 I think so yeah okay all right so I would like to call to order the South Wellington City Council meeting of Monday March 19th and we'll begin with a pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God in the invisible with liberty and justice for all. Then our next item is instructions to exit the building in case of emergency. Case of emergency this evening all members of the public and the council please exit to the right here out of one of these two doors and proceed to the parking lot on the south end of the building. If this is blocked please go out the main entrance to the building out the way and to the same parking lot Tom and I, Tom Hubbard and I will be responsible for making sure the building is clear expedition. Missing was deletions changes to the agenda should Okay so I'd like to change the agenda and add a new 2A we inadvertently left off the discussion if there's any changes additions deletions to the agenda. So are there any? Megan? I'd like for us to discuss the community mental health initiative under other business. I have two other things. Paul Connors can be addressing us tonight on the land development regulation amendments and I was hoping that we could just add in there I don't know if he's prepared or not but an update on negotiations on the Eau Claire property. We are gonna cover that in executive session. Okay and then the third one is actually and then I have a change. The third edition I requested a second edition here. Okay I want us to discuss the possibility and I would think hopefully it would it would become a reality. Open planning sessions with city stakeholders in the public in order to prioritize financial investments. Yes I'm requesting to speak to the idea of having open planning sessions with the city stakeholders and the public in order to prioritize financial investments and decisions. We've had many people contact us about bike lanes, athletic playing fields, recreation facility, open space land purchase, the community mental health initiative and other such items. So I know I went fast. So it's open planning sessions for just for us to be able to prioritize because we have a limited amount of funds and so prioritize everything. Right. We have special requests that aren't currently in the budget. We have the bike rack so we can I just wanted to do sure. So you want to add that to the other business. Okay and then a change. I I know that we don't necessarily strictly follow Robert's rules but we do loosely follow Robert's rules and my understanding and I was the parliamentarian at UVM for the Executive Council of the Union. So I read the book is that whenever there is a policy decision, if there is to be an amendment or a change to the decision, it has to be one of the members who voted in favor of that policy decision who requests that that be put on the agenda. And so we have here item number 13, consider and possibly amend decision related to the JC Park dog park. I'm requesting that because Tim made the motion Pat seconded it and then I was added to the three members of the council who voted to approve the closure that we discussed that under other business and decide Tim and I are here whether or not we want to have that put on a future agenda. Okay. I would just note it was and I shared this with you. I know the reason it's on the agenda was not to reopen it, but it was a question I raised with the city manager about taking the gates off and he was willing to thought it was a good idea because it would open up that part of the park to additional people. But I felt that we the council ought to discuss it. And that's why it is an item. It really isn't about reopening the dog park. It is about taking the doors off. So if someone wanted to play with their kids in there or sit on the benches or whatever, it would not be a, it's a pretty significant piece of the park and my estimation that is now chain linked off but presented as an amendment. It is linked to the original decision and so any amendment can only be made or the request by someone who voted in favor of that. So the logistic request just to move it down to other business, right? Okay. Is that it? That's fine. Okay. I'm not going to die on the sword. I just thought we should have a discussion. Yeah. No, it was an issue that, you know, process and all. I didn't, I thought we should discuss it. I'm sorry that it was about amending the decision because I'm not certain it really amends it but we can move item 13 into other business, which is fine. Any other changes or deletions or additions? Just on that. It could 13. I was happy to see it because of all the conversations we've had but is it just as likely that you might be open to changing the wording of this as part of the change of the agenda to not an amendment but just a another discussion with possible action related to JC Park? That's according to Robert's rules and and there's a reason otherwise it's like roundhog day. That means that sure. No, I understand that. Disagree she can or he can constantly bring up right and and so that's the reason for it where only members or members of the public like last time and then you move to have it be put on the agenda and it wasn't seconded. So just my notion the other option is then they have one of the three members who voted for the policy to have it put on the again. I was pleasantly surprised to see it and just wondering if we can just as easily reframe the wording so it can just be discussed what you talked about which is not amending that the approved policy but instead discussing what 278 residents brought forward to us in a petition. I'm not going to die on this sort either so whatever whatever direction I think there's a reason and a rhyme to Robert's rules. So I think there is. Do we know if we're expecting people at 940 about this? Does anybody know? I do not know that and I didn't send out. I mean that's one all-point bulletin about it. No. And if people show up perhaps we could bring it. So that's a good reason to keep it. Or the discussion. Do you want to just change the wording of the agenda item? Is that sufficient? That's fine discussion. Okay. Can we do that? Can we just change the discussion? Yeah. And I think one of us can since that's kind of a motion I'll second that to him. Okay. So discuss this. The dog fence doors is the issue. Okay. And I have some other comments in terms of going forward with issues that are really tricky like this. Just to make sure that when votes are taken that all five of us are here. So if there is someone missing if we can we did that quite a few times. I think when we were dealing with the airport because it certainly leaves me at a disadvantage. I think and I couldn't even listen to the tape because it wasn't taped. So that's just me and we don't need to discuss that. I just think that's another issue that is related to how we make decisions moving forward and making sure that all voices are heard and accounted for if I might raise a process. Sure. Thank you. This was a staff level decision and it had never been vetted by the Recreation of Parks Committee decision to locate the dog park at JC and at Farrell. So in my viewpoint, there was not a public process prior to the opening of the parks. So I think that with discussion of process, that's that's also an issue for us to think about. Sure. And my issue is just making sure everyone's here. Unfortunately, Pat will not be joining us tonight. So do we not make decisions when someone's not here? Well, no, I think it's just really challenging ones. Like we held off on a number of the airport decisions to make sure everyone was here. Good members, then let the council chair know if there are items on the agenda that they would like that might be a good idea because they really want to be there to vote on. But we didn't find out that Pat would be here till a few minutes ago. Yeah. So okay. So item three is and going into an executive session to discuss legal issues. I don't know. So I would entertain a motion to enter executive session to discuss legal issues related to current and proposed restrictions on land use at the Wheeler Nature Park, as well as a potential purchase of property utilizing funds from the city's open space fund with Paul, Paul Connor, David Rue, David Rue, Tom Hubbard and Kevin Dorn joining the council. I had a former counselor as well as a member of the task force request to know why this had to be done in the executive session. This discussion and I think that's a reasonable request. Which one? Yes, the Wheeler Nature Park. The restrictions. The last time that the council was briefed on this may have been on the 20th outside council advised that he could not answer. Actually, they were your questions, Megan, about the homestead in open session. It was the opinion of legal counsel that this be done in executive session. Four reasons he will explain when we get into the executive session. But when outside council or legal counsel advises us on matters like this, I think we need to listen to that when when the subject matter is pivotal to the decision that you're gonna make. Could a member of and he's not here anymore? I thought he was just stepped out. I know that he would like to be present in order to understand exactly what restrictions and I do see his point that had the task force been apprised of these restrictions that would have been helpful to them prior to them doing the work that they did over a year. Is that possibility? Could we entertain? I would strongly advise not. I have another possible solution for you in executive session if you would like to pursue it and then talk about it in open session if you wish that I think will do a far better job of of of addressing that issue. I think Megan. Okay, so when we come back, we will be able to discuss it in open session. Yeah, you could add it to you could add it to other business at that time and discuss. Since he's here now, could we make it 3a? I'm not the chair. That would be fine with me. Um, unless well, I guess the other issue is are there other people besides Mr Mitigie or Mitig who would like to hear if I could weigh in with you on that in executive session? I think there's a possible solution to that issue. Okay, could we just make a simple report back to Mr Mitag when we come back? Since he's requested, I think so. It sounds like we'll have a simple solution. So when we come out of executive session, we'll have a report back on the Wheeler land park. So so nature park. Okay, so we're moved into executive session a second second. Second. All in favor. I post. Okay. We're on TV. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Um, return from a party show. They simply talk about it. Yeah, we'll talk about. All right, I'd like to call back into session the South Brunkton City Council Meeting of Monday March 19th. From our executive session we have agreed to have two separate executive session meetings with committees that are interested and involved and one will be with the task force that was dealing with the Wheeler Nature Park next the next time we meet April 2nd and then we'll have a special meeting on the 28th Wednesday March 28th and that will be regarding the Eau Claire property and it will include several of the standing committees planning natural resources and parks and rec as well as the all the parties that are a part of this that I guess real estate conversation and the City Council so it will be publicly warned but it will be an executive session and probably there will not be any action after that meeting. We have a stadium picked out for that meeting. Right it will be a large meeting so that is what I can share from our executive session. We are going to skip down to item 6 the public hearing second reading and possible adoption of amendments in the city's public nuisance ordinance. Andrew. Good evening Councillors Andrew Bulldeck City Attorney South Burlington. So at the last meeting on the 20th we discussed some it was a second reading in public hearing on amendments to the nuisance ordinance in those in the amendments that were proposed then there was a restriction on the timing of when persons keeping or harboring any dog or cat which by frequent and long continued noise unreasonably disturbs the comfort of the pose of persons in the vicinity that was changed to unreasonably disturbs the peace or health of persons in the vicinity and it's plainly audible between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. it was later changed to 7 a.m. there was also a discussion of noise related to trash pickup and removal and we heard a couple hollers come in and discuss that and that has since been removed from the proposed amendments. There was also the included exemption of noise from a permitted use in an applicable zoning district of the city's land development regulations provided and complies with the regulations specific performance standards for that district. So that again is taking out some of the situations when there may be a permitted use in a zoning district and bringing it over to the performance standards of the LDRs. So those are the amendments that are in front of you now and I did receive comment from one member of the public who voiced a concern about what about people that work during the the evening and the next morning there's a dog out in the yard barking incessantly and I looked at our care and control of dogs and cats ordinance and we actually have a section that is broad enough to cover that circumstance for someone harbour for someone who owns a dog. Okay. Do you have a comment? Yes I have a comment. So if you saw front porch forum I did post a request for feedback on the trash hours and I received about 25 responses I was I was surprised as many people responds they did and the overwhelming majority of it was in favor of extending it one hour to 7 a.m. there were a couple of people who were reticent over the this safety factor that the two holler administrators talked about and with children possible conflict well yeah with children and bus stops and things like that but at least 90% of the responses were they would like to see it moved till 7 a.m. or 8 or 9 or 10 or I would like and I believe there might be somebody in the audience who's here to talk about this tonight I'm not sure all right so there's a couple so so since this is a public hearing I mean I'd like to give them a chance to talk about it and and see if we can work on this part it to the public's pleasures if we could okay are there any other comments by counselors our question and we have to make a motion to open the public hearing so I so move second all in favor I okay so our public hearing is open so are there two individuals if there's more would you like to come up to the table please please state your name and speak into the Mike clearly Curtis Schultz a little work he doesn't terrace and I can understand they wanted to get there their stuff done early especially especially during the summer months when it gets hot out but the noise the noise is a fending and it's not so bad during the winter time when the windows are closed so we can get around the school part of it there where they can start at 7 o'clock during the summer time and still keep their 6 a.m. during the winter months if the school you know to get around the whole school thing but during the summertime I like to sleep my windows open and I hear them out there banging a slamming you know sometimes before 6 a.m. the other morning I was out back with my dog and Barbara terraces on the other side from me and there's a Myers truck going down there at 6 0 5 and obviously he started before 6 a.m. if I saw him at 6 0 5 at the end of Liar Street or at the end of the end of Barbara Terrace so I mean you know it's like I said if it's the school school part of it let's be at let's have the quiet hours at least for the summertime and people have their windows open and make you know make some contention for their to them and also try to keep peace for the community and that's what I have okay thank you very much please Tim Meyer I live over on East Terrace I definitely support changing it to a 7 a.m. pickup as of now I moved my family East Terrace back in September and when we first moved in my wife and I were woken at 4 30 in the morning wondering what is that sound they are emptying the garbage at 4 30 but at the Corey Hill properties and in the staples Plaza I mean they are you know completely blowing the 6 a.m. out of the water and I think 7 a.m. is a is an easy time frame for them to accommodate it really makes it like the last gentleman said that we can't sleep with our windows open in the summer which is something that Bermonders I think really appreciate because our windows are closed so much for most of the winter and my kids both sleep on the backside of the house and we're having to shut their windows in the summer and I don't really find that you know super acceptable when those properties are easily a quarter to a half mile away from me and I can hear the dumpsters being slammed you know way before 6 a.m. so I hope you guys can consider that for the future okay Tom can I just ask one question of both of you do you feel like multiple service haulers are providing this service the same week so you're hearing you're getting woken up on Monday as well as Wednesday as well as Thursday because Myers all cycle in Kasella are all serving the same area we'll forget both years or goth years it's for me personally it's Thursday and Friday mornings Thursday morning being the biggest culprit for sure but two different haulers serving the same street I would assume so I'm not sure who takes care of the staples Plaza but I know it's Myers who's doing for hell. Yeah I know it would be there. I work five hours a week and one night so it varies who comes through. I mean it seems like the only one who does who does respect it is Gunthears. I don't see them coming through until like 10 o'clock 9, 10 o'clock in the morning but that's just where I live. Yeah somewhere else I'm sure it's 6 but possibly is. They're my neighborhood. You're at 545. Yeah. I definitely want to hear more from the public especially on this issue. I just want to say I'm not a post to this. I was with Council Emery on pulling it back next time because I just see a larger conversation to be had about how to do trash in South Burlington. We're out of step and compared to the rest of this nation 80% of municipalities have some sort of consolidated service. We're in that 20% which translates to us paying more with greater inefficiencies wearing down our roads a lot faster and more noise problems. So I'm fully on board with thinking about trash in a smarter way. I'm just wondering if it's best to do it here or if we can get the haulers to the table to talk about other larger possibilities. But I mean the subject at hand right now is an open public hearing, right? Just about noise and