County. We are a federally designated metropolitan planning organization, which is a lot of words that we don't really need to pay attention to except what's nice about it is we get federal planning money, transportation planning dollars that we're able to make available to the communities in Chittenden County through an application process. South Burlington requested us to do this study. And regarding the conversation previously about funding projects with federal versus non federal money, you know, we think that the federal money is really well suited to complex projects with which this certainly is. So CSRPC hired Stantec to do the work of local engineering firm. And we've been doing this for a little over a year now. And we're just going to present you the results of this study. So Sean Neely is here. Greg Goyette from Stantec also worked on this project that he has home ill. So so yes, I'm filling in for Greg Goyette tonight. Greg was a project manager from the Stantec side. I've been serving as a project engineer. I'm dealing with some allergies. Hopefully, I don't comment too much for you. On this project, we evaluated existing conditions, including existing transportation facilities for bicycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles, demographics, land use, origins and destinations, as well as numerous prior studies that have been completed studies and plans at the local, regional and state levels. We included several forms of community outreach, including two separate public community workshops, as well as two separate public input tools online surveys and numerous meetings with local stakeholders, including residential neighbors, adjacent property owners and business owners, agencies and committees. We developed and evaluated numerous alternatives. And tonight we will present the recommended preferred alternative. Here we see the project limits centered around the interchange at exit 14. The existing bridge US route to Williston Road is highlighted in red that crosses Interstate 89 at exit 14. To the north, we see Sheraton Holiday Inn. Out to the west are UVM University of Vermont and Medical Center. To the south, we see the Staples Plaza, Corey Hill Residential Development and some other residential neighborhoods. On the southeast, we see the University Mall. And to the west, we see the city center. The existing interchange was designed to move a high volume of motor vehicles at a high rate of speed. And this segment of US route to that crosses Interstate 89 at exit 14 is the highest volume road that is not an interstate in the state of Vermont. Where's that stat from? Because I've heard that, but which source document? So that's based on the AADT, the average annual daily traffic. And so all road segments in the state system are recorded for each year on annual average daily traffic volume. And so that's based on the data that's available through VTrans. I can send you a link to that. The Vermont State Agency of Transportation. So here we see some some images of the existing conditions. There are some existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities out there today, including sidewalk, crosswalks that cross the high speed ramps, as well as paved asphalt shared use path adjacent to the sidewalk and the curb. This is how wide is that? Is that like like three feet, two and a half? I believe the sidewalk is five feet in that area, five feet wide. And I believe the path that is shown right here is approximately the same. That's that's all documented in our report. So you're refer. Okay, you're not talking about that white line in the curb? No, going curve out. So at this point right here, you can see near arrow. Yeah, I got it. This image here does show an on road portion of the bicycle lane that's out there today. It does not have a buffer. It is immediately adjacent to the motor vehicle travel way, as well as the curb with the sidewalk. There is a little little room for snow storage and it the existing conditions do create uncomfortable conditions for bicycles and pedestrians. And most of the green is gone at this point. I mean, this is a photo from a while back. Crashes were evaluated in this area using data available from this Vermont State Agency of Transportation. There are numerous locations within the study area that are designated as what are known as high crash locations. So this was an evaluation of a five year period. And a high crash location is determined when there is either a roadway segment or intersection that that has at least one crash each year over the course of five years. And so based on that, most of the area, the study area that crosses the interchange here are included as high crash locations. Early in the study, there was a survey questionnaire that was administered for capturing input by existing users in particular bicycles and pedestrians. So this was made available at four different locations at the four corners at the four different ramp locations. And so users were able to provide input on how they cross this bridge, how often they do and whether or not they are ever deterred from crossing this, this is deterred from traveling to destinations on the other side of the bridge. And it was made available for hard copy placard or no card submittal as well as QR code through a phone or device as well as a link. We did receive over 300 responses and a lot of comments on user experiences. All of that is documented in the final report. For the third question, were those the only two options sometimes and never? I believe, I believe for that question, I believe those were the two options. I guess that adds up, doesn't it? The first community workshop presented the existing conditions and received a great deal of public input, both from attendees who spoke in front of everybody, as well as the crowd was organized into a handful of different focus groups. And so each focus group had to scribe and they documented their concerns as well as ideas and suggestions for solutions at this location. They also ranked in order of importance different factors with safety being shown as the greatest. And they discussed a number of both short term and long term solutions. The project team developed what's known as a purpose and need statement. This is an element of federal transportation planning projects as well as the TIF district project process, where it outlines really the reasons of why we would go after one of these projects. And it highlighted the most important elements and serves as a guideline for evaluating the different possible alternatives through the course of the project process. Purpose and need statement was approved by the City of South Burlington Planning Commission in January of 2017. Were those needs their priorities? I mean, is that or is it just how they're not necessarily in order of importance, but those are those are the six needs that were identified. And so after that process, based on public input, existing conditions, purpose and need statement, the project team developed a number of alternatives for consideration, including four different short term alternatives and nine different alternatives that were longer term. Here we see a matrix that we use as a project team to evaluate those alternatives against the purpose and need. We can see four projects standing out in green and those were determined to best meet the purpose and need, and they were then carried forward for further input and consideration. Those alternatives that are shown in yellow do not fully meet the purpose and need. However, they may potentially be recommended to be scoped separately as separate projects or included as other future projects in this area. So that includes some other on-road striping projects. The project shown in gray there, or pink, were determined to not meet the purpose and need or to be similar to other alternatives and they were not considered for further evaluation. And all of these are documented in the final report. So this brought us to our final four alternatives that were considered. This does not include the, as long as alternative number one, the do nothing alternative where nothing would be done. That clearly does not meet the purpose and need. However, that do nothing alternative was carried throughout the evaluation to serve as a baseline for comparison. I'll briefly describe these four final four alternatives. In the upper left, we have alternative two, which crosses over the clover leaves just south of U.S. Route two by way of three separate bridge structures and fill within the clover leaves with path on top of that fill going over the bridges. That is connected to U.S. Route two by way of elevated structures and shared use paths. It also has connections to existing shared use path at Corrie Hill neighborhoods of the southwest of the interchange, as well as potential connections to and through the university mall. The upper right, we have alternative three, which is a shorter single span bridge that crosses interstate 89 just south of the existing exit ramps. It is connected by way of, would be connected by way of elevated structures and shared use paths back up to U.S. Route two, as well as connections to existing shared use path in Corrie Hill neighborhood and again potential connections to and through University Hill Mall. In the lower left-hand corner, we see alternative four, which includes a gondola or tram. These are being seen as public transit for public transit use in more areas around the world. Here, we see two potential stations, one located in the jug handle west of the interchange and the other located near the holiday Inn. This would require some amount of staffing. It would have a lower cost for construction, but would include some ongoing maintenance costs, operation costs, and might not be available 24-7 compared with some of the alternatives, some of the other alternatives. In the lower right-hand corner, we see what we call the cannoli bridge, which basically adds a second level or a second deck above the existing U.S. Route two bridge that would be accessed by way of switched backing ramps in order to maintain a grade that meets the American Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA guidelines. This would keep users of it close to the existing main line. However, it would also include a lot of construction, a lot of structure, and if there were to be future changes to the interchange, that could pose some risks in terms of maintaining that structure. So all of those alternatives were presented at a second community workshop where attendees were provided the opportunity to provide, to give feedback and input specific to those alternatives. They had ballot cards and were able to rank the alternatives as well as provide specific comments to them. After this workshop, these alternatives were made available online for public review and comment, as well as a public comment tool administered by the city in order to take, in order to see the ranking. And actually, yeah, so that follow-up input included over 170 or 170 responses, and it showed a preferred solution of having a bridge that was separated from traffic. It also showed priorities of different factors involved in the decision-making process with safety clearly being the highest priority. So that brought us down, so based on that review, and in addition to those public meetings, we also had numerous meetings with stakeholders, as I mentioned at the beginning, including neighbors, property owners, as well as committees. And we also met with the State Agency of Vermont. We met with the individuals from different sections from the agency to discuss the alternatives. And so based on our evaluation, the product team determined that two alternatives were the best choices, alternative two and alternative three. And so here shows a little bit more detail of alternative two that crosses the cloverleaf just south of the existing bridge. It does include three separate bridges. Crossing the ramps and the interstate, those bridges would be connected with a large amount of fill within the cloverleafs with shared use path running over that. Yes. Would the pedestrians have access to the landlocked areas, the circle areas, or would there be fence to keep them from playing in that space? There would be fence to keep them from playing in that space. Or living. I would include a great deal of work dealing with drainage within those within those areas. And you know it does involve some complexity having the three structures there. But we do see connections up to the main line there as well as potential connections to the existing path in Corey Hill and down to and through University Mall and possibly out to Market Street or Garden Street. This is alternative three and this involves a short single span bridge that crosses the interstate 89 just south of the existing ramps for the exit. It would connect back to us through to misshared use path and ramping structures. It would also have connections to Horry Hill existing path there, allowing them to connect out through the residential neighborhoods East Terrace and Spear Street. It could include potential connections to and through University Mall again to Market Street or Garden Street. It is a single span bridge. It does have a lower cost and it would also be able to be remain in place during and after any potential future construction or reconstruction of the interchange, although there are no current plans for that. It is possible out 20, 30 years. The South Burlington bike and pet committee, they provided their recommendations, their input on this project. And they also found that alternatives two or three would be the best to move forward, expressing that they best accommodate the majority of active transportation on motorized traffic, as well as supporting future city center development. And they also emphasize the importance to connect to Wilson Road through Horry Hill and to Dorset Street from University Mall. Based on all of the input and feedback, the evaluation cost considerations, existing and future land uses and potential future developments, as well as potential travel routes. We recommend that the council consider making an approving in motion to approve alternative three as a preferred alternative for the Interstate 89 exit 14 pedestrian bicycle crossing improvement project. Next steps would include completing a phase two evaluation phase two scoping for that recommended alignment. And that would include clearly defining what type of bridge would be built, including the approaches on either end of that bridge and connections to Williston Road and potential connections to Horry Hill and University Mall. Are there questions, Tom, Megan? Oh, okay. I know looking at our future plans at the bike lanes on Wilson Road are going to be on the south side of that road. Is that perhaps something that went into this design? My question is what reasons went into choosing to site the bike pedestrian bridge south of the clove relief as opposed to north of the clove relief? Sure, we did consider some options early in the project that longer list of options included some options on the northern side, including a bridge, including a tunnel. Some of the considerations that that led us to focus on the south side or some of the origin and destinations and the travel routes between the land uses on the south side. On both sides of the interchange, as well as the existing and future planned facilities, like you mentioned on the south side of Wilson Road. And my second, and I think I have three questions is what is what would be the lifespan of the bridge? Sure. That's a good question. I would have to I would have to get back to you on that, to be honest with you. That's something that I could I could check out with some of our bridge engineers. You were saying you mean the lifespan of the bridge that we are proposing. That's it. Yes. It would be I would have to I would have to get back to you on that, to be honest. Because you were saying how the interchange will be perhaps redone in 20 to 30 years. It would expect it would be expected to last longer than that. You know, and that's also considering how long it might take for this to be built. So knowing that this is going to take some time would take some time to be to go through the design process and and to to get to construction and to be built. We would expect this bridge to outlive the lifespan of the existing bridge of U.S. route to over the overpass. Yeah, correct. I believe it. Yeah. So just a comment. I was really struck by the statistic that 25% of our workforce lives within five miles of this location in the state. That's quite is that that I read that accurately? That's it's there's a lot there's a I would have to report honestly to get that particular detail for you. But but yes, there's, you know, a large portion of the population and the workforce is is in Shannon County is within not very far distance from this bridge. Okay, so my question is is clearly is the statistic I saw on the online report. And I think I read it correctly. Um, that was that was a big eye opening moment. Um, I also had a question though, because you had said in the short term there was an I had heard this in a in a prior meeting that I had attended. I wasn't able to attend the workshop. But having bike lanes between the four lanes down route to with the pedestrian on the sides. Is there still the potential of that going forward and then reassessing based on the success of that model that design? That's a good question. So some of the shorter term alternatives that were evaluated developed and evaluated during the course of this project included on road improvements to existing bicycle facilities. And so those in the report we we identified that they do not fully meet the purpose and need because primarily because they will serve not the full range of bicycle users. And so while some users, commuters and and and experienced cyclists will may prefer to remain on the road and would like to use on road facilities. There are there's a wider breadth of users that still would not be comfortable enough with that solution. Excuse me. And so we recommend that those types of solutions be considered and scoped separately and could potentially be developed in the shorter term and and supplement a longer term alternative that would address the needs of a greater breadth of all users, all abilities, all ages. Because just having my own slight case of vertical and having family members who ever to go going over the interstate over a bridge, though I trust the engineers and stand tech and all of that, that also might induce some discomfort and stress. Yes. And that that is a consideration that that will be, you know, taken into account, and, you know, moving forward in the design process. So, you know, if there's a separate bridge, then that those considerations will be addressed during the during the design process for that separate bridge facility. Just coming from an urban area where they actually have, you know, very high chain link just to keep suicides at a minimum. It's just, I don't want to even, you know, open that door, but it is something I imagine that we as a community should think about. Does this option also, I mean, I went to a couple of the meetings, and there was certainly conversation about having the the pedestrian pathway large enough to also accommodate like a bus. Right. Is that still part of the conversation? Or is that how you price it out? Or so as part of the stakeholder discussions, we did meet with Katma. I'm sorry, they might have been GMT at that point. And at that time, they prefer to stay on the main line. So on Williston Road, they didn't want to move off Williston Road at that time. Okay, so that's not part of that was not carried through in the alternative. Other questions, Tom, did you have some? No, I think alternative three is probably the most pragmatic solution to the problem for moving people, you know, on foot or wheels right of their own over the interstate, because that's what it's about in the safest manner. And it probably would be fairly aesthetic, because you would have your own bridge, it's set back and far away from the main bridge, right? And the design process will probably lend some quality to it that people will appreciate. But maybe by then, when we actually get to the point of implementing it, we'll have some autonomous electric vehicle, a little bus that people could pick up at Staples Plaza, just take over to the U mall to just put your bike on and just it has no driver, and it just keeps looping back and forth all day. You can do that today. Well, I wouldn't do it today, but I might wait a couple years. But you know, I mean, so in terms of, you know, the millions of dollars that you might spend, there might be some much cheaper alternative, but it depends on technology. And similarly, my only comment was that you said item three was cheaper than item two. I'm curious how much cheaper, but I guess it doesn't really matter because this is going to take decades to build. So it is substantially less expensive. Based on the complexity. They will both, you know, incur costs, but and they will both incur substantial costs for traffic management during construction. The traffic the cost for traffic management alone are also substantially higher for alternative two because of the clover leaves. The overall costs for alternative two are are substantially higher, based on the complexity, the number of structures, the amount of drainage. And I think one of the things for alternative two that I didn't immediately think about, but it certainly came out of the meetings, is that bridge would have to be high enough above the existing road bridge to be able to cross the ramp. So that would be quite a big high structure. We don't have any concerns with negotiating or working with the U mall for that access and dumping all the bikers in there. And I think it can be designed without access to the U mall, but I think both for them and for the city and for residents, I think it would be a preferred solution to have access. And there's already a sidewalk connection at CVS now, sure that the DRB demanded near the interstate. You come across the sidewalk as soon as you cross that last and exit ramp that goes into Rolston Road, there is a sidewalk that goes to the backside of CVS. So you can at least then in there you can take that little driveway that goes the backside and connects to the back of the parking garage that sears. So without having to go back on the doors of streets. I would think it would be a plus that and they they'll be part of the conversation and the design there soon. Yeah, the general manager was one of the stakeholders that we met with and certainly the prior owners were very positive towards the idea of a bridge. And we'll see what happens in the future. Is that it? Did you have another question? Just what's your recipe? These are delicious. I will share it. Thank you. So we need a I would entertain a motion to approve alternative three is the preferred alternative for the I-89 exit 14 pedestrian bicycle crossing improvement project. The moved second and a second. And I will just encourage the interim to see how it works. Right. Okay. Are there any comments from the audience on this topic? Okay. No, thumbs up. Oh, okay. There's no further discussion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Thank you very much. Item 11 the next item approve a resolution to join Manuski and Burlington to formally request that the US Air Force replace the F 35 a with a safe and quiet aircraft. We have printed out copies, but I would note that we failed to identify three typos. So when we get to the final motion, if we do the first correction is in the fifth whereas, and it inserts according to the final United States Air Force. And the first line, they're all technical grammatical. The second is under the eight whereas eight on this page one bullet one, there was a an additional and there. So we'll eliminate that. And then the third technical change would be on page three, at least on my copy of the page three. And it's the sixth whereas on that page. And at the very end of it, it says a mishap rate of 0.83 over its lifetime and it should be it s not it is, you know, the abbreviation it is. It shouldn't have that parental, the maybe a lot of apostrophe. Thank you. There is one other one you didn't mention. Oh, it doesn't show up very easily because it's so small. Oh, I'm sorry. But where you mentioned the and there, the two and there's yes, after the and there, there's a family. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. A comma that should be stricken. Right. With an apostrophe after it, which is correct. I'm sorry, I missed that. Thank you. It's hard to see. Okay. Well, this is a resolution that I brought forward. And I understand and appreciate the timing to the NOAC family is not ideal, I think as Tom had pointed out, sometimes you can't organize things with situations that happen in life or death in this case. So this is not meant to be in affront to the former counselor, Pat. This is a resolution that I feel very strongly is really supported by the community of South Burlington. Much of the language in this in the detail comes from several resolutions that this council has passed over time. So the content and information and facts included in the resolution are items that this council has voted upon several times. So it's familiar to us. And it is something that the majority of the council, it was not unanimous. In fact, I think all of those votes were three two. But they do reflect the majority work of this council over a number of years. There clearly are a number of people in the audience who would like to speak on this. And I'd like to limit that to about half an hour and two minutes apiece. I will time you. So if there are comments that people would like to make, we'd be welcome to hear them. And I think maybe we should hear those first and then have a council discussion or we can do it either way. I don't care. Just when we have the discussion first, okay, I mean, I don't don't think so. I'm going to be brief if you that's fine. Go first. So I support the resolution because to me, we have passed several resolutions on the council that have had to deal with noise from the airport that has impacted the removal of homes on the airport property. The number one cause of noise has caused the DNL to go up is because of the F 16 and the Block 52 engine, right? And it's been said that the F 35 is going to be louder in some way than that plane. And with all due respect to the guard, the base, and everything that they do, the one way to try and solve the problem of the FAA continuing to want to purchase homes and raise them at the airport, which affects the amount of housing we give to our workforce, is to remove the point source of the noise. The point source of the noise is that plane. So I think it's a very pragmatic thing to do to say, why can't you replace the mission with another airplane? I think that's a very simple request to make. And I think that we've seen other communities to make the same request. And it's been voted on in Burlington and it passed. And that's all I'm going to say because to me it's pretty simple. And so my vote on this is simply on behalf of the community around the airport, to stop the destruction of homes by bringing in another mission that replaces the F 35 or something else. I think that's a very simple way to try to resolve the issue. And I know a lot people don't agree. But my goal in mind is to try and preserve the housing and preserve the quality of life in that area. And that's the only reason why I would support this. I'm not against the F 35 per se. There's a spectrum of people that have different beliefs on there. There are people that are adamant against that weapon system. There are people that are just adamant against the noise. And there are people that are kind of in between. And that's all the other people on the other side. But the point is that the objective and the goal is to try and preserve that neighborhood as much as possible. And this is one way that we can try and do it. And we've tried other ways. And we've had a collection of resolutions that we've passed. And some will argue that they've had no effect. But some will say that maybe we are starting to have an effect on the airport and the FAA. And if that's true, great. And I say, let's keep the pressure on and see what we can do. So that's my position. Thank you. Thank you. Megan, do you want to? I have a longer version. Can you condense it? I'd rather not. I put a lot of thought into it. Okay, go for it. All right. All right. Well, in 2010, and I was on the council at the time, first public meeting to discuss to discuss the proposed basing of the F-35 at Burlington International Airport was held in Winooski. Later, when the draft EIS was issued in 2012, and I wasn't on the council at that time, I read with consternation, the data indicating a 50% increase in the number of homes that would fall in a zone around the airport deemed incompatible with residential use, rising from 1900 to 2,900 homes or over 6,600 people. Over the six years since, I have only become more convinced that the F-35 is incompatible with the densely populated residential area. This remains the case in spite of the federal judges verdict last year. As history has shown, has shown us with the suffrage and civil rights movements, for instance, because something is legal does not mean that it is necessarily right. South Burlington residents are deeply patriotic. Many have served with valor in the military or provided direct support as family members, friends, business owners, and taxpayers. As a community, we are civic minded and actively invested in the democratic process. Our democracy is enshrined in our city charter and in the Vermont and US constitutions, which our military members solemnly swear to uphold. At the same time, South Burlington residents object to, if not the noise, then the impacts of the noise and the noise compatibility programs, which have been decimating our affordable housing stock, putting the future of one of our three elementary schools in jeopardy, and overall disrupting the peace of mind and quality of life of many who reside here. We have the policies of two federal agencies at work here in South Burlington. Mayor Weinberger of Burlington has stated and restated his desire to stop the buyout program and pursue other mitigation programs. The regional director of the FAA, however, has stated that, other than home acquisition, no noise mitigation exists to lessen the impact of these high-powered jets. It is a Hobson's choice from the perspective of us living here in South Burlington. There is no win-win with the F-35, which forces me to consider my responsibility to protect the rights, the economic assets, and the future well-being and prosperity of South Burlington residents, which is also prescribed by our comprehensive plan. In spite of the wishes of the Burlington mayor, we here in South Burlington have to consider the likelihood that the F-35 will trigger the same mechanism that brought us the home acquisition program to begin with. Our residents will rightfully demand federal relocation assistance, thus leading to the demolition of hundreds more houses on top of the 200 that we have or will soon have lost, and these are for our workers. The lack of affordable workforce housing has reached the crisis point in our region and state. People and particularly people who are responsible for ensuring the well-being of our community have to look at the big picture. There are few alternatives for our workers to relocate in South Burlington. For this reason, many go to communities north, east, or south of us, further away from public transportation and job centers. The drift outward increases the number of cars on our roads and our schools lose families with children, incurring further costs. Additionally, since Chittenden County is the center of economic activity in the state, we need housing not only for the people who work here, but also for those workers whom our businesses wish to recruit. Studies show that the lack of available affordable housing in South Burlington and elsewhere is the number one factor that is hampering our economy due to slow growth in our workforce. The lack of available affordable housing causes our grown children to move elsewhere and prospective recruits to decline job offers. The workforce shortage is real and measurable, and it is a big problem. Today is not yesterday. We have to look at the facts now and use our best judgment based on those. Well beyond who was here first, the question we need to ask is what should the region's priorities be in order for our economic future to be bright? Chittenden County is the economic engine of the state. Today, given all we know, the F-35s are not compatible with our economic priorities. A federal policy decision that leads to another federal level decision to fund the demolition of homes that serve our workforce and our end short supply is short sighted and therefore unwise. Fortunately, the seeming predicament does not leave us with another win-lose situation. The Air Force has stated on a number of occasions that there are other options. Other flying and even combat missions are available with no loss of federal dollars and emergency responders at the airport. No loss of personnel, maybe even an increase, and certainly no loss of the base. Any suggestion that the base will go away is patently false. The Air Force has stated so. An excerpt from the Air Force's brief submitted in federal court last year, and this is a lawsuit to which Winooski was a full party in South Burlington joined as Amicus Curai, states the following, there could have been any number of reasonable alternatives available to the Air Force on how to configure Burlington, end quote. Furthermore, one of the options the C-130 from its noise and safety profile to the jobs it brings provides the win-win that our state, our nation, the local and state economy and the residents of the city and region need. Some people may wonder why politicians disagree on the conclusion to be derived from all of these factors or maybe not. Politicians often disagree. That is in the nature of representative democracy. We are of diverse viewpoints and opinions just as the public is and that is as it should be. The goal ultimately to the benefit of the public is a full airing of views in order to strike a balance between valid priorities and concerns. Pat Novak provided that on this council and we grieve her loss. I keep her in mind and not least of all in honor of her contributions to this six years long discussion and debate that we have taken up again tonight. We had honest and passionate differences. However, I believe and I do respect Pat and her position. On the other hand, there is the question of vested interests, securing votes from constituencies, corporate donations or some other political gain or promise of advancement and I will not take the time to highlight all the facts uncovered through the fine investigative journalism performed by many news