nothing else. And I'm sensitive to the haulers request. I mean I found some of their arguments just didn't make a lot of sense to me but maybe it's because I'm not on the truck seeing what they see. I understood what really caught my ear was the fact that that the transfer station closes at what was it four o'clock whatever right. And so they're basing their business their daily business cycle on that closure but sometimes they leave the trucks full and then they go empty them in the beginning and then they go out and start collecting. So I mean ultimately in my mind who is the customer for the trash haulers the people that they're picking up the trash from what do the customers want. They don't want to be awakened at five three in the morning with a lot of banging around. I mean they just reminds me the time I went to Florida once to it and I was like right on the water and I was in this condo and at five o'clock in the morning the truck was like backing up beeping and smashing you know that I'm like I was awake going what's that's a great vacation or a good way to start it right. So this issue has bugged me even when I lived on Meadow Road right and I have run out you know and stopped trucks in the middle of the road and said do you know it's five thirty and you're not allowed to be in here until at that point I thought it was seven o'clock back in the late 90s right. And I had succeeded in getting them to stay out just by virtue of me yelling at them right you know and calling their offices and telling them to stay out of my neighborhood until whatever that you know the time says to be. So I would like to move it to seven a.m. if if we have to compromise on that to six thirty any improvement over six a.m. to me is good but then it's left up to the public to enforce it because the city has no understanding about where these trucks are at six thirty in the morning or seven o'clock. It really is up to the public to pick up the phone either call the planning and zoning. The zoning administrator complain or to call the hall or themselves and say do you know what the noise ordinance says if you persist in this we will have to call zoning and then you will be issued some sort of a of a sanction right so. That's the way it needs to be played out the public has to be involved but the first thing is where do you set the mark to me seven a.m. is the place to set it. And if we change that we have to have another public hearing four weeks from now so if we do go that route before we think it's two two weeks I think right. And we could continue public hearing to the to a later date on this particular topic we probably want to rewarn it because it is a significant change to what was worn for this meeting so depending on when we could get the warning out it would either be two to four weeks. So again I just think a better conversation to put this into is about consolidated service and trash collection in South Burlington but I'm not opposed. I'm with you and where you are with us. I don't know that that would save the time to be honest. I think it would increase potentially the amount of time that they're on the roads but. If they didn't have to cover as much land if they had parts of the city this could be done a lot more intelligently and they wouldn't have to be covering as much geography. And I think another really big nut to crack. We can do it other municipalities. Well every condo association in South Burlington has probably one trucking one hauling service that takes care of it. In my neighborhood there's an association but they're also single family homes. So you have one picking up for all the for all the you know the homeowners association and you have three others competing and going flying up and down the roads on the same day. Just going around in circles and in circles and trying to figure out where the one house is on Royal Drive. That's their customer you know if it's a new driver so. Well one of the issues they they did raise was the transfer station right which I think is is probably a real issue. But one of the haulers runs the transfer station I said why don't you just adjust the time of the transfer. So one conversation might be in the larger picture is to change the time of the transfer station. Let it be open till five o'clock and then you could start at seven and you'd have whoever many hours that is 10 hours. I'm sad I don't have an update on this and again if the public wants to speak you guys y'all take priority right now. But we met Justin Rabadu as well as Chapin Spencer the director of public works in Burlington about a month and a half ago to flesh out a possible Burlington South Burlington coordinated consolidated service discussion. And that was going to come back up in this next couple of weeks. I don't know if Kevin has an update if you've spoken with Justin on this topic but again I just think this is a broader conversation that Burlington is interested in for the organics issue. Also on the they want to get out of the recycling collection and they want to privatize that but do it in a smart way so that we don't have five haulers going through our neighborhoods wearing down our streets wasting carbon emissions that don't necessarily need to be emitted. And it would lower prices so it would lower prices for consumers if we had consolidated service in South Burlington chair there's a gentleman raising his hand. Oh I'm sorry please come back up. You know even with the current time being at 6 a.m. from the pickup this gentleman here saying he's seeing him there at 4 30 in the morning and stuff like that. We have police cruising around 24 hours a day. Why aren't they being ticketed? You need a call. Why aren't the police enforcing the ordinance? Well if you call and file a complaint they can't enforce it. But if they're right there seeing it not being followed why aren't they taking it? They're seeing it right then and there in front of them. Have you seen a police officer next to a caller? They're cruising around if they spot something wrong. They see somebody running red stops on their red light. They're going to stop them right then and there. They're going to wait for somebody to pop with the call. They're seeing somebody not obeying the law by picking up the trash before 6 a.m. They should be ticketed. It's a noise ordinance. And something should be filed. There should be some sort of a notice of complaint filed to them. Maybe that's not so much a ticket but a warning notice. So there's something on record. They go right back to their employer that says hey this guy isn't following the noise ordinance. I mean it shouldn't be just up to us to do this stuff. And we have police here to enforce the laws on the ordinances. But I think Councillor Barrett's urging and request is that it's really hard to have the police following up on these things unless the public lets them know when it's happening and where. And by the time we call them they're gone. They may be gone but if that's a pattern if they pick up behind staples at 4.30 every Tuesday afternoon you know with enough complaints I think then you can get some traction. I'm just saying I hope if they see them doing this when they're cruising around by chance they will do something but I think the reality is that squeaky wheels get the grease. The thing is why aren't the ordinances being enforced? Well to enforce them you need to know when they're being broken. Right and the public is the one that is experiencing and that's what this noise ordinance is for is for the public's benefit. For example in my neighborhood they were building a new house on Sadie Lane next to the Cider Mill. And they started out there with their air compressed nail gun on the roof at about 6.15 a.m. I heard it and I decided to go over later and talk to the builder but somebody in my neighborhood called the police. And so by the time I got there at 7.30 to find the foreman he goes I've already had a police car here to visit me to tell me that I started too early and I won't do that again and they didn't. So that was an instance where a call to the police did have a response. They went and visited the construction site and they made them aware of what the rule was and so it didn't happen again. So and I had success on Meadow Road calling Goethiers three times and saying if you don't stop coming through here and I went to city council and made a formal complaint. And after that they stopped coming through but that's where a little bit of participation in the system works out really well because I mean you know most people will just keep doing something if nobody complains about it. Right so this is now you have it written in a rule that's part of our ordinance you call eventually someone's going to get a call and take action. Thanks. So what's the pleasure. I can go either way. I understand the summer hours I guess that's where I have. So compromise just have it later in the summer. Is that what you're saying. I don't know if that's feasible. I'm not. I don't know either. I don't know. Why don't you just. Ask them back. Okay. Well if we have that suggestion or maybe you want to go back to the 7am. Why don't we continue the hearing and let the haulers come back in and maybe we can request that they keep the transfer station open. An hour later. I mean a summer noise our ordinance like is not a bad idea because I mean that's when windows are open and people don't want to be awakened on a nice you know summer morning at five. My goal is to engage the haulers in a productive manner on this larger conversation but I don't know if this is if there's a way to do that. Unconsolidated service for South Burlington. How do you get neighborhoods to choose one. It's done. Westford has one hauler Brattleboro does it. It's done through contract bidding. There's a lot of different models. CSWD is already fleshed out. The whole town you're saying. No no for different neighborhoods. So really extending the model. So they the CSWD fully supports this and there are ways to do it that still leave it competitive and in the private in the in the free market for individuals and neighborhoods to choose who's going to provide it. So there are solutions. Okay. Well I suggest that we continue the public hearing to a date certain. Yeah I would I would recommend the second council meeting in April. Make sure we get the warning. 16th. Yeah 16th. Tom will definitely be here. Why is that? He has some music. Oh that's right. That's right. And just a question on any further discussion on dog noise. There may be some members of the public who want to speak on that. Oh right. Are there any other comments on the dog noise. Oh okay. Please come up. I'm sorry. I only saw those other hands. Hi I'm Christine de Blasio from 27 rise circle. I guess I'm confused about the change in the noise ordinance because this conversation around trash was about minimizing noise for residents and the noise ordinance for dogs. The change is actually reducing a restriction so that noise is more permissible during the day from the hours of 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. And I'm a little confused as to why that might be. I think I hope we can agree that prolonged dog noise is a nuisance at night. It's also equally as nuisance during the day if you're out in your yard, if you're trying to have dinner, if you've got a child sleeping, if you're trying to work. So I'm confused as to why we might be relaxing that standard during the day. I'm not sure I understand. I don't think we are. It's changing the time. It's changing the time from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. Right now it's 24-7. And I can speak about this because my peace and health is disrupted on a regular basis during the day by hours of dog barking. And so my concern is if we change the standard so if it's only at night, then it's asking you to tolerate this barking during the day or go through a very cumbersome process to have something be done to address it. I work. Go ahead. I think you're right that we have two ordinances that are in conflict. In conflict, right? So I don't understand. I'm not sure what resident concern this change is addressing. I'm not sure that people were saying we want to hear more dog barking. I got that. And that's kind of what it's leaning towards. And it seems in direct contrast to what you're doing in terms of the trash hauling. And as I said, I'm hearing this noise. I work in a building that is near some dogs. And on Thursday, for example, I heard four and a half hours of dog barking and lining, which made it very difficult for me to work. I work in a psychotherapy practice. It disrupts my colleague's work. It disrupts my client's work. People are coming to me and telling me what a concern it is. I also own the building. So I work in the yard because I'm a small business owner. And when I work in the yard during the day, I have to wear a mask. I have to put on my iPod because the barking is so bothersome that it's truly a problem. I'm 270 feet away from where this barking originates. So it's quite loud. So my concern is if you change the standard, the ordinance in and of itself, so it's only in effect at night, not only is it a problem for me, but it sets a wide precedence for all of South Burlington so that if there's dog barking during the day, you've got to go through various hoops to get it addressed. I'm concerned about that. The second part of what you mentioned was something about if they're permitted, then it's exempt. And I'm not sure I understand that either. I happened to be in a building that was permitted before the dog barking issue became before that moved in. And I'm not sure why an exemption for that takes precedence over my rights as someone in South Burlington to have my, I think your words are peace and health. I'm not sure why one is more important than the other. Where we are, there's also a lot of other houses that are impacted by this as well. So I guess I'm just wasting a concern that this has wide reaching implications if you change this. And I'm just going back to, Tim, I think it was you and one of the meeting notes about unrelated issue, the dog park, said something about how without some clear guidelines, it's sort of, I forget your words, but it was sort of like evokes neighborhood conflict. I think a good ordinance that's in place, that sets what the rules are and everybody knows what they are, really makes it clear what's okay and what's not okay, and it reduces the likelihood of conflict. Right now, if noise of dogs barking doesn't bother you during the day, you don't have to complain. But if it does, at least you have something that you can do about it. You take that away and now nobody can do anything about it easily. So those are my concerns. Thank you. I guess the good news is there's another building going up in between the two. Not soon enough. But there is. I would, I have recorded it. So if you ever want to hear it, inside my office, I have recorded it. I also have started logging just how long it is just to, you know, for my own sanity. I mean, literally four and a half hours on Thursday. And I don't know if you can imagine what that's like to hear that for four and a half hours. I like music for four and a half hours. This was not music to my ears. I'm sure. So if you want to hear the recording, I'm happy to forward it to you. It might give you a flavor of what I'm talking about. Thank you. Yes. I'll say something quickly. But my name is Alison. I happen to own that piece of property between her and the dogs. Okay. The fence that they built, believe it or not, if you're looking at the building from my lot, you can see the bottom sill of the door. So the fence is not hiding anything. It's not, you know, protecting any sound at all. Well, I think that's the outside. Yeah. I mean, the fence was put up. I'm assuming to help with some of the sound, maybe to keep the dogs in the yard. I'm not sure if the dogs are even allowed out of the building. But anyway, do you know if the dogs? Yes, I think they are. I can't hear them when they're in the building. That's a okay. So they do come on. It's when they're in the yard. I think I know them all by far. Because my understanding is when they were going through the DRB, correct? Additional insulating in the roof and the wall, right? There were some sound mitigation measures they were supposed to take, including the fence and the materials on the outside of the building. I voiced the concern as soon as I saw that coming up and Rye being right there and all the residences. And I didn't even think about the commercial buildings at that time, right? Right. But I... So I guess just to continue on. I'm sorry. It was my intent to build a building similar to, you know, the one that they're in to kind of match. But it looks like a warehouse building might be better suited here with about a 30-foot wall to keep some of that sound away from the rest of the neighborhood. 60-foot. I don't think we can do that. We can't even do that at the airport. We don't have anything planned right now, but in the future, you know, we can put up either a warehouse building or an office building. And we thought that to keep a little more with the neighborhood of a small office building would work better. But I don't know that I could rent an office building 40 feet away from that. You could with an acoustic engineer. You know, a good acoustic engineer. You're not. Can I just say something? You mentioned that. And I wonder why an acoustic engineer wasn't employed or consulted with when they were building the building. Because that becomes on the onus for those who are affected by it to mitigate the noise. I'm not creating the noise. I'm just hearing it a lot. So I think an acoustic engineer is an excellent idea, but I don't think Al should have to do it. Right. Well, the dog, whatever they're called, I can't remember, did apparently install things inside. If you can't hear them inside. Inside is great. Pardon me? That was the condition. I think there were conditions. I mean, maybe Paul remembers better as well. But the other buildings weren't there. They were there first. I mean, they built first. And it's an approved use. That's the problem. It's an approved use. We were there first. Your building was there first? We were there first. Was it occupied before they were? Yes. I didn't know. Just thought I'd let you know who the... Okay, yeah. We haven't got anything in for a permit right now. Can you build a really big wall? Well, really tall. That's what the warehouse building will do. You pay for it? We'll think about it. Are there any other? Yes. My name is Brad Ducevich. I'm the developer of Rye Circle and the neighborhood. I think in addition to Christine and Al's comments is I would just like to add the point about I'm building residents, residential uses there. We have a total of about 50 homes going in. This building severely impacts, I think, the value and marketability of this project. Regardless, what wasn't mentioned earlier was that it was noted in the permits of when that building was permitted, the dog daycare facility, which unfortunately I'm not at a budding landowner, so I wasn't notified otherwise I would have been there at those meetings. We didn't know it was going in until construction started, so that was unfortunate. We've complained to the city of South Burlington's police department about the noise. We've complained to animal control, and it's the same thing. Document it, document it, document it. We'll pay a visit, but nothing's happening. When Christine told me there was changes that potentially would less intensify the ordinance, I was concerned. I think we need more teeth in the ordinance as far as it relates to this, because I feel like the police are just feel like they don't really have a real good ordinance to use to help us out with this. I think that they feel that their hands might be tied, but I don't know for sure, but that's just my read on the situation, so that's it. Appreciate that. Any other comments? Yes. My name is Elizabeth Lee. I am also an associate at Stonehouse Associates, and my office directly faces north. And I do appreciate Mr. Barrett's comment about wanting to have his windows open in the summer, and I would like to have my windows open. But right now, as Christine described, when the nice weather comes, I will not be able to open my windows because we hear this noise with the windows closed. I just want to be clear. This is not where the windows open even. And I am a dog lover. I've had dogs most of my life, but when it impacts, and we were there for a year before this building was even built. And I'm just trying to understand the rational, the reasoning behind this ordinance change, because I'm reading your ordinance and the purpose is very clear of making your city a very comfortable place for people. And the way the ordinance is written now, there are no time limitations. And so I'm not understanding the rationale for wanting to suddenly let dogs bark all day. We've all lived near a dog that barks all day. It's not pleasant, and there was an article in Seven Days last year that you can probably look up about this facility, and they were talking about having 15 dogs out in the yard at the time. So that's what we're listening to. And I would hope that you would consider that you're moving away from the purpose of your ordinance by getting away from these time restrictions. Thank you. Is Mr. Dusevich still here? Or did he leave? Oh. I'm just curious. I thought the entire Rye area was being developed by him, including the businesses. He has some business component, I think. There were three commercial properties on the Eastern. Yes, but I thought he was developing those. I'm just curious. He said he wasn't an abutting landowner, but at the time. But he is, only now. I'll try to clarify it for you. He has four properties in the front, or actually three in the front. And I have one. I own the one on the far end closest to the Fox Run. And I also own the other side of Land and Rogue all the way back to the residential to where the city property starts. So he does have the 52 units of housing with three commercial lots on the front right on Heinsberg Road. I own the piece to the east of Land and Rogue. The right side as you drive again. So he owned the land with a dog? No. No. He got all the land with a dog in places. Who owns that? I think a woman by the name of the last name is Little, I believe. I thought that was part of the development. No, no, it's not. Totally different. Well, originally it was. I'm just saying, well. No, it was owned by someone else. No, she's right. Oh, 50 years ago. No, it wasn't 50 years ago. During interim zoning when the city council was hearing all the permits, the permit to develop that property with housing and having the businesses along the road was a single application. It was. But not that property. This is another piece of property. This is another piece of property. That property, that farm was owned by the by the ride family. Right. And Al Bartlett had bought it from them. And then the Duceviches bought it from the Bartlett's. But the ride family owned that whole piece, including where the house, it was actually, I know Don Brisson used to live in that house and he married one of my daughters. So that was their home for a while. And then they sold that off. Just that little piece where there's a couple of buildings up on that east side of Leiden Road. Okay. I didn't realize there were businesses going all along Heinsberg Road that were not part of that development. Yes. Well, it's kind of directed at the business owners that were here and perhaps for their residential as well. Monica asked to be, I'm wondering, is there an opportunity for there to be a time schedule or something that could work in this instance? But maybe it would work for other businesses that have noise where a schedule because it sounds like four consecutive hours is terrible. But if there were a way to schedule when noises could occur or something for businesses like that. If they were allowed to let the dogs out once every two hours for a period of time. Would that help the business but also help the residents and the local that the business is nearby? Just a suggestion. Well, I suspect a conversation with the owner of the business. I have a question for Andrew. Okay. We added the time. I should go back and look back all those weeks. Those times weren't in the original document. Correct. Yeah, we had the language that was identical to the Karen control of animals ordinance. This was a synchronization of those two ordinances. I'm sorry to interrupt. No, but I think we're on the same wavelength. I thought we were trying to make everything standardized. Yeah. Yeah, part of the at one point part of the discussions discussion around the time was to be consistent with the rest of the noise ordinance. But that is correct. It's the language is now different than the other ordinance. That's for me. I scratch the hours. Okay. We're continuing this anyway so we can reflect on it and come back. But there's another ordinance for for animals, right? It's a little bit different. So the one for animals is the Karen control. So that is directed at owners. This is directed at anyone owning or harboring. So it's a little bit a little bit different. I think the the original purpose was our original discussion around this was taking this question about nuisance and transferring it when it can when it comes to uses of land and what is permitted in a specific zoning district and and kind of putting that in the planning and rather than the police department realm. And so that was the one of the key purposes around this. And I will say in the instances that are being talked about here over off Heinsberg Road. Ray is currently under investigation for potential notice of violation under our performance standards, which do allow violations, which mean the noise violation. Under the performance standards, there are specific standards related to noise, even if it's even if it's permitted. What are they? I have them. I have them here. We have that language. Can you read that whole book, please? Yes, right. Page one. Yeah. So it's actually relatively short. The following acts are declared. So this is noise and the performance and the following acts are declared to be loud disturbing and unnecessary noises and shall be determined detrimental to the health and safety of the residents of the city of South Burlington. There are a number of loud speakers horn signaling devices radios exhaust and there's a broad category noise in general any noise which is deemed objectionable because of volume frequency or beat. And then there are specific standards related to that creation of permitting or operation of above above sets in such a manner as to be plainly audible at distance of 50 feet from the building or structure from which the noise emanates. And there's also some specific some more specific standards that talk about the weighted decibel average. We don't currently have any of that sound equipment. But you could probably get one. Yeah. Not calibrated. So those are the so those are the specific standards of specific performance standards that this would fall under for uses that are otherwise permitted in a zoning district and and when there are these conflicts between uses rather than between residents and and owners of dogs. That's kind of the thought process behind some of this. I'm glad to know that there are performance standards. I know we had discussed them and I don't think that we actually discussed the specifics but the language was put into this ordinance. And so I think one I would scratch the hours I would go back to the original language but to I think with regard to businesses and I understand. I mean April 16th we might have another group of people in here. But when you make major investments, you have to think about all kinds of things and I'm very sympathetic to that. I think with the performance standards in place, they're there for good reason. I do agree with them. Any other comments from the public? Just not a question. Maybe Andrew you can answer this. The performance standards do they have hours in them? They do but they're they may not be related to this. It depends on the noise that's being emanated from. So how about this noise? So this noise would be would not be under the hours section as I read. Okay so the dog barking noise would not be under the hours section in. So it's 24 seconds. Yeah and that and I'll defer somewhat to to our zoning enforcement officer on his interpretation of our ordinance. All right so if there's no oh yes Betty yes please you do. I didn't hear that. I'm on both I'm on the dog park task force and we're looking at all kinds of options and creative ways of addressing dogs noise locations. And I won't get into that because you're going to be hearing about that soon. But some of our ideas around it different things but maybe one of the things you want first there's two things I thought we've got several dog businesses like this in town. You might want to find out what's happening in those places and whether or not there are complaints around those particular businesses and their locations from neighbors. And then the other thing is maybe you want to ask the business how many dogs are actually outside at once. You know that might be an issue too if they've got 20 dogs out there versus five dogs or something you know because because that's that will make a difference not only in the noise level but just the dog behavior changes when there's crowds of dogs. They kind of stand I mean I visited some doggy daycares and decided against them because the dogs so many dogs yet. There's no regulations around how many dogs a dog doggy daycare has so that might be something you want to consider is looking at. I mean it's a business I know you don't want somebody to lose money but it might be something to look at is really what's a reasonable amount of dogs to be in a space. You know like that because I know right now there are no state codes around how many dogs are in a space. But I know I've gone to them and the dogs are just packed out there some in some some of these doggy daycares and maybe talk to the main society around some of that too. I think our committee will be talking to them around consulting with them around different things. But I think as far as I can appreciate these folks concerns and that facility in particular been in there. It's quite a place you know but I think a real big issue is how many dogs are there out there at the same time. Anyway that's thank you Tom. I know we need to move on. So just to wrap this up I would love to plant in your mind there is currently a platform called Rover.com which is like an Airbnb for dog sitting. So I could see this problem starting to permeate into our neighborhoods if people start watching dogs for a business. So I think as we look at our ordinances keeping that wording in mind that it's increasingly easy to find people to watch your dogs. Did you say it was our Airbnb Rover.com. I've used them. It was great. It's cheaper. You get free advertising here. That's right. All right so I would if there's no other comments we need a motion to come out of the moved public hearing. So. All in favor. I can just give a shout out to Barb service in California. She emailed me about this issue and just want to say hi Barb. All right. Well we are. Thank you. So we're going to. A motion to. Yeah. To. Oh. Reworn this meeting for the. Another second reading. On the 16th. On the 16th. Yes. 730. 730. So I'll move that. Reworn. The new sense ordinance for April 16th at 730. Second. Discussion. All in favor. Hi. Hi. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We are going to jump down because we have another public hearing that was scheduled to begin at eight. So we're a little late. So I think. With your permission we'll move on to. Number nine. Which is a public hearing on possible amendments to the land development regulations. Will not be hearing from Jessica. We so unfortunately she had a. Skiing accident. What. Um. She broke both her legs. This weekend. So but. Monica Aspie will. Take her place. Along with. Try to. And Paul Connor director of planning and zoning. So we need a motion. No. To the public. That we enter the public hearing. To discuss the land development regulations regulation amendments. Second. All in favor. Hi. Hi. Okay. Take it away. Thanks everybody. And thank you. Paul Connor director of planning and zoning Monica Aspie clerk of the planning commission. I just want to thank Monica for stepping up on about six hours notice. And agreeing to sit here next to me. So. So. We are prepared to address the. Draft amendments to the regulations as you'd like to see as we traditionally do with other amendments to the regulations. Council opens the public hearing as you did. We can provide you a brief overview if you'd like of what's in there. Or you can jump directly to public comments. Depending on what you'd like to do this evening. You can certainly there's there's a number of options and one of them that you may choose to do is to. Continue this hearing if there's a lot of. Discussion and feedback and also recognition that. Monica while having stepped up may not be able to answer all the questions quite as intricately as we might have. But I'm happy to give an overview. Would you like an overview. I think that's usually the standard procedure. So that would be good. So thank you. Yes. An overview. Great. So the I'm basically going to take this from the letter that Jessica had prepared that summarizes for you what the proposal is. There are the overall amendments referred to the establishment of a housing preservation standard which I can summarize a little bit more in detail in a moment. Some modifications to city center form based code. Some modifications to health height standards in certain districts. Establishment of an urban design overlay district. Some modifications to bicycle parking and then some other minor technical corrections under the point a establish a housing preservation requirement. The proposed amendment would require that the preservation of housing in the city of South Burlington that for each dwelling unit removed in the applicable zoning districts. A replacement dwelling unit or financial contribution to the city's affordable housing trust fund be made with the goal of preserving workforce housing and affordable homes in the city. So that's why we're doing this within the LDRs. There are multiple alternatives for how housing can be retained. The first and it's detailed in the LDRs is to rebuild a dwelling unit on a subject parcel. Land development regulations it's the big fat book. The second would be to build a dwelling unit on a separate parcel and the third would be to make a contribution to the city's affordable housing trust fund. The amount of as an in lieu payment of the contribution was established based on an assessment on the down payment assistance that has been demonstrated. As needed for affordable shared equity housing programs to be functional in this region. And I also would point out that in the LDRs section 1803 C there are a list of exemptions within the housing preservation of homes that would not be included in this. I don't know if we should say anything more about that. Right now it's public caring so if there's any. Do you want to go through them all? You want to go through all of them and then we'll go back to questions. That's your choice. Sure. Yeah. And if at any point you want more detail on that I'm happy to provide you more detail on anything. I think we probably all have little questions but why don't you go through all of them in there. Well since there are so many if you think we're going to have to postpone anyway if you wanted to focus on questions for this one because that may then take you to the end of here a lot of time and then the rest could be addressed in the future meeting. Well we have some people in the audience who want to comment on a few of the items I think. I think the affordable housing is that right. Are there any other issues. The people wanted to that are the public that are here to. Well then let's do that. Let's hear from the people who are here so I have to come back again. Okay. Okay so we can discuss. So first discuss the established of the preservation standards. Okay. Do you have some more detail you want to give or have you I mean that that was very general but I know general people have read it and have questions. Want to take the council questions. Yes. Go ahead. All right. I've said it before so it's not going to come as a surprise. The main concern that I hold is that single family homes can be torn down and replaced with apartment buildings or multiple units that do not at all attract the same. Population to inhabit our city and I therefore would like to see language that would advance that goal. We have thriving public school system we have lost and will lose up to 200 family homes single family homes. It has impacted an area with a local elementary school. There are multiple generational households in that neighborhood just to let the kids go to school in South Burlington. They clearly need something to replace what has been taken away. I raise the 25% I do not see that the whole value of the house needs to go. I know that that was reported back in minutes from the planning commission but that was not my point. But what I would suggest and perhaps the planning commission and of course our planning and zoning director and staff they have the expertise but the land value assess value is different from one part of South Burlington to the other part of South Burlington. So what I would like to suggest and again I'm coming