outlets, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, the Boston Globe, including the reporting by Jasper Craven at the Vermont Digger. Suffice it to say, I am happy that Burlington voters have shown more sense than has our congressional delegation. It is also fortunate that I am free to say so. I am not bound by promises and be holden to no one and nothing other than my own conscience and I'm accountable only to the residents of South Burlington. Every day we start anew in order to uphold the democratic principles on which this country was founded. It takes a lot of work and there is much work to be done. The fact that petitioners had to go to the Burlington voters in order for them to have a say, instruct the local governing body that oversees the operations at the airport speaks to the failure of the democratic process in the spacing decision. We shall see if their efforts and the Burlington City Council's six to three decision to heed the will of the voters lead to a needed correction. Furthermore, taxation or any form of hardship without representation goes against our basic American democratic principles. We fought a war over it. The fact that South Burlington, the community that has sacrificed and will continue to sacrifice the most and that stands to benefit the most from the economic benefits of an airport provides, has no say over the spacing decision or airport improvement plans that directly impact our city is to put it simply on American. Some have argued to me that it is unconstitutional. Again, there is much work to be done. We have learned about the F-35's problems over the past six years. This decision is not just about the residents living around the airport whom the spacing decision has already impacted. It is about the regional and state economy and ultimately about our democracy. Thank you Burlington for listening to the people and for giving me the opportunity to stand in solidarity with you. Do you have any comments? Sure. So I had a long and short form. I'm going to give you the short form because I know I think I see where things are going and where we are tonight. Noise is tough. I mean you saw a lot of you were here for the conversation about the the dogs at the residents out there. We've had conversations about dog parks. There's no one right solution. But I just think it's very important that we're clear in what we're doing. This resolution is against the F-35. So if I just I heard a comment that I'm not against the F-35, this asked to cancel it. So as long as we clearly recognize that that's what this resolution is doing, I think we need to make a couple of wording changes and I'm going to just make a quick statement, the short version, on what that is. I don't believe this resolution focuses our attention or energy where it needs to be. Burlington has asked the question. The question goes to the secretary. They are forced. There's no need for us to divide our citizenry again and ask the very same question. We'll hear the answer. Is there an alternative mission or not? Very simple. Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger released a statement last week listing the multiple reasons why he still strongly supports the basing of the F-35 at the Burlington Airport. Our federal delegation of representatives, Sanders, Leahy, Welch recently asserted their support for the basing of the F-35s at the Burlington International Airport. Our governor strongly supports the basing of the F-35s at BIA. These elected leaders and their staffs have studied this issue exhaustively and come to the responsible conclusion that the F-35s are good for Vermont. The United States Air Force has come to the same conclusion. I have studied this issue, but admittedly, with a lot less time to do so and no staff support, and I agree with all of them. The F-35s are good for Vermont. They're good for the region and they're good for South Burlington. Any advocacy for this military basing decision is rooted in a benevolent desire to grow opportunities, strengthen the economy, and do our part to protect our great nation. The macroeconomic benefit of a robust and prestigious fighter jet mission for the Green Mountain boys is compelling enough for our elected leaders to support this federal military resource decision. It is also compelling enough for me to oppose this resolution and to again state my support for the basing of the F-35 at the Burlington International Airport. I am proud our Green Mountain boys were awarded this prestigious mission. This council and this community have been torn by this question on too many occasions. It is improper for this council to take action in a hurried or opaque manner. I'm really glad we're going to hear from comments tonight. The argument that all that is needed to have been said is false on its premise because people want to be heard. I don't think we need to take action tonight. I think the public needs to be heard. The public wants to be heard. The public have a right to be heard. If I was trying to stop the F-35 and I was in on this council, I would bring forward this resolution. I just strongly implore this council to do it the right way. Let's have a public hearing this week. I'm free. All right. Announce it. Let people come and be heard. I think it would be wrong to consider this action without time for people to speak. The topic demands of an official public hearing announced in Warren Dooley to take action in this manner would just be inconsistent with previously stated principles of the council. Process matters. The public matters. I think we need to look the public in the eye. All the public on both sides of this issue at an announced meeting when we act on contentious issues. I saw Governor Scott do that recently and it's the right thing to do. If this council feels this resolution holds merit and I strongly believe then I strongly believe we must hold an official public hearing and listen to what the people say before we act on it. And should this council still feel that we need to take action on this, I have two recommendations on how the wording of just the be it resolves. I've got some issue with the wearer's clauses, but I would strongly recommend that the wording of the first be it resolves state that the city council of South Burlington and not the entire city. I think that's a better representation of what this action does. It's for you to consider. I'm going to vote no no matter how this is framed, but I think it would be a better wording change for you to say the city council of South Burlington and not the you don't need to say and not the entire city, but to qualify the council and not the city. And I would also just like Burlington did, I would recommend you change the word from cancel to replace. They too, I don't think any of you want to cancel the mission of the guard. The first wearer's clauses says you support the mission of the guard. And that was a key point. I went to that meeting as well and watched it on tape. I think changing that word from cancel to replace still accomplishes your same thing while staying true to the message that I've heard each of you say that you support the men and women of the Vermont International Guard. Those are my two recommendations. I can't support this resolution in its current form, but if you wanted something, some better wording that I think would be less, I think would be more consistent with the statements I've heard you all say. I would encourage you to add the qualifier council and also change cancel to replace. OK. Thank you. Is there any conversation on Tom's two suggestions? If you want to do that now, sure. I would say that I believe that it is standard that we say city in resolutions. And I think that the the resolve clauses pick up the spirit and the will of the Burlington voters. So that's where I sit on those. And I don't think that it puts the mission into jeopardy. That's what they asked me. Tim, do you have any comment? OK. And I don't as well, although I might be convinced to. You know, strike, cancel and put replace. But I think it should be a statement of the city of South Burlington and not the council, because our actions are on behalf of the city. So at this point, I would like to open it up to the public. I will limit your comments to two minutes so we can get a maximum number of people to speak if there are some. And who would like to? You can guess. Would you come up and state your name, please? And my name is Lonnie Raven and I live in South Burlington and I work as a land use planner. And I have to say if this was anything other than a plane sponsored by the U.S. Air Force and our congressional delegation, nobody would stand for any kind of industry that would have this kind of impact on so many people. I've worked as a land use planner on the issue of affordable housing and it just seems insane to me that we're willing to erase not really a race, but it's really negatively affect thousands of houses. A majority of the city of Winooski. I mean, it's insane. It's crazy. As well as almost all of South Burlington's affordable housing. It just makes no sense whatsoever. And I personally am not on the flight path, so I'm not speaking for myself, but I have a daughter who again needs affordable housing. Her friends need affordable housing that when they go to the airport area, the airport neighborhood, they know they're buying substandard housing. The the the information that the people who are against this particular mission of the F-35A coming to Burlington, we are all not okay. I won't speak for everybody, but I'm basing my considered opinion on facts that the Air Force itself supplies. I'm not going by anybody else's representation. I'm reading the Air Force material. The Air Force material say that these houses will not be habitable. I'm not making this up. Nobody's making that claim except for the Air Force. So I believe them. So that's what I want to say and thank you. And I also want to thank the City Council for doing what they're doing. Okay, thank you. There was another. Yes. Yes, please. And then you can be next. Whoops. I don't know how to cancel this stuff. Okay. I got it. Hi, I'm Lucy Gluck. I grew up right up the road right near the airport in South Burlington and graduated from South Burlington High School in 76, so that ages me a bit. I live in Burlington now and I was really proud to vote for canceling the F-35s. And I'm really proud of this group for considering this again. I know it's been many years and many layers of work and people have worked so hard on this. And people keep saying, well, it's a done deal. It's happening. They're coming next year. And I feel like, you know, decisions can be changed based on new information. And it is time to really step up and step up strongly, you know, as a city in South Burlington. I know Wheniske's looking at it again tonight. And Burlington obviously voted strongly in favor of canceling. And I'm proud of us for doing that. I think it's hard to take something that's this contentious and look at it again and again and again. And I think it's going to be time after you pass this, which I hope you will tonight, that we go to Leahy and Bernie and Peter Welsh and talk to them from a place of community members from all of the affected communities here and talk to them about the evidence. The one piece I wanted to highlight, which I think you brought up, Helen, which was great, was the C-130, which has been put forward as an alternate mission does provide more jobs. It requires a minimum of three crew members, that aircraft. The F-35 and the F-16 that we have now just use one crew member, the pilot. And so choosing something like the C-130, which would at a minimum triple the number of crew members, does increase jobs. And the F-35 