with my very layman knowledge is that whoever tears down a single family home or affordable housing would if they do not rebuild they would pay the difference in the land value, the assess land value based on where they're taking the home down and where we still have available land to build on. Okay so that's my suggestion again from my knowledge that is what it is. The other thing that I would just like to iterate because I've heard members of the public and I've heard a legislator say too is that the exemptions are, basis for the exemptions aren't clear. Why have exemptions? So I think that's a question for us. The third thing is with regard to rebuilding I find unit too vague. Again I think that we need more family housing in South Burlington. I know we need senior housing in South Burlington but if we want to have families move into South Burlington we need affordable family housing in South Burlington. So I don't want to exclude group homes or duplexes but I'd like to find a way to promote single family homes. So if, again this is just my suggestion and I'm not a planning commissioner, but if someone tears down one single family home, one single family home should be built, hopefully a quarter lot, quarter acre lot. If there's a group of single family homes that are taken down I can see that there would be a percentage of those units that would be single family homes. I would like to see something that really really promotes the replenishment of what we have lost and what we could lose in the future with the F-35 survivor. Were those issues discussed by the planning commission or maybe even the affordable housing committee? In terms of the language that was selected I mean I know they gave you some recommendations of language. I haven't compared the two so I don't know how much you changed as a planning commission. Well what I can sort of respond to that is that this conversation started with the affordable housing committee and they are charged with affordable housing. And that's a very specific definition and John is here and he can speak to it and it's its own beast because it's not an affordable house. It's affordable housing which has very specific requirements. Lots of definitions. Lots of definitions but very very specific. So that's where this started and it is not their committee's mission to create homes that are not under the affordable committees realm. So I think fairly the planning commission did not take their recommendations outside of affordability. Is that a fair thing to say? We do have on our work plan scheduled for the spring a conversation about cottage housing and other workforce that can be said that's a different topic. So perhaps one way to look at it is this is affordability based. A conversation about community preservation I would say is not the basis for this if that makes sense. And I understand that there are models and I have talked with two members of the affordable housing committee. And I understand that it has been prohibitive the model that has existed in Burlington. But I think we're dealing with a different animal altogether with the Burlington International Airport than with a developer. And I think that we're also looking at a depletion of our single family home stock in the city. And I see a reason for us to have a different set of regulations from Burlington. Can I follow up on the exemptions? And can you clarify to me on C3 when you identify the airport when I get airport industrial. But does this is this excluding or exempting the airport neighborhood or just the homes that they bought? So under C3 and I can speak I'll speak about C3 and C5 so C3 exempts certain zoning districts. The affordable housing committee and then later the planning commission reviewed went went district by district to look to see what are the specific circumstances in different parts of the city. In some areas such as the mixed industrial commercial district, the airport and airport industrial, those are districts that do not permit housing presently. There are a handful of pre-existing homes in those districts. The affordable housing committee and the planning commission both felt that in those circumstances where the formal policy of the city is that you cannot build a new home to then put a place of requirement that to remove a home would be made difficult, seemed to be a misalignment. There were a couple of districts where the affordable housing committee and the planning commission looked at what is the preponderance of that district. The Swiss street being a specific one, looking to see where has that district been going over the last 20 years. The Swiss street district is basically where Klingers is, where the Vermont Cass is. And there are a couple of homes still in there. There's a couple of homes in there but for the most part that's a commercial district and that's the committee and the commission both felt that in that case it's really principally a commercial district at this point as opposed to some other ones that are much more balanced districts like the Shelburne Road district or the Village Commercial District over by the Mill Market in Delhi. Those are areas where the desired interest of the city is to balance and have both residential and commercial. To answer your specific question about the airport neighborhood, the airport neighborhood is in the R-4 district and so it's not exempt as a whole from this standard. The draft does however exempt the dwelling units that were proposed to be acquired or where the airport announced in September 2016 that they would be offering to acquire the 39-ish homes there. Plus about four homes that have historically over the last 10 years been in all of the eligibility programs but for which the individual homeowners for the last few years have decided that it wasn't right for them to sell to the airport. And John can speak to this but I think generally speaking they felt that just because an individual homeowner near an airport decided not to sell that they didn't want to place a more restrictive requirement on them than their neighbor who did sell three years ago. So those are the exemptions that exist. Is there language that protects you know another buyout? I mean I know everyone's chicken hands and said no we're not going to buy any more homes and demolish them but it's word of mouth or in the press or on TV and there's nothing tangible that says new faces. So this the language in here specifically names the airport grants for which exemptions apply specifically references a 2009 map that the airport had produced of eligible areas and then specifically lists the exempted property by street address. So if ever there was to be proposed to be another buyout program then that would not fall under any of those categories except as I said those three or four homes that had previously chosen they're not under the current grant that the airport has and so that's why that was written that way. But we also in 5A it says under all of these groups that we did say the exemption exists whether or not these dwelling units have been purchased or removed as of January 1st 2018. So any after January 1st of 2018 would not be exempt. No they would be in those ones they would be exempt as long as they were under that airport grant. I heard as removed as of January 1st 2018 John can you. So does that mean if they haven't bought them I mean so that sort of flies. Right. So specific to the 39 homes plus the four that are not under a current grant whether the whether the home has been acquired or it has not been acquired. Those those dwelling units are exempt exempt. I the Lily Lane homes are made for that area. But so but I like to take everybody back about a year and two months ago when we decided to change our land development regulations because the people living in Lily Lane some of them according to our land regulations couldn't sell to the federal government. And we did change them because they were in a situation that was unfair compared to their neighbors. And so with these exemptions we're going to perhaps kick that can down the road when the F 35s arrive and that envelope undoubtedly will expand. And then the people left in that envelope are going to say but they didn't exist five years ago. So why am I being penalized. And I foresee just like happened a year and two months ago that the council here is going to have its hands tied. So I think by putting exemptions in you're creating a precedent and it's why then have this at all. We've already created a precedent. I realize that that was my biggest argument here in two months ago. This is a this proposal is complex because it has lots of implications and there are lots of things that you know you don't plan for. But I mean other communities may have done this and perhaps some of their learning is in here. And so I don't see how you can't get away without having exemptions. My only question one of my questions right now is if this were in effect a year and a half ago would it have affected the Larkin apartments being torn down next to the palace nine. They would not because it's in a different area. Not because it's in a different area but because in that specific circumstance that was not technically housing. It was extended stay hotel. Right. And an extended stay hotels are in a different category. There are very few of those remaining in the city. But as a technical matter it would not have applied to this would not have applied to that. In addition had it applied to it they the Larkin terrace proposal built 61 is in the process of building 61 dwelling units where there had been 60 dwellings. And so even had it applied the first place standard is if you replace with the same number of units on the same property. You're good. So they met the standard even had it applied to them. So a new a new noise map and a new let's say a new buyout program is proposed in a year and a half. And the residents may call for it just like excuse me and the residents may call for it as well. It might not be Burlington. It might be the residents saying we can't live here. This is not livable anymore. Residents have never actually called for the FAA to have a buyout program. Yes they did. The original one. The FAA grant that is because the residents asked for it. The airport reached out to residents. The residents came to the city council and demanded for the first wave. And then the second wave was to complete that first wave. So that could still happen but the airport would have paid 25% of the value of the home penalty. So it discourages the airport at least makes the numbers more complex. Do we think this is enforceable with an FAA buyout program? Councillor Bolduc said he thought it would when we last discussed this a month or two ago. Okay. This has gone through both my review and review of outside council at this point. And we could put together the most enforceable regulations. I still stand by this. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Burlington has a similar policy. I think this makes sense if you're going to tear down homes then we need homes. If you're going to tear down homes then you'll pay the penalty. And it's not unsurmountable. The airport could come up with that money if they want to purchase those homes. Do we have a feeling about Burlington's experience and good stories, bad stories? Do we have any of that? Well I think the affordable housing committee certainly took that kind of... Has that had that knowledge? Did you not, John? Do you want me to come up? Yes, please, that would be helpful. I think you can just join them if you'd like. I'm John Simpson, chair of the affordable housing committee. And Burlington has had theirs in place for a long time. And it's actually discouraged for the most part tearing down the houses, which is what we hope will happen. That we won't lose any affordable housing. What we've tried to do is craft an ordinance here that is fair, and fair to the homeowners who are already in negotiation. And also fair to the city so that if houses are actually torn down, that we recover through this contribution to the housing trust, money to be applied, and not necessarily to multi-family housing, Megan. I have a dream that at some point we'll have enough money in that housing trust so that the city can actually buy some land, some undeveloped land, and create cottage housing or some other kind of single-family housing that's affordable under the, you know, with us owning the land and perhaps having a turnkey or like the Champlain Housing Trust maintaining ownership of the land coming up with some scheme so that by the city owning land we're able to direct the construction of affordable single-family housing. But having said that, I don't believe this is the vehicle to get there because we had this thoroughly better than the one thing that got bounced back from the Planning Commission because of their outside attorneys was they were very, very, looked very carefully at the housing replacement in lieu payment and did not want it to be seen as excessive and unfair and therefore leading to litigation. So we've tried to craft something that does the job, doesn't get us the money that we would really like to have. On the other hand, it allows the process to work and isn't that what we're trying to accomplish in everything we do in government? And that goes back to the affordability versus is there another measure or means of discussing community neighborhood preservation? Just to be clear, John, the Affordable Housing Committee fully supports this current wording. Is that correct? Absolutely. So the way this is written, from my interpretation, this really only applies to the airport, in the airport neighborhood in the sense that most other instances where somebody wants to rip down a building that has units, it's usually because it's really old and it's decrepit and they want to build something new. For example, on Hinesburg Road, there was a proposal to put in several units replacing a single unit that had a garage. And there are other proposals that are like that. So in most of those instances when there's development going on is because somebody wants to rip something down and put something better in its place. It has more units. Some of us who are old enough to remember Tim Shelburne Road when it consisted of a lot of large single family homes of which is only three or four of them left on the whole stretch to Shelburne. And all of those were torn down and replaced with retail. So it happens and it may yet happen as the city develops. If I can just speak to that briefly. I think that there are some examples where it could apply elsewhere in the city. There are, as John said, some properties that are principally residential or entirely residential along Shelburne Road and Williston Road in mixed-use districts where it's conceivable that in the next iteration of redevelopment maybe it becomes a mixed-use building as opposed to going entirely commercial. So that would be a retention of some housing on that property. It's not too common, but it does happen where in some of the areas of the city where there's some smaller lots historically somebody takes a house down on a lot adjacent to them to have a larger yard this would say that if you chose to do that then you can do that however you need to place into the affordable housing trust fund so there are some circumstances where that's happened and could happen very well in the future in some of our, say, our Lakeshore areas where there's some very small lots and somebody could say well that's an old house in front of my view and so if they choose to do that then this would apply in that circumstance also so there are some other circumstances. There's also converting a duplex home to a single-family home is allowed. That's why I asked, do you have concrete examples in Burlington where this has worked and what effect it's had? I can't really, I suspect there are some but I think the general message we got from Burlington is that basically their ordinance has discouraged this from happening which arguably is the principal goal but it's hard to prove a negative in the sense that if it hasn't been used that may mean that it's working exactly the way it would want to be it has been used from time to time but not that frequently Any other questions or comments on the affordable housing? What is the difference of the assessed value of the land between, let's say, Butler Farms and Chamberlain neighborhood? On a per acre basis, I'd be happy to look it up but I don't know off the top of my head. What do you want to know? The difference of the assessed value of the land with the house of a particular residence in Butler Farms on the average and pick a street in the Chamberlain neighborhood to give me a street. Meyers Court. Meyers Court. But you're speaking of just the land. Your fingers do the walking. You're speaking of just the land. I'm speaking just for the land. Just for the land to your suggestion. John, did your committee ever consider the suggestion that Megan had of looking at the payment, the difference between the actual land value? No, actually I think I'm hearing that for the first time tonight. We've talked to Megan and I personally talked to her and then we brought it up with our committee the whole idea of could we require an in-loop payment equal to replacing the house somewhere else in the city or whatever. That was never my suggestion. Well, it's like is it 25% or is it 50% or is it 75%, where do you draw the value? And the attorneys rejected our proposal and came up with the one that you're seeing in front of you. What was your original? It was just a flat $60,000. And so actually this will probably do a little better in some cases than 60, I don't know. But this was a way that the attorneys felt they could make it stick if it was contested. In a way that it is worded now, it does include the land though in this. Yes, it's 25% of the land. And the house. But your point is that couldn't be replicated in another place because of the value. We have a very informed Burlington resident here with us and she has a comment to say about how this has worked in Burlington. I agree with 18 single-family homes, only two of which have children in them. I live alone in a single-family home. If you build a single-family home, there's nothing to say that families will move into it with kids. Oh, I'm not saying we can force anybody to move anywhere. I planned to growl to my single-family home and deprive another family too. But obviously if we have more single-family homes, there would be more for everybody, right? Whether there'd be more units would be a good question. I have data. You have data, too. So Myers-Court, the average housing assessed value was $222,000. But how about the land? Just the land. Oh, you didn't decide. I didn't hear you say it. Well, go ahead and say it anyway. So what good are you? So $222,000 versus $378,000 on Butler Drive. All right. Are there any other comments from the public around the affordable housing? Jimmy, you need to come up, please. Thank you, John. For the record, Kil. My name is James Lease. So I would like to recommend that all the exemptions be removed. And I think Megan made a very strong point that putting in exemptions invites. Waivers. More and more exemptions. And you never get to the end of it. And this body will be drowning in requests for exemptions anytime the rule has a chance of being applied, particularly in the most egregious case where they're talking about many, many homes being taken away like what's happening at the airport. And we've had it happen. At the meeting where dozens of people come and say, oh, please, please, please, and you can't resist that. So I think the exemptions destroy the rule. But there's something else that destroys. And the exemptions even in the existing, there's so many exemptions that swallows the rule. You almost have to come up with a scenario that really is unlikely to happen, that someone is going to buy their neighbor's house demolish it so they have a bigger yard. It's a pretty unusual thing to happen. It could happen. But that's what this rule with all its exemptions really boils down to. The people who can pay, they're exempt. Who are they? The developers. They're the people who can pay. Why exempt them? Okay, so there's a few houses in a neighborhood left that's commercial. Well, if someone wants to get those houses and make it commercial, let them pay. They've got the money. They're doing development. They're talking in figures of millions of dollars or whatever for their commercial development. They have the money to put up another affordable home or to pay this fee to our affordable housing trust fund. I got an email from Mata Townsend that I'd like to read. It's very short. I cannot attend tonight. But I do not understand why in the world at this point South Burlington would want to give Burlington a break on anything related to the airport. The Burlington track record to date regarding airport issues has been anything but that of a good neighbor. That's from Mata Townsend yesterday afternoon. So here's the situation with the airport. They've demolished hundreds of homes, but it's not just the ones they've demolished. They've also put 1,000 homes according to Burlington's own report. The airport, the Air Force report says more, but Burlington says 1,000. It's still a lot of homes into a zone which the Air Force says is unsuitable for residential use. So, okay, they're not demolished, but they're in this terrible noise zone. But there are ones that they still want to demolish. So those 39 or 44 homes depending on whether you include the extra ones would give the Housing Trust Fund $2.6 million. So does South Burlington want to write a check to Burlington for $2.6 million? Because that's what the exemption does. We write them a check for the money that they don't have to pay. Why would we do that? What did they do for us? By putting 1,000 homes in an unsuitable for residential use noise zone and having all these people suffer. And we saw the emotion. When people had the chance to get out, they came here and they thought, that's true for everyone in that noise zone. And we're supposed to write a check for Burlington for $2.6 million? How does that make sense? Isn't that encouraging them to do it again? Now Burlington already gets a huge benefit. It's not just that they get the grants from the federal government and the state government. They also get to keep the land. They've got the land and they didn't have to pay a dime for it. Certainly they can pay this amount to the Housing Trust Fund for each one of those units. So I think that if South Burlington isn't all serious about affordable homes, each and every one of them, without exemption, there should be a strong rule. We don't have exemptions. We protect our affordable homes. That's a principle. That's a value. That's something that... What is the reason for giving an exemption when someone wants to demolish an affordable home? There is no reason. There is no reason. Protect the affordable homes without exemptions. Thank you. I have a question for Andrew, I guess, in terms of the exempted dwellings. My understanding is these 39 houses or however many there are, most of them, except for the four or five, have already been purchased by the airport. Correct? I don't know the current number on that. I know Paul did some research on background. Well, all the Lily Lane ones have been purchased. I know a significant... I believe a significant number... A significant number of these have already been purchased. So in terms of contract law, can you actually go back and say, well, we just passed this ordinance, or this, you know, LDR, that says, actually, you owe us. This has to do with this demolition, right? Right. It's a little bit different. They've actually applied for a permit yet. So how many have applied for a permit? For demolition? Yeah. There's some, right? Some have, yeah. Some are gone. But they're exempted, I'm guessing, because our lawyers said to not do so would invite legal challenge. We heard it was because the owners of the remaining homes would be penalized. And mess up their deal. I mean, there's always a level of risk that would enact a new ordinance. And I wouldn't say that myself or outside counsel said that completely no risk from not exempting them. But it was more of a larger policy question. So if we didn't exempt them, then you're saying the risk is... There's some risk. I guess there's always risk, but... The following risk could be the next time they do a sound, a noise map and a bunch more homes are up for, you know, a potential buyout, then we're going to be faced with... Right. Saying yes to them also. What do you mean by yes to them? Well, I mean, we didn't want the airport to buy out the homes this last round. This could motivate the airport. We were fighting against that. And the Lilly home people, I remember the meeting were, you know, as people have characterized, they were begging us. You can't not let us sell this home. There was a slight difference in the Lilly lane. There was a restrictive covenant in the deed. Well, that's true too. And this is the general regulation. Other people come in that we're saying, well, if you're going to buy them, then I don't have the covenant, but I sure as heck live right next door to them, and it's just as noisy where I live. Yes. But I think it might have the... The airport's part. So if they start doing the estimates on what these houses would cost to acquire and demolish with this affordability, all of a sudden a berm or a barrier or change in plans becomes more attractive, thus achieving our interests. Yes. I think this is protecting our city's interests. I agree. I do too. Well, I agree having the language. I'm just, you know, so you're supportive of having the exemptions because it... Of having them or having them removed? You were saying, I mean, I think you... I understand having them removed. I'm fine with keeping them from the Planning Commission's recommendation. I'd want to know more what the Planning Commission already did on this issue. It sounds like you exhausted the subject. It was exhausting. I mean... I'm sorry. Which element of the subject? The exemptions. I guess the 25% is pretty resolved on. That seems fair enough. I don't know. If John's interested in the land value difference, I'd sure like to let them study that too. Is it 25% of the total assessed value? Yes. In that location. But it doesn't take into account that relocating. Right. It's 25% of the total assessed value of the home to be removed. Just the home. And the parcel. The parcel. The home, the land. The home in the land of that parcel. So whether it's a less expensive house or it's a very expensive house, it's 25% of that total. Right. Total assessed value of the property. And that's what they have in Burlington. Of the land and building, yes. And it's worked there to discourage teardowns. And I mean, tell them, if I'm characterizing this properly, but I think that the planning commission probably spent more time talking about that than the specific exclusions, exemptions. I think that's a fair statement. Yes. I think that's a fair statement. So the affordable housing committee had made the recommendation to move forward with that exemption. And the commission, I think, accepted. We accepted there. And the affordable housing committee's consideration for exemptions was simply that, particularly for those houses, is that, John, I'm going to just find the language. But it was in consideration for the people who may already be in the process of selling to not complicate things for them. But it was not based on study and interviews. I thought I heard John say something about lawyers looked at this. That was for the 25%. Just the 25%. Not the exemptions. Yeah. Is there an appeals process for this at all? For the regulations. So if somebody thought they should be granted exemption, but they're not, what is somebody's possibility of an appeal? Sure. So the affordable housing committee, when they first looked at this, there was a provision in some other regulations for somebody to request of the DRB for a waiver, essentially. DRB waiver. The affordable housing committee reviewed it and ultimately decided that that opens up a Pandora's box of, well, why did this person deserve it? Why did this person not? It becomes a very, it potentially becomes very, very difficult to make decisions. It puts the DRB in a very difficult position on very emotional issues. And so there is not a formal appeal process in this other than to challenge a decision. So if somebody applies to remove a house and they are requested to make this action and they refuse to do so, that permit would be denied. They could appeal that permit to the DRB and ultimately the courts. That would be the method. I can say that also another consideration within the affordable housing committee was that if there was already an offer extended to these homes, that obviously came from a set budget that the FAA may have had. If this were to go into effect for those homes, would the FAA no longer, would they be exceeding a budget and would they have to rescind offers or would it create? So I think that it prevents some of that worry, but it's not based on, it was an effort to avoid problems with the homes that were currently offered. Tom. Would it be inappropriate to ask, was the planning commission a unanimous in supporting these exemptions that a split vote? Is that wrong to ask? No. I believe that the LDR set as a whole was advancing. The set as a whole. Yeah. Yeah, the set as a whole. Was, yeah. I can't remember if anyone dissented. I don't think anyone did. But that was on, it wasn't on the exceptions. It was on the entire. The whole housing. LDR package. Well, the whole shooting match. Yes, the whole thing. Are there any other comments or questions we're, you know, it's getting kind of late. We have a lot of other things and we have already agreed that we need to, you know, here, continue this. Yeah, I think so. And I think since at this point, there doesn't seem to be a time crunch since all the homes that would be affected by the time crunch are exempted. I would be willing to remove this one and go ahead with the other and revisit the affordable housing. Remove what? It's affordable housing replacement. Oh, the whole section. The housing preservation standard. Yes. Can we do that? Remove the whole thing. Can we approve the other pieces? Just to, to, from what I would move to approve. It doesn't matter. Well, we're not going to approve it today. No, but there are, there are bunches of other amendments that we could approve and I'm willing to approve them. Yeah, I was just thinking that we're not, there's, I mean, I have some questions, just little ones on the other stuff. I would move to approve this tonight. The whole thing? Yeah, the whole thing. I'm comfortable too with it because this is a living document. It can change, but I'm not sensing that from the other two counselors. I'm sensing it from one counselor. I don't know if I'm sensing it from that. Yeah, I don't know. The fourth one, I'm waiting to hear. Oh, I was thinking we would take this all up at another meeting. You would, okay. So to answer your questions. That was what I was seeing yesterday. I want to chat for a few minutes with our attorney about the possibility of adopting some of it and what does that do to the remainder of it. In terms of the time-sensitiveness of it, there's a little bit of an odd in-between area that we're in right now where both the old and the new regulations are in effect. The criticalness of it over the period of a couple weeks isn't a huge deal. I would not recommend that the other amendments be out there in this in-between area for months on end because applicants who are looking to do a project aren't quite sure do I meet these bike standards or these bike standards, that kind of thing. But two weeks is not going to be making or breaking that subject. So what I'm hearing is you guys want to plow through the rest of it tonight and then potentially find out if we can come back to just the affordable housing section? That's where I am. I don't know where everybody is. The rest of it, I don't have any... Does anybody have any comments about the rest of it? I had a couple of questions. You do? Oh, okay. Yeah, I did. I just have a... Did we get a nine o'clock break at all? Well, why don't we take that nine o'clock break and then why don't you find out from Andrew? I think we should schedule a few extra meetings. Yeah, this was a mega... Before it? Okay. So why don't we, you know, recess for a few minutes for Sue and then come back and finish this? That's what I'm hearing you say. You want to finish this tonight, right? No, I'm fine with pushing all of this off to a later meeting if there's no pressing deadline. I'm more interested in getting out in a reasonable hour or whatever. Well, one of these nights we're going to be here a long time because we got a bunch of tough stuff. Ms. Osby, if you just remain seated, please, at the table. For ticket to break, where's the sign? Okay, so I'd like to call back when we push in the South Carolina City Council on Monday, March 19th. I think we left it that we were going to find out whether we could separate out part of the LDRs and call you have a comment about that. I think staff's recommendation would be for the, at least for the time being for the next two weeks to continue the hearing as one set rather than to separate them out and create any questions around process. There's enough other complexities to all this than to add a process later too. So we can sort that out a little bit more thoroughly but for the time being, we'd recommend that they stay as one set. Okay, then can I ask that we get a legal opinion on the effect of sort of exempting, eliminating the exemptions versus keeping them in? And I think that would help us come to a decision on that. I mean, I can really see it both ways. I don't know really where I come down. I mean, my heart says one thing and my brain says another. So the brain wants a little more information. So maybe I can go with my heart. We will do that. But do you mean all the exemptions or just specific exemptions? Just those specific exemptions. The land parcels, the list of airport properties. Okay, so not the district based ones? No, no, not the district. No, just the list of, what is it? 39 homes. The 39 homes, it's appendix B or something. The pre-existing dwellings. Yeah. Okay. That's what I would like. So are we finished then at this point with this conversation? So are there other questions about other parts of the LDRs? Well, I had one question, and I can't find out where it, I can't find it, but in one section you had sightings that were not acceptable. Right. And I got most of them, but I'm curious why Stucco was included in that list. I know a lot of everyone likes Stucco, but it's, I don't know, an acceptable, we have some rather old homes sort of historic homes. Oh yeah. In the city of Burlington, and South Burlington that are Stucco. So to just say no Stucco as a sighting seemed weird to me. Sure. So just to be clear, that's a standard that already exists in our regulations. So that's not a change. Oh. I thought it was in, only in the city center. Right, so we're only speaking about city center here. So the modification is that the planning commission had received a request from a business that was residing vinyl sighting. And the commission evaluated and felt that under the current regulations there are certain materials that are prohibited from use. And that includes a re-application of that. The commission felt that there are some circumstances such as vinyl sighting where they didn't feel that they wanted to discourage somebody from sprucing up a building. So they said that that was acceptable for vinyl sighting. At the same time, as they were looking at the subject, they found that it was odd that the form-based code had material requirements on sides facing a street, but not other sides of the building given that oftentimes, say along Williston Road, as you're driving down the road, you can see the side of the building just as well as you can see the front. And so they applied the prohibitions that do exist to all sides. To answer the question about why Stucco was originally in there, and I think it's before Monica, so I'll just jump in. I didn't do it. The prior city center central district zoning stated that the building needed to be natural materials. So stone, brick, glass, metal. The cement isn't a natural material. Not in that list. And so the commission, and there was a lot of intense design review associated with it. The form-based codes committee and the planning commission were evaluating how to translate that broad intent and those very detailed design review discussions into something that could be administratively reviewed. And so they looked and saw that there were some materials that tend towards better design and a few materials that, while they can be applied well, often tend towards less good design. And so that's why Stucco and EFAS and vinyl siding were listed as not acceptable materials for new buildings. Okay, but that's just in the city center form-based code district. So how else does that work? Someone wants Stucco. They can have it. They can have it, right? Yep. So for single-family homes throughout the city, that's perfectly fine. It's just in the city center form-based code district. Okay. And then I had another question, and it was, again, I can't find where it is, but you went back and forth about how many feet from the edge of the property you needed to have, like, a fence, and it was, like, eight in some places, and then you went back to five, and it was related to turning. But I was just curious, besides getting a car around into a parking spot, what were the other reasons to make that buffer so much? I can speak to that. Sure. Because I know that Jessica was right. Oh, you can. Okay. Because Jessica was going to, you're bringing up an issue that the Planning Commission did discuss, and we ended up having a split vote on that was even, and so when there's a split vote, the rule was to keep it without a change. And without a change, the rule had been an eight-foot, not a border, but a buffer. A buffer. An eight-foot buffer with heavy evergreen. The reason that we had discussed it at all was because in, we weren't spot zoning, but we were looking at an entire district of the T3, again in city center, or in that area on Hinesburg Road, where we also, in these LDRs are now proposing, carriage homes can be permissible in these certain properties. And so in that public hearing, someone who was involved with the development of the Market Street homes and did a lot to afford space to put their front porch, the front porches on, were able to work with the five-foot buffer in that one instance and was concerned about going to eight feet. So it kind of brought up this whole concept of once, for that Market Street section and the rest of this T3, would a five-foot buffer perhaps provide more space for people to add carriage homes and whatnot. So we did end up with a split vote on that and so we did not change it. Yeah, we did not change it here. It may be something that's addressed later and you said you have that. Yeah, so just a quick update from there. The first section of housing that had been built had been built with a five-foot buffer because it was built under old regulations that didn't specify a buffer but in working with the DRB-5 is what they came up with. The new form-based code rules came in two years ago with an eight-foot buffer. The commission was making some tweaks to that language to clarify about headlights and things like that and an individual came at the public hearing and asked about possibly changing that and without putting words in all the commissioners' mouths I think that there was some discomfort with making a change like that at the public hearing without the neighbors having known that that would be coming up so it was really as much a process issue as it was a what's the right number issue. So I think they didn't close the door to revisiting that question in the near future but they just didn't feel that making the change and then all the neighbors find out. The other update is that we've been working with that particular property owner to see what solutions may exist and so no final elements of it but there may be some updates on that. So you haven't really heard from the public on that because they didn't know. It wasn't warned as such as a change. Is there anyone here who has that issue? Okay. All right. Those were my other little itches. All right. So we will we're going to continue this public hearing for two weeks? April 2nd? So if you were to pass a motion to continue the hearing to April 2nd at whatever specific time you'd like to do. The other one did 7.30. That's the 16th. But we are going to have an executive session on the second. So why don't we make this 8 o'clock? I move to continue this public session hearing public hearing until April 2nd at 8 p.m. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Jessica has filled up by then. So we're filling in. Yes. Thank you for filling in. And we hope she has a speedy recovery man. So can we go? Okay. That's the library grant. Yeah. So let's go back to number 7, the library grant applications. Jennifer Murray. Welcome. Jennifer Murray, library director. Hello, counselors. The library board of trustees and I would like to ask for your support in applying for a federal grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The grant is an infrastructure and capacity building challenge grant, which is designed to create infrastructure that will support and promote the humanities. The humanities include history, literature, culture, art history, things like that. The study of things, the study of art, the study of culture, not necessarily the practice of. And a lot of our library programs already do that and we would like to expand that. We are focusing in the grant on spaces that will be available, that will allow us to invite other community groups in to offer programs like that as well as being able to offer them ourselves and with a small emphasis on collections as well. And the grant is for $400,000. It's a three to one matching grant. So we get the $400,000 if the board of trustees raises $1.2 million. So that is the grant proposal that we would like to submit with your support. Great. Any questions or comments? This is right in alignment with your fundraising for the new library. It certainly is. It's a very nice addition. And our fundraising consultant has indicated that she thinks that with the incentive of this grant, if we get it, that we definitely would be able that the board would be able to raise the $1.2 million. Great. Does that $1.2 million have to be new money or can you throw in the... Has to be new money. New money. Oh, good. I mean, in many ways. Yeah. More merrier. Tom. We traditionally get these grant applications usually in our consent agenda. If we give you the approval tonight, would that avoid that from happening or would we still pass our eyes over it? No, I think we didn't put it on the consent agenda. So Jennifer could come in and talk. It's rather sizable undertaking by the Board of Trustees. And I felt it was better for you to actually consider it in open session. And I'm happy to send a copy of the grant proposal or an abstract, whatever would be helpful for you. That would be good. Sarah? Yeah, I just wanted to speak in support of this. I happen to be a board member at the Vermont Humanities Council. Good. And I can say that this is a pretty unusual opportunity for us and highly competitive, of course, but I think we've done an awfully persuasive case in May with the new city center and the new building and everything. So I just think it's a great, great opportunity. And I hope you agree. To express support for applying for this grant. Is that appropriate? Yeah, I think so. Yes. Second? Any further discussion? Just curious what, have you talked with city staff and are there any other considerations that we should be aware of? So. The relations to the grant, how it can be used? The grant is specifically for capital costs. So it is for building, which is very unusual. My suspicion is that they're concerned about national funding for the humanities and so they want to make sure that there are institutions around the country that are going to be built and ready to foster the humanities even if something, you know, even if they don't get as much funding at a national level, that is speculation. The one thing that was not in that one page form that I filled out was that we do, we would have to abide by the Davis Bacon Act. So that is likely to cost us tens of thousands of dollars in order to comply. But I've talked to Justin Rabadou and Alana Blanchard and their feedback is that in the scheme of 1.2 million plus 400,000 that we would still come out way far ahead and so that it was worth doing that. Did it get seconded? Yes, it did. Okay, let's do the speaking. I don't know. Okay, sorry. Yep, so as I understand it, it's a law that the federal government requires that any projects require that people are paid at a certain rate and that that is monitored by the contractors and subcontractors. So again, from Justin, the sense I get is that in Vermont, the subcontractors are generally paid at the right rate. The issue is that there's a lot of paperwork that the contractors have to do in order to prove that the law is being followed and that's where the added cost comes in. Sort of supports union wages or higher wages, prevailing wages, yeah. All right, if you're ready for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you very much. I'm sorry you had to wait so long but you got the result. There and it's signed. Good enough. I guess we should do the consent agenda There's a misspelling on page 67. Helen really is spelled incorrectly. I know. It's on a grant application if you'd like to correct it. I noted that as well. Anything else? Oh, there was something, hold on. The stormwater program. Let me read minutes for February 20th, March 5th and March 7th and then approving and authorizing the council chair to execute the quit claim deed for the conveyance of city lease land interest at a one stone hedge drive prove the Chittenden County MS for stormwater program agreement amendments and item E is approving the Hadley proctor neighborhood sewer project state revolving loan application construction phase. The one question I had had to do with the CCRPC MS for stormwater program agreement. Okay. I ask that now. Sure. Okay. It's on page three of eight of that, which is in our packets page 46. Just moved it. And it's in the yellow there plus CCRPCs applicable indirect rate is required by 24 VSA chapter 4, 3, 4, 5, B. I went on and look at the statute and there is I can see there's no mention of the indirect rate. So perhaps this is foreseeing something in the future. That was that was just the one thing I thought we should be aware is there might be I wasn't able to calculate with that additional rate the indirect the indirect rate would be so I don't know what additional costs are going to be subject to. Do you know possibly what their indirect is has lots of organizations. I think you have a standard one. But I don't know what there is. Like UVM is huge. I mean, Tom, Tom would know we could have Tom come into the next meeting if you wanted to delay. Actually, I think this has a this is time sensitive. You know, I mean, if you want to delay to the second time could come in and answer that. Is that what you would like to get that answer? I mean, I don't know change. I mean, I think an indirect can be considerable. And it's good to know that. Yeah. So why don't we so then I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda item a b c and e and we'll take up D next time. So moved. All in favor signify by saying aye. Thank you. We want announcements in the city manager's report. We want to keep moving on to why don't we have the presentation on underwood master plan go to item 12 if that's okay. Just because there's people here and there are no members of the public that wanted to say are there any members of the public that wanted to say anything that wasn't on the agenda? They all left. Oh, dear. No, early you're on. That usually is the beginning. Okay. So that's my case. Okay. Holly Baker, recreation and parks. Maggie Lugers, recreation and parks. So we're going to just do a very quick timeline bullet run down just to refresh everyone's memory and I will pass it off to our consultant group. So in February 2013 the city purchased a 60 acre underwood parcel the corner of spear street and Nolan farm road file of 2014 council created the underwood task force with five members at large one representative from bike and pet one representative from the natural resource committee one representative from recreation and parks and then in November 2014 contracted with the SE group to form the framework that we've been working on so March 2015 the framework was presented and adopted which indicated property key aspects and attributes of the land and some initial mapping of potential park elements. And then in January of 2017 we contracted with the SE group again to go under the master planning process which we've been in that process has included an onsite event where we got lots of public input it's also been meetings with stakeholders an additional public input meeting several weeks ago and an open survey so we're really excited about the public process that we've had so far and all the public input through the years and we're really excited to welcome Drew Pollock Bruce from SE group to do some updates and presentation. Great, that's great. You guys want to be here? Thank you. We've got David Roy from Lehman Landfare Architects with us as well. So those are our consultant team as SE group and Lehman Landfare they helped us with the building design for the master plan. And so this presentation we're going to run through a little bit of the public engagement and the planning process that Holly kind of filled us in on quite a bit so I'll just touch on that for a moment. We'll take a look at what program elements are in this master plan and so those are the design program there can be some confusion sometimes in the recreation world we're not talking about yoga we're talking about elements that will go into the design of the site. We'll take a look at the site plan concepts so that's kind of the map version of where these elements are located on the park. We'll take a look at some of the event barn concepts and the building concepts. We'll review some of the feedback from the website and from the meeting just a couple weeks ago with the workshop a couple weeks ago and we'll look at some phasing and some costs and we'll have some discussion after that. I know a few of you were at our presentation a couple weeks ago and so this is much of the same information. There is a little bit new where we're looking at some of the feedback that we heard a couple weeks ago and the phasing and costs are all new so I think that's pretty exciting stuff and so let's get started. So in the public engagement process as Holly alluded to there was the 2015 vision framework it ended in 2015 that was a year long process had a task force there were two public meetings or workshops around that and an online comment form through that process we came up with a vision for the park and really started to think about in what direction should this park move and I really want to commend the city for approaching this project in this way where the vision framework kind of didn't have enough funding to go over the full master plan was able to kind of set the vision and actually get people out using that park and they have been using it since 2015 and then now that we have more resources we're able to finish the plan and so it was really nice to be able to kind of do that in two pieces and so I think the city should be really commended for approaching it in that way but what we found out is that that park should have this character that's kind of reflected in this word cloud that you're seeing it should be a low key very natural park should be sustainable and kind of showcase some of these sustainable principles like ecologically sensitive design low impact development and really be a park that shows that off here in South Burlington multi-generational and multi-dimensional and that multi-dimensional actually becomes really important as we move through the process what we found was that there were three major themes that this park needed to encompass and it's a little bit unique not every park has elements of agriculture and natural resources to such an extent that this one does and so through the vision framework process we engage with the public and we gave them kind of three different concepts that leaned in one of these three directions and that triangle that you're seeing there is actually a picture of the dot exercise we did with the public there is general agreement that it should have some elements of all three and it should kind of be in the middle and so the master plan really kind of follows up with that and these are some of the guiding principles that came from the vision framework and have been carried through into this master plan and so the mix of natural resources agriculture and recreation is really important that emphasis on conservation and sustainability and education and environmental awareness that's that showcase idea having diverse agricultural uses and so that's not just a community garden there is real desire to have some food production that serves the community on this site because it's kind of one of the last vestiges of that old use of the southeast quadrant and this has had farming happening there for a long time and then using it as a gateway to recreation and connectivity for the community so people can pass through the park as well as enjoy and stay making sure it's connected to the rec pass system is important to that connectivity having that wide range of activities available to people in the park and so that's that multi-dimensional aspect establishing a primary structure and there was really a lot of support in that vision framework process that it should be an event barn and should kind of have this agrarian feel to it there's this idea that we should not be overbuilding in the park it's kind of low key low intensity and then maintaining a wide spectrum of trail types out there so there would be the bike path there would be some gravel paths some trails in the woods and kind of a wide variety of trails and so at that 2015 level we kind of came up with this bubble diagram trying to think about where these things may be located in space but it was really at a big picture level and so this process that we've been in for about a past year or so to develop the master plan really uses this as the starting point checks in with the community to say hey how does this stuff still make sense and really kind of diving deeper into that and so that's what we've done through the master planning process I think if my clicker wants to keep working great and so in the past year this has been our public engagement process we had a workshop in August of last year and so that's we had the big hot air balloon which is pretty exciting that's definitely the first public meeting I've had with a hot air balloon but Maggie said hey I think I could get I know a guy with a hot air balloon I think I can get him to come and we said please of course there's no promotion for this event but I think the balloon brought in more people than anything else because what's going on I saw the balloon and so there's a lot of people there it was really great this image you see the two girls filling in the you know stickered out exercise just makes me really excited because I love it when everyone from the community can come out and give their thoughts and so that's pretty exciting there's a survey after that workshop asked the same questions of the workshop to provide input we met with Parks and Recreation the bike ped committee natural resources we received comments from the energy committee and we met with common roots to kind of be a stakeholder for the agricultural use we had a public meeting here a couple weeks ago right in the same space and then we've had a red comment form open since then additional input from folks and then today is kind of our last piece of public input before we finalize