doesn't add any jobs to our area, but the C-130 could. So that's one of many, many reasons I think about safety. I think about our community. And I support the resolution. Thanks. Thank you very much. Yes. I'm John Ruer, a retired emergency physician recently doing occupational medicine, which involves the study of health of noise and its effect on health and so forth. And I hear wise decisions being made about the economic impact, especially with affordable housing for workers and so forth. But I haven't heard anybody on either side mention the health effects of this plane. The FAA does not buy these homes for fun or for any economic reason. It's because all available medical evidence has agreed upon that this damages people's health. This increases the rate of heart attacks, strokes, it delays learning in children, all kinds of cognitive effects. I bicycle past the airport on my way to St. Michael's when I teach conflict resolution. And when those planes go over, I stop and look at them. They're kind of neat to look at, but I can hear them. I can't do anything else, really, with that noise level. We heard an hour's worth of testimony about dogs bothering people at 40 to 50 to maybe 60 decibels over an hour as being terribly annoying. We're talking about 65 decibels per hour over large areas. If 35 comes here, 33,000 homes. That's a lot of health damage. And nobody on either side seems to talk about it. So I just want to speak up for patients in that way. The second point about health and is the mission of the guard is to protect Vermonters, as I understand it. If we were in danger of attack by fighter planes as we were at Pearl Harbor, the F-35 to me would make some sense. I'm firmly against this plane on any grounds. That isn't the dangers we face anymore. It's ICBMs with nuclear missiles on them. It's cruise missiles with nuclear missiles on them. It's terrorism. And it's natural disasters that are going to harm Vermont. The F-35 does not allow the guard to protect us from any of those things. And if the mission of the guard is to protect us, we know it's doing harm to have this plane there, the plane can't save us from any current issues that I can see. It's time to ask for a change of mission. So I appreciate your willingness to do that. Thank you. Yes. Whoops. My name is Julie Massuga. I'm a recent graduate of UVM and I live and work in Burlington. Almost any spare time I have had over the past three months has gone into preventing the F-35s from coming to our area. Contrary to popular belief, this is not out of some malicious desire to put the Vermonter National Guard out of business. Rather, it is a desire to do the very job of detaying itself as always set out to do. I want to protect Vermonters. The F-35, with its deafening noise, would do the exact opposite. And that is the crux of why this resolution must pass. It may be true for some folks that the infamous Burlington ballot item and subsequent resolution came down to a question of whether or not voters, quote, unquote, supported the guard. But that was never the real question for me. I wanted to know if we, as Burlington Tonians, cared enough about the health safety and prosperity of our neighbors in South Burlington, Winooski, to protect them from the impacts of an F-35 basing. Call me unpatriotic. I don't care. I do care about you, my neighbors. Admittedly, I used to be on the fence about the whole issue. I didn't think the status quo could change. I didn't think the F-35s would be that different from the F-16s. And I kind of like those sound of freedom bumper stickers. But once I took the time to do my own research, to delve deep into the issue and all of its implications, I realized I could not possibly support the spacing. A lot of semi-accurate information is being put out, but the fine print is often left out entirely. For example, I have heard arguments that over $80 million is going into upgrading the airport. This is true. But what is conveniently left out is the fact that only about 5 million of that is going toward the F-35s. If those who have regrettably become my opposition bring you facts, please ask for the whole story. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Yes? Frank Coffey, South Burlington resident. And I'm the president of GBIC, Greater Burlington Industrial Corp. First, I'll speak for GBIC. I think we know a great deal about the economy here. Chinna County is the economic engine for Vermont. And we're not really strong right now. We really never recovered from the recession. There are 1,100 jobs with the air guard. And this is about retention. And I've been doing this for 20-some odd years. Went through the whole IBM Global Foundries transition. And it was not easy. And we took down probably 8,000 jobs during that time period. This resolution, we could lose the guard. So there is no guaranteed mission here, period. As a South Burlington resident, I would ask you to amend your resolution as Tom Chinn and suggested, and not call for a cancellation but a replacement. There is a risk that we could end up with nothing. I don't know where the C1 30 came. But we've got about as much chance of getting a C1 30 as we do getting the space shuttle. So Burlington's resolution was debated. There was a lot of time that the people could see it, either you were for it or against it. But I would encourage you to remove the word cancellation because that really is asking for a total ending of mission here for the Vermont air guard. And thank you for your time. Thank you. OK, Tim. Now I know we had to cancel. Thank you. I'm Jimmy Lees from South Burlington. So I do think that canceled is the right word. The Federal Aviation Administration says why. They say the best, as has already been reported, the best way to solve the problem of noise is to remove the houses. That doesn't sound very good. And nobody, not even the last speaker, has argued that the F-35 is good for the children in our city. They're not saying this is going to help them. Now it's the US Air Force that's the most authoritative on this. And the environmental impact statement on page C29 and C30 gives what the Air Force has to say. I'll just read some of it. Several studies suggest that aircraft noise can affect the academic performance of schoolchildren. This is the Air Force. Evidence exists that suggests that chronic exposure to high aircraft noise levels can impair learning. Lower reading scores, tasks involving central processing and language comprehension, such as reading, attention, problem solving, and memory appear to be the most affected by noise. Chronic exposure of first and second grade children to aircraft noise can result in reading defects and impaired speech perception, more difficulty solving cognitive problems, puzzle solving, and attentiveness, poorer reading comprehension, and in selective cognitive impairments. There's more. This awareness has led the World Health Organization and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, working group to conclude that daycare centers and schools should not be located near major sources of noise. Look, the right word is cancel. We don't want the F-35. They will provide something else. Thank you very much. Welcome. And Liar. Yes. My name is Rick Hubbard. I'm a South Burlington resident. And I just wanted to talk on two issues we haven't talked about tonight that all relate to statistics and the concept of fat tail risk. If you're not familiar with it, fat tail risk is on a probability distribution when you have a low probability of something happening, but the impact can be humongous. Think of the 2007-2008 financial crash. We, two things we haven't talked about is statistically from the Air Force's EIFs, if I've interpreted it correctly and I think I have. The Air Force predicts that in the next five to 10 years we will have two to three class A mishaps. I think the threshold for that is 2 million bucks. We're talking about a crash or a blown engine while taking off, like happened in Florida with the F-35 in the next five to 10 years. God forbid that it doesn't go down in the most likely spots statistically, which is off the north end into Winooski or off the south end into Williston. In addition to that, we have made ourselves, if we're not already, by bringing the F-35 here, a massive first-strike nuclear, first-strike target. Think Hiroshima, and we're not talking about the neighborhood near the airport. We're talking about the risk of decimation to a big chunk of Chittenden County. Do you think that's far-fetched? Think about what is going on and the statements being made in our national level. People are talking about how our federal government is disintegrating in terms of the values we formed it at. We are changing the person on the White House. We're talking about where it's possibly in Syria, Korea, if that happens, how do the respondents respond? Possibly over to take out the first responders and the job is to train F-35 pilots to go over the pole and drop the nuclear bomb on a nuclear first strike on other countries or to be the first responders. We will, if we're not already, store nuclear bombs here because you'll have to have that with the mission. We don't talk about that. It is low probability. Humongous risk. Is it worth the effort? Is there anyone else? Lisa. Lisa Ventress, South Burlington resident and president of Vermont Business Roundtable. I want to endorse the recommendations that Councillor Chittenden has made tonight and encourage you to learn from, I think, the lessons of the Burlington City Council when they phrased their ballot item. It was determined to be very misleading to voters. So when you talk about wanting to support Burlington City Council who spoke the will of the people, I think there's a fair question that they really didn't know what the will of the people was. And so I would also encourage you to have a legitimate public hearing on this topic. You allowed the people speaking on the noise resolution earlier this evening to speak without limit and it was properly aired as a public hearing. We didn't get that opportunity. So there's not a transparent message from City Council about really wanting to hear the voice of the people. So I hope that you will not rush to vote on this this evening, but will take the time and invite the public to a legitimate public hearing to get everyone to speak to this issue and give you the input that you need. I also want to just make the point, I wish I could have checked with somebody, but it is my recollection that these planes, these jets, when they take off, will only be heard for six minutes a day. So it's not like the poor people who are next to the dog park that have to listen to dog barks, dogs barking all day long. I have two dogs, they bark a lot. I love them, but if I had to be listening to hours of that noise, it would be a distraction. But we're really talking about six minutes a day of this noise. So please, legitimate public hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Carmen. My name is Carmen Sargent and I live in that neighborhood. I didn't come here really intending to speak tonight, but I haven't heard anybody speaking for the people in the neighborhood, except some people on the City Council. I've lived there for 45 years, nearly 46. It's been a very disheartening experience to watch my neighborhood crumble and be taken up by the airport. Millions of dollars invested in buying up homes when the airport is profiting from that, yet they can't find money to build a sound barrier around the perimeter of the airport. Where's the justification for all of that? We've had hearing after hearing. This has been going on for as long as, I've been involved in it for as long as it's been open to the public. And we need to have a concrete resolution from the City Council saying that they support me as a resident of this neighborhood and as a long-term resident of South Burlington. We're not against the guard. What we are for is livability, schools and having a community where you can function with other people around you without being drowned out by loud noise. Bring on this whatever plane they can that's quieter and I'll be happy. I'm in my house for the long-term because it's my residence. I have a daughter with a disability who lives with me. The house has been made accessible. I can't afford to do that again, but I would like that on the record that some people just can't move. When people tell me that, well, move, I just can't do that. So please do what's right for us. People are speaking for the business community, but I'm just a small person speaking for my community. So I thank you and appreciate what you're doing. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Dan Finnegan. I'm an Essex resident speaking on behalf of myself. I would like to highlight, I spoke in Burlington about hijacking the will of the voters. As I listened tonight to you, Councillor Chinnan, and I listened to the NOAC family bring up the point that this hasn't been brought forward to the voters of South Burlington. I would say that this started in 2009. So we've had nine years of opportunity to no kid engage with the people of South Burlington think. And we haven't done that. Well, this council hasn't done it. What I do see is that 11,000 names were put on a petition in three weeks in support of the F-35, all in South Burlington. To me, that's a pretty big gauge of what the voters say. So I would just caution that when we use the words they are speaking for the people, please present the data. Please show that to be true. The other point I'd like to bring up is your resolution, I just read it tonight. Talks about the C-130. And I don't know, has anyone heard a C-130? Has anyone lived underneath the C-130 flight path? They fly for three hours at a time. They fly lower, they fly slower. Runway 119 that is right over South Burlington would be open to continuous pattern noise. So reading your resolution, it doesn't read like a significant amount of research was done to that, I would encourage you to become educated on that before you move forward. Thank you. Anyone else? Right? My name is Ray Ganda, I didn't plan on speaking tonight. Thank you for the opportunity. I've been fighting the F-35 coming here for over five years now. We've got meeting after meeting, city council after city council meeting, resolution after resolution. As for another public hearing, that's outrageous. There's been enough time spent on this already proceed with the vote. I've heard falsehoods repeated here again by the business community. Number one, that V-Tang will close if we don't get the F-35. That's pure hogwash, it's disingenuous, it's just a flat out lie. And I've published enough illustrating why that is not true. If you want the detail, just pick up seven days. On maybe Thursday this week. And you will see the reasons. So it's disingenuous to say that V-Tang's gonna close. The second point about the misleading ballot item on the Burlington vote, that also is ridiculous. I don't know if you've all seen it, but there was a mural had somebody from UVM write a letter and analyze the ballot item. She came to the conclusion that yeah, it could mislead some voters. But frankly, we informed the people of Burlington through front porch form and many other ways, many other venues over a four week period. So by the time there was a vote, they knew what that ballot item meant. So don't believe this hogwash of it was a misleading ballot. That's something that came from the top and it's a talking point all the way from the lay heat all the way down to Merrill. Throughout the whole political system. Thank you. Thank you. There was another, yes. Hi, my name is Doris Bedinger. I do volunteer work in South Burlington. I'll just repeat one thing I said at the Burlington meeting a while ago that I've done my own research and something I found recently that I didn't know before is that the threshold of pain for noise is rated at 110 decibels. The F16 flies at 115 decibels at 1,000 feet over Winooski. Pratt and Whitney makes the engine for the F35. They say in afterburner, which it's estimated they'll fly afterburner about 5% at the time here in Burlington. They are capable of 149 decibels. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Good evening. My name is Trisha Gustafson and I am a South Burlington resident. And it's been interesting. I haven't been keeping track of this whole process over the last several years because I've been busy trying to raise a young child and keep up with what's going on with the schools and everything else. And so this is recently, I've been more actively reading and learning and different viewpoints. Learned about Tom's viewpoint through his Facebook page this afternoon and catching up tonight with all your viewpoints. And to me, I was from New York State but have lived here about 22 years, I think, off of Kennedy Drive. To me, I've stayed here after going to UVM for quality of life. And since I had a child, I had a child, a 13-year-old, quality of life is really, at my age 55, it's like, that's really what life is all about. Relationships, quality of life, community and a positive, healthy community. We heard from so many people tonight, all the health issues that this thing could cause. Certainly, I'm sure there are business opportunities but we're smart enough in South Burlington and Chittenden County to come up with other business opportunities that are healthier. People have listed it. If it crashes, I'm outta here. I mean, I think we all have health issues and thyroid and stress just from the toxins that we have to deal with every day. So different than 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. So I just encourage you to think about quality of life and what you want as far as quality life and the community you wanna live in and how healthy. This place has changed in 22 years. My daughter just saw all these trees come down in the last, what, two weeks? A Market Street, Kennedy Drive, even in Burlington out near, you know, it's not South Burlington, but she's like, mom, where are all the trees gone? This is like one week and my whole view's gone. Do we wanna live like this? I mean, I don't. I want quality of life. I want nature. I want good relationships. I want good schools. I want, you know, to be able to feel good every day. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else? If not, I did get a text from General Cray and I would like to read it. I called him. He was out of the country, I guess, or out of the state. So I think it's a text. Come on. Yeah, because I did a prism of this and he said, good morning, Helen. Thank you for the voicemail last week. Unfortunately, I'm out of the country and can't respond personally. I'm disappointed by the council resolution but not surprised based on your comments at the Burlington City Council a few weeks ago. I'm still hopeful that one day the communities will work together instead of against but I thought that five years ago and unfortunately we can't move forward constructively. Please know that the men and women of the Air Guard continue to train and prepare for their current future mission regardless of these distractions. It's hard on them and their families to see and hear this unnecessary debate especially after the decision was made. They are professionals and will do their jobs but it's not without unnecessary stress. These resolutions in no way support the Vermont Air Guard and it's my job to keep us focused on the future mission and to be ready for the first aircraft arrival in a short few months. Thank you for your time, Steve. If there's no more, no other comments or issues raised, I would entertain a motion for approval or if there's any with the four edits unless you would like to make some other amendments. Can we have just a brief discussion about the proposal to use the word replace? So as it is today, it says... And this is a resolve, right? Yeah, be it resolve, the bottom says number one, cancel the basing and two, instead provide an aircraft that is compatible. So one side of me says it says replace contextually but doesn't say it literally. You could say replace the basing and condense it into one statement, one resolution is what it is and say cancel the basing and instead provide it. I mean, replace the F-35 with an aircraft that is compatible. I mean, you could replace it that way if you wanted to. But this is the resolution that's passed in Burlington. And the second statement provides the context for the first one. So, you know. I think it's the same. On that comment though, Helen, my, sorry. My understanding is that the city council in Burlington didn't pass with that language in the resolution clause. They passed the wording from the ballot item in the whereas clauses and then in the wording of the be it resolves, they very consciously chose the word replace because they support the mission of the air guard and they support what they do for a community. So it's very good distinction. So I think it would not be a departure from what the Burlington city council did if you went with the replace versus cancel. And I think that would be very meaningful to the guard in saying that you're not asking them to cancel their current mission. With respect to the Burlington city council and I do respect them. I do think that the voters who voted voted on a ballot item. And to be honest, I don't see the difference. And I understand that they presented an argument but I don't see the basis of that argument myself. If I may. To that point, I would just say raising what Mr. Pinnigan raised, the people in South Burlington as this is a very contested issue. I love ballot items. I've been pushing them for a lot of different things. I want to have a ballot item on the dog park, all right? I would support putting this to the people in a crystal clear manner. And I would say at the August 14th meeting, but to your point that the Burlington voters stated that it just wasn't the resolution that was passed by the council. And so our voters have not endorsed that language. And I'm aware of at least five hearings that I've attended on the F-35 in South Burlington. Six, if you include Winooski, seven, if you include Burlington. This has been discussed over since 2010 when the first public meeting was held. And to just be, even, you know, come back to the point is we don't own and operate this airport. I understand. I agree with you there on this issue. I'm sorry? I agree with you there on this issue. And so if the people who own and their representative government, representative government operates the airport, I'm going with them. I mean, that's what this resolution is saying. Two wrongs don't make a right. I mean, just because the governance configuration is screw is not optimal. It doesn't mean that we have to endorse it. It's the context we're working with them, right? We can't work in a... Peace on this. I would just say that word cancel contradicts the first wear as clause of this resolution. You read the first wear as clause. It states South Burlington values the women and men of the Vermont National Guard and endorses their mission to protect the citizens of Vermont. Their current mission is the F-35. I just think replace makes a lot more sense and it's consistent with what I've heard, but... It's a flying mission, is that understanding? Any further discussion? No, I'll just say that I think we've taken the temperature of the community repeatedly. And if I just go back to June of 