the plan and so just a little bit of background on the site you may know this already so we probably don't need to spend too much time with it but it is just a caddy corner to Overlook Park and so it's on Spear Street and Nolan Farm Road I think the really important thing to think about with this site is that it really has every layer of protection that the city has is in place on this site and so there really is, it's part of the view corridor it's part of the great swamp wildlife corridor there are prime agricultural soils on the site it's part of impaired watershed really every layer that the city has is in place so it's a really special parcel with a lot of features to it and really the views there are pretty incredible as you know it has a similar view to Overlook Park which you may be familiar with it's kind of the best thing I think in Overlook Park is the views but you often don't always turn around but from this parcel you can actually see Mount Mansfield you can see Camelshump on a clear day and so there are views really in 360 degrees from this park and we did a view analysis to kind of see if you can see through these two images as well that there are certain areas of the park where more of the houses drop away and you see mostly the lake and the mountains and there are certain places and that's what some of our landscape architects did it's really trying to locate some of the viewing opportunities and the buildings to really take advantage of those distance hold it up so what did we put into this plan so agriculture there's community agriculture and what we've heard from the public is that it should be community serving in some way they didn't want to see a for-profit private farmer farming just for their own pocket they wanted to see some sort of community serving agriculture common roots is an example of that but it could also be something like the Interveil Farm in Burlington something that is a community serving food production we've heard that raised beds and accessible community gardens are lacking in the city there are great community gardens at Wheeler and we don't have immediate accessibility for people with mobility challenges and some of our elders and so that was a piece that we included here traditional community garden plots there's a need there's a waiting list for those and so there's a need to expand those a wildflower or natural cutting garden and then some support facilities for those uses a tool storage shed and hose bibs and so trails are typically included within passive recreation and so a wide variety of trails are included there are a number of trails in the woods today they're in really good shape they're well built and so we don't see changing those much at all but there's opportunities and the city has been doing some mode paths out there now but there are opportunities to build some more trails a bike path connection picnic tables the shade structure which is a pretty exciting element that we can look at in a moment here and a number of different places to do sunset viewing and so the experience at Overlook Park today we go there pretty often in the summer but there's a lot of other folks there enjoying it as well and so here at Underwood we wanted to provide opportunities where bigger groups similar to Overlook could be near this pergola patio space but then there are also benches that take advantage of views if you want to kind of hike out on the trail system and have a more intimate picnic or something like that you could also have that opportunity to kind of enjoy the views and maybe a less populated area of the park active recreation and so this is open fields and so what we've heard is that there's a need for non-programmed field space for games you can just go out and throw a frisbee so kind of different than the field space that you might have at Veterans Memorial Park a natural playground and so this would be still safety certified playground structures but it's built out of natural materials and it allows kids to have a different experience in the playground like you see here in the image and we're still climbing on stuff and it's kind of a similar field with materials a tree house the trees that are in the woods there are not going to support a structure on its own but it would be kind of built on stilts in there and then a pump track which is a bicycle facility and so this is made out of dirt and it has rollers and kind of berms so that's a turn with a banked turn there is one in Essex at the Maple Street Park it's kind of in the woods there it's a facility there they're relatively that's the only one in Chittenden County so there's not a whole lot here in this area and so that's part of it then the event facility and so that's the event barn and we have been saying event quite a bit here but it's not just for events it could support recreation programming it could support some of the camps and farmers markets as well as some private events weddings, family reunions things like that we've got a lot of feedback on the types of events that people felt were appropriate and these were those that would also have an outdoor terrace a patio space as well as an event lawn and it's pretty exciting I think the way the landscape architects have laid this out you can actually be enjoying some of these spaces with multiple things happening at once some of the magic that came together with the design natural resources are a big element at this park and so this baby deer that you're seeing it's not the greatest shot but I actually took that with my iPhone after I put up a a trail counter out there I was at the tree putting up a trail counter and I didn't even see him until he got up and ran away but there's a baby deer literally at my feet and so that was the spring and so this is a really highly traveled wildlife corridor and there's a real opportunity to experience that you know right there in the southeast quadrant so it's pretty exciting but making sure those things are protected is really important and so this plan really responds to that by maintaining those habitats allowing for succession and designated areas which will also help with storm water treatment removing invasive species maintaining the meadow areas for species like bobble ink other birds so that's brush hogging and maintaining it for those species as well as aesthetics and other characteristics and then storm water improvements and so this does pick up a storm water project that has been in the city as a neighborhood storm water project it's been in plans even I think before this park was acquired by the city potentially before the vision process started certainly and so it incorporates a larger storm water feature as part of a neighborhood feature as well as storm water or treating storm water on-site on-site before it goes anywhere else then there's some support facilities that are included in that on-street parking interior parking which was kept to a minimum an access road with a drop off bathrooms trailhead markers and signage entrance signs bike racks interpretive signage public art trash lighting and the drinking fountain and it's important to note with the lighting we're talking about dark sky compliant low lighting so this is things that's putting it just on the ground for safety and it's reducing any light pollution so it's pointing it all right at the ground in a low level and so what do these things look like on the ground and these are some of the character images that we're kind of going for with this design the upper left is actually on Nolan farm road that was taken just this year and so it kind of has this LA of trees and the mowed edge and that's something that's kind of repeated here in the aesthetic of this park and so we're trying to pick up on some of the existing aesthetic as well and you can see here there's some stone walls there's some of the mowed edges you know this one on the bottom right is a residence but you know kind of looking at the gravel path the grass and the stone there it will go eventually so here's the layout of the park and I should note that north is down on these images the reason why we did that is because everybody really even today approaches the park from Nolan farm road we really wanted to kind of recreate the way people are seeing used to kind of entering the park is from this way so we've oriented it in that way so this is Nolan farm road and this is Spear street and we're going to zoom in here in a moment and look at some of these in a little bit more detail but here's an agricultural field it's really where the prime soils, agricultural soils are located it's also where there's farming happening today this is that stormwater feature the neighborhood stormwater feature this is where the community gardens would be located and it allows to kind of share those same support resources as well as be fenced together it's one thing we heard from common roots that's really important to make sure the entire farming and agriculture is fenced because there are a lot of critters out there that like to eat the veggies apparently not surprising you're seeing a little bit of stormwater feature here as well as some buffering trees we did have some of the neighboring landowners came to some of the public meetings and they're very supportive of the plan and of the project but this was something that was requested and we think makes a lot of sense from both the park perspective and the neighboring landowners perspective to have some buffering right there and we do recommend that kind of happen a little bit earlier on so it can grow up but you're seeing some parking, a small parking lot here with an access road and a drop off that would allow you to have just the ADA accessible parking here and administrative access if you do have a wedding or an event there, caterers could get in and drop off and get back out, things like that this is where the shade structure is and the other patio in the way our landscape architects have laid this out there's some separation here between the events that could be happening here in this space and kind of the more public viewing opportunities that you might have here on the patio and the pergola or trellis there is an event lawn here where you could have either a continuation of that event or even another smaller event could happen on this event lawn with a little bit of raised raised berms that would allow you to enjoy a concert, things like that the informal play fields are located over here we've located the pump track and the wild playground next to each other and kind of close access to some of the parking so parents can kind of get into this zone pretty easily and another nice feature about this is does it kind of allow a private event could be happening here with a lot of public uses happening throughout the park without people stepping on top of each other tree houses located here in the woods this is Parash Brook and so allowing that to kind of grow back up with and do some invasive species removal there we can zoom in on some of these areas a little bit more and so zooming in just a little bit more you can see the LA of trees trying to kind of replicate the same kind of aesthetic along Nolan farm road let's see what else should I put oh yeah this is the toolshed that would also have restrooms in it as well and so it would be storage administrative space for the city as well as for the farming and agricultural use but then also provide bathrooms which is very helpful in the phasing too when we get there you'll see that becomes really helpful public art could be a really good location for some public art here interpretive signage is really a good opportunity throughout the park there are so many kind of interesting things that could be taught here from the stormwater management practices to the habitats to the opportunities for ecologically sensitive design in net zero so there's to the agricultural uses that are happening there there's a lot of opportunity for interpretation here as well here we're looking at kind of a close-up view of the park core where the event space might be and so this is a a tree a grove here that maybe we did look at it being an orchard but the soils are not going to really support really fruit brand trees and as I said this is that kind of event lawn space that does have some separation here and you can see some of the ways that we've divided up the space with paths with some of the vegetative plantings the stone wall here kind of helps divide up the space and make it feel a little bit more intimate the same token views are of critical importance here and so making sure that anything that's placed out there is not impeding views from elsewhere on the site is very important I don't know why it doesn't want to work and so here's just a zoom up of the pump track and the wild play area there would be some benches in there as well we have heard some feedback that potentially a restroom in this location might make a lot of sense as well and that was something that we heard from the public through the web form and at the public meeting and so that's not reflected here on the plans yet but that's something that we can show if you guys are interested in seeing that as well I think I can hand it over to David Is there really an easement on the eastern side of that problem? Ah, yes. Is there a path easement that goes from the forest over to Nolan Farm Road? I saw back the far left Ah, yes and so there is not currently an easement through this area there is however an existing trail that does lead out that way there is private land here it's pretty short piece of private land and it's wooded as well there has been some conversation in the process about winter use and the potential for this to be a staging area for cross country skiing, snowshoeing and then because right across from Nolan Farm Road you can get onto the cart path system from the golf course which does allow as part of its stipulation of the city I've heard allows access to for cross country skiing on the cart paths but the parking lots are not certainly not necessarily accessible in the winter and so this would allow people to park here and then kind of get onto that much larger system for Nordic skiing that would would require negotiation of an easement across this parcel but it is only one parcel and it's fairly short easement please If the city of South Burlington started celebrating the 4th of July launching a fireworks show would this lot have a natural place for the fireworks to be safely illuminated that's a good question yeah and so there is on-tree parking here I guess I didn't mention that I'm sorry there is on-tree parking as well as the interior parking lot and so there is enough parking to accommodate about 50 people on the site at one time and so probably not for 4th of July but there is a parking for some some events did you think about a buffer for noise we just had our news between weddings and having the van strike up we have yeah absolutely and so there's been some vegetation added here where maybe a little bit thinner and kind of blocks some of the adjoining properties we also think the way that the spaces that might host events are oriented would reduce the potential for that the berms as well this is raised up a little bit would help reduce some of that we think as well as the scale event is really important you know I think and that was kind of something people talked about a lot is that they didn't want to see really large events and so I think 100 to 150 people was kind of the range that people were most comfortable with and we heard more so that 150 was about the right number but we think you know once events kind of scale up larger than that you'll get more opportunities for nuisance impacts but it's relatively low relatively low key events so we wouldn't necessarily see this place as the place for you know city fest or some of the bigger kind of city events you might have some of the smaller events here but the parking and other considerations would make places like veterans moral maybe better for those larger events a wedding can be pretty it's a party 150 is a good size wedding you have a pretty good band going yeah absolutely and so I think we have thought about the noise that would come from an event of that size but at the same token I think how many people did come to city fest or to bikes and bikes pretty big outdoor concert and I think it would be kind of a lower scale event so there would be some noise from an event that would happen here but you know in the order of magnitude it would be relatively small compared to events at other parks in the city for example I understand but I just we've had several people come in before us and discuss how their peace and health are being impacted so I just I think that's consideration and so you know we did hear and we can look at some of those results in a minute we did hear from neighbors from kind of all sides and so we heard from folks that are in South Point we heard specifically from these two homes there in the most the closest proximity we heard from neighbors in this area and some people did raise concerns like that but for the most part what people said was we are supportive of events there and we want to make sure that the size of the event is considered and so we're trying to reflect that input through the through the sizing of the facilities the parking as well as kind of that that peace and so what we did hear was that we are supportive of that sort of use in general and that's saying everybody in that neighborhood said that but we did hear from numerous people that they thought those uses would be acceptable but that they wanted to make sure that the size the question sure so some guidelines would be developed about maximum number of cars and the timing I think is really critical when can you have noise time of day we'll maybe leave it there Drew could you just talk a little bit about the the bypass oh yes absolutely yeah sorry about that and so there is an existing right-of-way that the city owns and it's shown right here that comes in the South Point neighborhood and so it has been thought of as a good connection potentially for the the bike path to continue through this site it is currently it goes all the way down Nolan Farm Road and snakes through Overlook Park now and so maintaining this as part of that bike path system paved to the same character as the bike path is here on Nolan Farm kind of coming out into the South Point neighborhood where there is potential to eventually connect up to further point South, South Village and other locations we haven't really studied that through this plan but maintaining that connectivity to South Point is critical in and of itself but then also maintaining that opportunity to continue the bike path network to the South right through this park is critical and it does allow folks to travel by bike to this park