2018, I think that was, there was at least two meetings here and then a public hearing at Tell the Middle School where many, many, many people testified. So I don't think we really need to have another public hearing on this for this resolution. This activity is going through Burlington and Winooski then Burlington had a vote. I think this city council has spoken before on this issue and this is another attempt that we're making to try and improve quality of life and stop the removal of homes in the chairmanal neighborhood. And it's a resolution, folks. It's a resolution. I think there's a timing issue as well. So we didn't put in place, but the city of Burlington did and I think for the, if we wish to have and I think we do have a positive impact with our standing in solidarity, then it really needs to happen sooner rather than later. And I think that really precludes having a public referendum. And as you and I have argued this before, we think very differently about having depending on referendum as a guidance for our decision-making. It can be helpful at times, but it also really slows down the process and can, and I remember back when we were debating in the legislature and the state in two different sessions, the Equal Rights Amendment, Vermont was the tipping point and the legislature did pass and vote in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment, but then it had by the process to amend the U.S. Constitution, it had to go to the public. And the amount of money and people that came in from other parts of this country to change that vote could take your breath away. So I think when you talk about referendums, you need to know there are consequences that where a lot of money can be spent to and it distorts the public's viewpoint. I would just counter and we could have this conversation for hours and we should get a cup of coffee and continue to do it. We have. I would just say this is local municipal governance. We are part-time representatives getting paid something that's not even worth mentioning because it's very small amount. Not to a dollar. Yeah. All I'm saying is I think it's slightly different when we want direct democracy with our local representatives on such local issues. Hearing where this council is going with this, I just wanna make one other statement that I jump past and I say this because I talk to people, I will have coffee with any of you, I think I've had coffee with half of the people in this room and I appreciate that and I see this role as a community listener and I wanna hear from people. What I've heard from people since this has come up and I just wanna relay this concern. I anticipate in seeing an increasing public concern with the direction this council is taking and I would say that some have said we've acted too quickly on the library lease, some have said we acted petuously and I checked the definition of that term. I think it's appropriate. How many that we acted in petuously by closing the dog park? I'm also hearing a lot of people talking about us acting too secretively on real estate deals and we're gonna, I'm not saying this, I'm saying these are the things I'm hearing and I'm just concerned that if we act tonight, if we don't schedule a public hearing for Tuesday night or Wednesday night and do this the right way, I just think it continues to degrade not my confidence. I know where we're all coming from but the public's confidence. So I think the right thing to do is the public comment. Tonight people are not told that they would have time to speak. You're gonna pass it, pass it, you get it done this week but just do it the right way. That's my last statement and you have your opinions. Well I guess I would just counter it was on the agenda with consideration and possible improvement and every other time we have had that on, at least when I've chaired, have had that on the agenda, we've allowed for public comment and I did tonight. I know I said to you, I didn't think we really needed it because we have had five public hearings and multiple conversations that were very public. We've had several elections with people who opposed the F-35 and have gotten re-elected. So, but whomever was here was free to speak. My point was that it just wasn't advertised that way. So people, as far as they knew, there was no public comment tonight. So if you wanna just do it the right way. We always have public comment when we have items on our agenda, that's my point. We had all those people for the dog, the noise. I mean that was a public hearing. But as people asked me about this, I did not have the understanding there would be 15 minutes on this. So if you wanna do it right, I recommend public comment. Well, we've spent almost an hour. I will move to approve the resolution as presented with those typographical corrections. Second. Any further discussion? I would move to amend the resolution word, cancel to replace. Is there a second to that? Seeing none, we'll go back to the original. So we have a motion before us. If there's no further debate, all in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? Nay. So it passes three to one. Thank you very much. And thank you public. Item 12, announcements. And the city managers report. Did anyone go to, I need with their up, a Green Mountain transit meeting that you wanna report on? At an operations meeting and a leadership committee meeting, we, I will have something to report to you but I need to wait till the next meeting. So. Okay. Nothing big, just something I don't, oh, no, you're not on a committee yet. Stuff that we did? Announcements? No, no, this was just, oh, that's right, I'm sorry. I skipped down to the committee report. Pardon me. So let's go back to, yeah, announcements. Okay, announcements. Yes, yeah, I'm sorry. So would you like me to go now? Yes, please. So, I attended the bigger, better, I'm like, better or not bigger webinar at UVM. Oh, yeah. Which is very interesting about. Can we have the conversation out in the hall, please? Thank you. Which was a webinar with the professor in, I think it was Eugene Oregon, who's done some research on growth rates in cities and how sometimes growth is not good for communities and how large growth rates are well correlated with increased rates of poverty and lower incomes. So it was a short presentation. There were some PowerPoint slides. I'd like to know more about it. Obviously, trying. Is that the webinar? Yeah, yeah, yeah. They had some technical difficulties. Yeah, I wanted to go to a two and, but they had technical difficulties. So I don't know if we really missed a lot. For about 15 minutes. So you could have used, it could have been a conference actually. Yeah. I also attended the, I was the only person from the public to attend the Vermont gas, Public Utility Commission gas rate decrease hearing. Oh. The only member of the public. It was in your bill. Gas rate decrease. Well, they're going to decrease the rate. They're going to decrease the price of per unit of therm of gas, but they're going to increase the fixed cost rates by 4%. The overall projected cost decrease would be about a fifth 16% decrease, but the fixed cost increases will then go on until they have another increase. So if the price of gas goes up, two things happen, right? Your part of your fixed, fixed cost billing is tied to your natural gas usage. So that goes up. Plus the regular fixed is by day and that goes up. So I said, please restrict them from 4% to 1.8% because obviously Vermont gas, this is a personal opinion, doesn't know how to manage money well in view of what happened with the whole Addison Pipeline, you know? So anyway. That's overrun too. That, and I also attended- Autopay does, you don't read the bill anymore. I attended a screening called Only the Lonely, which was a movie made by the student Nate Ploof at SBHS. He's part of the Big Picture program and Susie Merrick was there and several SB teachers. It was a 12 minute film that he made with some people at the high school that he wrote and directed and it was an attempt to dramatize the effects of depression and anxiety in teams and the possibility of suicide and it's very powerful. And I recommend you watch it if you'd like to, but I don't have a link for you to look at. I have a link in my email. I could send it to you later if you'd like. I was interested in that but could not make that film screening. So I would like the link. Sure. Thank you. That's all I have. That's all. Okay, Tom, nothing. You didn't go to that meeting. Okay. I'm interested in any of those future growth seminars. So if you guys hear about them, I'd love to attend them. It was you. Yeah. No, no, no, no. That's it. Okay, we'll do. I've had a very busy time with work but I did notice that the Mozart Festival was not gonna be in South Burlington for any of the dates this summer. So I did contact Michael Dabrowski and if I'm happy to talk about this at another time, I just, I'm wondering if there should be some more consideration to, on his part or our part together, together to see if it could work in some way. So I just wanted to I saw him too. He said he's not doing South Burlington this year. Yeah, yeah. And I think he's disappointed. I think he'd like to. Uh-huh. So I certainly have enjoyed him. Were we at the price of that earlier? Yeah. Oh, okay. And we, did we make it? He's just chosen to, I don't think he felt we supported him strongly enough in his concert series. We were the launch partner. I'm happy to do so, but he's just felt that we needed to give him more support and. That's not what I heard from him. Oh yeah. Maybe I'd be happy to get your version of it, Megan, because that's the, what I'm discerning from folks. But I'm happy to talk to him about it always. Those concerts I thought were really good. We've, we've got our six Bites and Barra. Bits and Barra. So Buu Night out concerts coming up this summer. And I thought one of them could be that, but. And Alice in Boulder actually Andrew's mother is on the board of the Mozart Festival. And it might be helpful for us to maybe speak with members of the board. I, I, I got a sense that it was more to do with the process of being included on the edge, you know, the schedule of concerts, that it was, it was a lot of hoops to jump through. So that's, that was a sense I got from him. Well, that sounds like we could probably work on that. Our hoops are his. Yeah. Our hoops. Yeah. Okay. If I could just double. Lots of meetings. I didn't mean to change the subject, but I want to mention one thing during an announcement site that I forgot to do. I've heard from about five Rick Markcott Central School parents, very concerned with the library plan. So I think we, I think we've done a good, we, our documentation and our presentation is, I believe clear, but I think we need to do a better job of promoting what that new planning configuration looks like. I've heard concerns about where Rick Markoff it's into that library plan. Uh-huh. I relayed that via email to him. Well, and I've had conversations with individuals with the library board and they are interested and willing to really help to communicate to share the vision and the plan. What they are, what's holding them back, I think at this point is the land swap and knowing actually exactly where the library in your center city hall will be before they launch the conversation with the public. So, and potentially I think we need to have more conversations with the steering committee. Well, have a steering committee meeting about, you know, our visions for city hall or city center and bring them into the loop a little bit more. Publicize it so that families could attend, perhaps. Perhaps. I mean, we certainly have had lots of conversations with them. So, and we've, there isn't a connection and Kevin and I are going to meet with Elizabeth and David to try to tease out what are the real issues about this land swap and their concerns around having the library so close to the school. Cause I think the messages they have given are concerning to parents. Cause the thing I liked about the library design was that the children's section was right on the first floor and I thought how appropriate when you're a neighbor to a K through five school to have that children's section and only the children's section, maybe the periodicals are there too, I can't recall. But. I think the seniors are on the first floor too. Yes, yes. But the fiction and nonfiction and the teens and tweens are upstairs. And I just, I thought it was a really sensitive configuration given replacement and sighting of it. So I would welcome that discussion because as a parent of a first grader, I would love to have that library within walking distance from her school to be able to go. I mean, I'm happy to take her to the mall and we do go to the mall and we went over here before to the community library. But it's a place she loves going to. It's a place where I know it's gonna be an enriching environment for her and she always wants to take home tons and tons of books. So it's only a plus, it's only. The statement I made and I sent an email about this is I don't know how truthful this is. I, it's not intentionally, if the library doesn't go there, it's privately owned and I've stated for all we know another four story apartment building could be there. So I'm just, that's the way, from me as a parent, I want a library there rather than. It's a good, it's a disco tech. At this point, Snyder Braverman owns all of the property that South Burlington Realty, so is in private hands. And they're working with the city to, and working with us to find the parcels that we want including a, you know, where, when and if we need the parking garage, not if, but when we need a parking garage and all of those kinds of issues. So, but clearly there was some lack of understanding or communication or, I don't know, we're going to try to get to the bottom of this because it seems as if we are two different communities and not communicating and that's unfortunate because the taxpayer pays all of it and they get caught in the middle. So, and there's a lot at stake with the TIF district. I mean, we can't just sit back and wait forever, so. I guess the only thing in terms of city council, I won't consider it work, but I think most of us went to either the calling hours for Pat or the service and I went to both. And so that was sort of the sad part of the last two weeks. It was a beautiful service. It was an absolutely beautiful service and, right, the Monsignor was very good and Christina's eulogy was awesome. I love how Pat told us we should go but I did. I did too, and that's what I said to the Monsignor and he smiled at me and he's, yeah. This. So, yeah, no, it was, and I went to the luncheon afterwards and it was delightful. They did a really, really neat job. City managers report. Well, I have been away a little bit in a much warmer place. Other than, yeah, anyway, I won't be labor that. We keep waiting. I did, there's several things I do want to report on tonight. I did get a complete debriefing from Tom from his appearance before the school board on the matter related to the land swap and I think to sum it up, he's quite disappointed in the response, unable to elicit even an indication that they're willing to work with us to get a deal. That being said, Alan and I are gonna have the meeting and I think it's on Friday with David and Elizabeth to learn more. In the meantime, I think it's prudent to begin a design effort to seek modifications of the building so that it actually fits in our property such that we do not need to have any land swap at all. Still retaining all the features that we want, such as the children's library on the first floor, senior center and so on, but design it in such a way that it simply fits on our property. Fortunately, a lot of the work that was done on the design was around the programs, understanding what the public wanted and where. And so, designing the building so that it actually sits on the property seems to be a way that we need to have a backup at least so that we're not gonna lose time against the November vote. So we're meeting with the architects to understand that tomorrow. I am happy to report that I was informed that we have received, we've been approved for the University of Vermont Medical Center Community Health Improvement Program grant. Oh no, at the grant. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry for our mental health thing. Oh, cool. Yeah, there are some restrictions on it that I have to understand, but I was informed when I was away that the committee approved the grant. So. How much was the grant for? The grant was for 80 or $82,000, I can't remember. Oh, cool. $80,000. So that, is that over the whole till the end of fiscal year 19? I think that's probably gonna end up being a fiscal year 19 grant. I'm not sure what their grant cycle is exactly when the actual money arrives, but I think it's probably a July to June grant. And it's renewable, so it can go for, I think, three years. So does that offset any of the community charges? It could. I need to understand from them what the restrictions are. Maybe we can just offset ours. Yeah, I'll find that out. I have to talk to the grant manager this week. Anyway, good endorsement there. Market Street, because this issue's come up and Tommy would email me with some questions about Market Street. Right now, the plan set is complete. Our plan set is now with all the utility, everything, all the design features are at VTrans. There's a 10 day period of time during which they review the plan sets and pull down the federal money, at which time we will be cleared to go out to bids. So that should be in the next 10 days. And we have already notified the companies who we will be sending bid documents out to that they are coming. And so that would go out immediately. We'll give them a one month turnaround time and then probably a week to choose and to refine the contract. And the approval of the contract comes back to you for a final say, and then we're going. So it looks like it's gonna coincide with the end of the school session, but we're still expecting it to be within the next two weeks after school's out. So probably by the end of June, there'll be construction going on. We'll be planning a groundbreaking ceremony that there are so many people who've been involved in this over the many years, including a congressional delegation and former members of the council. So as soon as we can get a good date together, we'll get that out to the council and see what we can do. But that's the schedule, what it looks like now. We should anticipate approving your selection in May sometime. This is from Market Street. It's from Market Street. Yeah, it's from Market Street. We're not talking about the market street. No, no, we're not talking about the market street. Maybe, maybe late May. Late May, okay. Yeah. Do you think that the construction will be done to let the ingress to central school from market will be available by the time school starts? I don't know. I don't know. Yeah, that's one of the things that Alan and I are. That's one of the things that we really need to engage them with. So they know as soon as we know. We've been talking to the school district for three years about this, and so we've got to figure this out. This first Chittenden County Public Safety Authority board meeting is Wednesday. So all the other communities have signed their documents and it's going on Wednesday. Alana and Corley, and I'll probably be in on it too, are hosting an event for the South Burlington seniors here. I'm signed up to attend because I'm a senior. Good. To talk about the senior center component of the, and to brief them in on what the plan is and get their input on what needs to be going on inside. And then Alana and I are also appearing Wednesday night at the CCRPC to give approximately 15 minute presentation on the status of city, so that's what I got. Okay, thank you. And then reports from committee assignments, we have none at this point. Okay. All right, consent agenda. Now we did have in our, at our place, and I haven't had a chance to read it. We have an email from Doug. From Doug, yes. He references the April 10th, and it's what he means the April 2nd. April 2nd, yeah. Okay. So, because- So he- That I can go fix it. Yeah, and there was also, I believe I seconded, Tom's. You might have a low voice, or I don't think you have a high voice. Huh? Yeah. So I think there was, I just, I had this lingering doubt, and I went back and listened to the tape, and it was my voice. Okay. So, it sounds like we need to pull April 2nd minutes. You have more April 2nd? That was it. Oh, this, yeah. But it's in here, right? No, I didn't, I didn't send it to you because I didn't remember it, and then I had this lingering, like, I thought I did that, and I went back and just checked. Do you want to pull the second? Are you, are y'all comfortable with Doug's suggestion, or? I didn't read it. I didn't read it. Yeah, I think if that really reflects what he said, because he had it written down, I think, that's fine. I mean, we all do that. We want to make sure our thoughts are clear. We may not actually be the exact words we used, but minutes are meant for clarity and understanding of the concepts that were discussed. And I hate to do this again, but March 19th, and I think I did send this on page four. It's right in the middle of the page with the paragraph that begins Ms. Emery, the last line. It wasn't a multi-unit building. It was multiple single-family homes were taken down. A portion of new homes built should be single-family homes. Page four of the March 19th. What page in our thing is that? 58. It should not multi-family, but what? It should be multiple single-family homes. I just copy-pasted. Yeah, no, that's. So from your note, maybe your note was 17-year-old? No, no, this is the wording I was trying to correct. So I don't know what happened. I mean, a part of me says, oh, well. And I'm willing to say, oh, well. Okay, let's say, oh, well. But, oh, well? Okay, oh, well. I second, oh, well. All right. Okay, oh, well, no, well, oh, well. So we're only gonna pull April 2nd. So I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda A, sign disbursements, B, the minutes for March 19th, 28th, and April 10th. I'll so move that. Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Okay, thank you. And now, moving right along, I would entertain a motion to go into, or become the liquor control board to approve one application. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Looks good. So interstate shell? Move to approve the interstate shell application as presented. Second. All in favor? Aye. Good enough, okay. Motion to come out of the liquor control board? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. All righty. Other business, we do not have any items held from the consent agenda. Number 17 is a possible executive session to discuss labor relations agreements with employees and real estate. We no longer have to do the appointment. Okay, so I will move that we enter executive session to discuss labor relations agreements with employees and real estate with the city manager. Is that the only person who'll join us? The answer is coming, okay. All right. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. We won't be coming up. Right, we will not be coming back with any decision. Okay. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. One more signature.