with ease and really interestingly we asked people how they would like to arrive at this site and we heard overwhelmingly that bike and pedestrian access was really important and so I think trying to remember the exact percentages but I think it was 40 or 30 percent on each bike, car and foot and so there's really high percentages of people who want to be able to walk and bike to the park and so we wanted to make sure we had those access points and so one of the feedback that we heard at the meeting two weeks ago was making sure that there's sidewalk and a crosswalk connection across to this neighborhood just across Spear Street here as well as connectivity to the bike path and making multiple entrances and exits from the park so you can kind of arrive from any side and exit through the other side thanks just another comment as you were talking about the bike path perhaps going just to the other side of South Point and maybe even on to South Village I just wanted to raise the point that you would be getting onto little to the Carolina Lawn land there at the back and they both passed away Carolyn just a few months ago so I'm just thinking that if the city has something like that in mind might be the time to engage the family in some discussion before they do whatever with that property I don't know what it will be but Carolyn in particular and Kathy and Joe Frank who live in South Point had worked on a trail system of their own back there and what they were seeing and so on so there's a little precedent for that I don't know how the family would feel but you shouldn't lose the opportunity to speak with them before they sell it or something I have no idea what the plan is about thank you good night on the city master plan the extension of the bike path goes right across there and then back straight south to South Village back behind all the houses and there was originally a plan for road to connect South Point to South Village which is something DPW is thinking about so there is already a plan that would connect down to South Village and then you've connected a whole lot of houses to the regular bike path so there's a lot of potential there as for the long property I talked to them a while back and I've talked to people that know them and I think as far as nobody seems to know what their plans are going to be the property went to the children and my guess is about what some of their options they're probably thinking of but I is this where the apple orchard is that's the but that's the property and Caroline was very keen on keeping the wild character back there but some kind of low key or cross country skiing might be well they're already trails in the back we've added to them but you also have a wetland where the brook grows through so you're limited your path would have to be out of that area nobody talked about athletic playing fields there was a lot of conversation around athletic playing fields and what that should look like and so we had we met with parks and rec and then we also in the vision process we kind of kicked that around an awful lot and what we've heard is that while there is high demand for programmable space you can reserve ahead of time and have your games there's an even greater need for informal play space that is not consumed by structured games and places where kids can play pick up games and things like that and so there was a lot of conversation around well should we make it rectangular and kind of put some lines out there what we heard was that no as soon as we do that even if it's not officially programmable they'll still take that space and so it was actually designed to not be a regulation size field that would be really attractive to those programs that may overtake that space and so the idea is that it does allow for recreation games to happen certainly but the intent is to allow for pick up games, informal games, family use of this field space as opposed to that programmable field space that you have at Veterans Memorial and some other parks in the city and we did hear that there is high demand for that sort of space but what we did here as well is that there's an even greater demand for this sort of space which also seemed to fit I think with a lot of people's minds that kind of the character of this park was more in line with that informal field space as opposed to the structured kind of recreation space and so I think it is good to think about this park in relation I think to Veterans Memorial Park because that was something we heard from folks is that this should not be Veterans Memorial Park it should be have a different completely different character and feeling to it well in South Village is going to have a soccer field correct? which is fairly close and so I think the parks and rec committee specifically felt that this space should not have that structured formal field space so it was discussed though that was the public I went to a couple of meetings a year ago and it was pretty clear people liked this more passive and less built up area are there any other questions on this site plan before we move to some of the building concepts we're going to look at some phasing some of the cost and a few of the other other pieces there but if we can move forward to some of the buildings you can try your luck alright we'll give this to you so this is the the main event building that we've all been talking about this is intended to occupy kind of semi-large grouping of people for different events there's support space here storage space really to be able to change the room out for different types of opportunities there's a servery here so you can serve foods, wines, beers, whatever restroom facilities administrative office and actually a meeting and conference room space for smaller groups as well and the whole idea is that this whole entire space can kind of be opened up and become indoor-outdoor so that the seasonally anyway you can enjoy kind of larger events both indoor and outdoor and then there's a large dual-sided fireplace element also that can be enjoyed inside or outside there you go this is the little shed this is at the northern end of the community gardens so there needed to be a place for storage of agricultural equipment and garden stuff and also restrooms to support the outdoor uses adjacent to it as well so this is just a little small these are some of the inspirational images that were kind of used and presented in earlier meetings to in terms of relative scale and size, use of materials and context of the building and these images were used to kind of define the direction that we took so we ended up whoops now it's getting too fast oh man what's it doing? all right here we go so this path here is as you approach the little loop driveway was right here this is as you come to the building on the north side of the building which is the main entrance and then on the opposite side of the building would be this fireplace element again lots of glass that can be opened up a little more south facing but it's a covered element on the south side and this is the view from the northwest I'll say which shows the outdoor patio area the community gardens and such are going to be over in this location over here and the small agricultural building shed will be down to the north a little bit I would envision this thing is crazy yeah I think it's the nearest apartment yeah I would envision that there would be a fair amount of furnishings out on that open patio yes this is the this is the little agricultural building so there's agricultural storage so moors maintenance equipment those types of things can go in here and then there's a garden storage area in here and then restrooms on the other side and then this is the eastern side of the building that looks out towards the kind of recreational field and this is where the storage areas are and support facilities we'll take it back then good luck with that thing thank you, yeah I know who knows good thing Patrick bought another one recently two questions actually two buildings in the winter they would be yes second point is I think what I was saying I love the buildings I think what I was saying was something where the length of the building was sort of north south oriented that is correct if they returned then they would be solar available and so this has been a manner of discussion when we presented the concepts of the facilities initially we did explore the buildings oriented north south the building oriented north south and the building oriented east west and kind of saying it's not fair to characterize it as one is the solar orientation and one is the view orientation but one of the north south orientation prioritizes views whereas the east west orientation would prioritize solar and so it doesn't mean that the view orientation has no solar capability it could actually potentially support the whole building oriented in that way and similarly the solar orientation does not mean the views go away either it's kind of a decision point on whether we want to capitalize on the views more strongly or capitalize upon the solar opportunities more strongly and what we heard was that the views were kind of one of the most important elements of the park particularly knowing that solar was still a potential in the future but still a potential with that orientation. We would still anticipate putting solar panels solar PV panels on the western roof escape which would be less efficient than a true solar orientation I think part of I'm going to add to his decision a little bit we also felt the south exposure was where the event space took place indoor-outdoor and having that kind of be directed towards that tree-lined area rather than out over towards the road would help work with acoustics and other things more appropriately and by having the building oriented north south there's also going to be a little bit better presence from the main road from Spear Street so we felt there would be a better presence if the building were in line with parallel with Spear Street it is going to be quite up there on the hill but I know there's a lot of things to weigh I really hear what you're saying just thinking that thematically this whole park is supposed to be speaking to sustainability that's not to say there's no use tracker arrays right on the ground yeah that would kind of really do a double whammy on your view in that immediate area not sure that's the place for trackers I love trackers but I'm not sure that that release spot for them just a personal opinion thank you very much did you have two questions or was that the heating of the building sorry let's see if I can skip back alright and so what have we heard since we gave this very similar presentation a couple weeks ago and so kind of repeated some of the themes that we've heard and that are not yet reflected in the master plan maps that will revise the plans based on feedback tonight and this feedback that we've heard and so the number one thing that we heard was really overwhelming support for the concept in general I think I'm pretty exciting some folks raised the thoughts about we can start fundraising for some of these elements and I've heard we've already gotten some funds raised and so for benches and for bike path which is pretty exciting and so there's a lot of people that I think were pretty excited at the meeting a couple weeks ago we did hear that the rec path connections are extremely important to make sure we maintain that ability to connect the rec path further north and south and obviously connecting into the rec path that's right there adjacent to the park is critical we did hear a little bit about the wind conditions and that it can be a very windy site and making sure that kind of think about some of those outdoor event spaces in particular and so we'll look at ways to kind of think about some of the vegetation placement and maybe some of the stone walls to make sure we're incorporating that element and shielding some of that wind like I said the idea of solar panels did come up and we heard from the energy committee members of the energy committee at the public meeting that net zero should really be a goal here and so that was reiterated at the public meeting we got some pretty interesting ideas for water catchment capturing rainwater reusing on the site in agriculture operations and it was a young guy I think it was about 10 who came up to me with that idea which was pretty, I always love that yeah and like I mentioned earlier the need to make sure that the crosswalk from pheasant way does have a place to end into the spear street connection on the south end of the parcel and just so there is a sidewalk on both sides making sure that's shown on the plan correctly there's a lot of conversation around the dog policy at this park and we have heard a lot of feedback from folks that's important to allow dogs to have use of the park and so at the same token we have heard from a lot of people the importance of the natural resources on the site like I said there's that baby deer that I wouldn't have even seen the dog would have certainly sent it out instantly if he was off leash and so there are some considerations to think about around that policy but this plan allows for the city to approach that policy in the way that makes the most sense for the city and to the city's credit there's that task force going on now to look at dog parks and dog access to parks in the city and we think that this should be part of that conversation absolutely that it should be even though it's kind of in its infancy it should be part of that discussion on the city-wide task force on dog management and parks we did also hear that undergrounding any power and making sure that the lighting levels are kept low to kind of match the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood was really important and so the phasing and the costs so it's your most fun part to look at it and so in phase one really focusing on access and kind of getting people out on the site with some passive recreation opportunities and so making sure that invasive species are removed and that's kind of an ongoing activity as well as the habitat protection and monitoring an ongoing activity but that kind of starts right with day one and carries through looking at some of the street bump-outs parking striping sidewalk and crosswalks and so bump-outs are little parts of the curve that extend out and would facilitate the crosswalks and some of the on-street parking the width of Nolan Farm accommodates on-street parking today but you can use some striping to kind of denote that a little bit but there's no changes to the road there in order to allow that to happen establishing the parking lot with the entrance drive start stopping at the parking in phase one but kind of establishing that corridor and that interior parking lot earlier on like I said getting those tree buffer zones up early along with that at the same time so it can grow up and do its buffering job screening doing a rough grade around the building site and establishing a lawn area there where you might have events you might even put a sign there maybe it's a fundraising opportunity to show future site of our event space but really to kind of establish that zone early on with that use a walking path system with the boardwalks to cross the wetlands and that the paths in the woods should stay pretty much the way they are no new construction and there's not even Kathy Frank and the folks that are working on that have been doing a great job with those trails and so they're in really good shape not much needed there getting the multi-use path primary park entrance sign and the secondary park entrance signs and the trail signs all in there some of the benches associated with these features any storm water that's needed for the phase one amenities should be built as part of phase one doing the alley of trees along the entrance drive to kind of establish that corridor and that aesthetic and then the screening to screen the parking and I guess I didn't talk about the cost should mention that before I skip you saw that but I should mention them as well the site we've got a range here 720,000 to about 880,000 for these phase one improvements no buildings yet so I thought a manner would be free yeah hopefully no buildings to win for structure there was net zero yeah well if you do the right fundraising it could be net zero to the city's coffers but you gotta have a really good fundraiser so phase two this is where we get the gardening use in there we introduce the active recreation and we create some more of those viewing opportunities and so you get that pump track and the play area the wild play and the small lawn area as well as the path connections to those zones building the community garden the paths the berry hedge and the fence that's kind of all associated there with the community garden getting the farm and garden access road in that's when we'll build the shed with the restrooms the water supply for all the ag use and then that's that Patrick really likes the word pergola he corrected me many times it's not a trellis it's a pergola it's kind of what you're seeing over here on the right that I've always thought of as a trellis but building that with the patio space, picnic tables Adirondack chairs or shazes the raised beds and some of the stone wall that's in there and then any storm water that's necessary to accommodate that storm water storm water generated from that development and you've got about about a million dollars in site in this phase give or take as well as 85 to about 105 for the storage shed for that the storage shed the storage shed and restrooms yes it's bathrooms there so there's a septic component yeah electricity power and heating and a question around the idea for composting toilets or when you explore everything from the green machine all the way down to many different opportunities for the way you could accommodate the restrooms if you're interested in exploring that our recommendation is that we think the city should pursue those sorts of innovative, sustainable practices but maybe not at this site because you have your sewer right there in Nolan Farm Road it's very easily accessible and we think you should save those more expensive opportunities to do the more sustainable things where you really need them and this site is not necessarily one of those places where you'd need that in terms of that we do think you wouldn't need to add any sewage capacity so from a sustainability standpoint it makes sense to use what's right there phase three is where you get to the event facility and you finish out the rest of the park so you've got the event barn you complete the entrance drive with that drop off loop you get the bosque of trees and that's that kind of orchard area that I mentioned earlier you finish the stone walls you build the patio terrace around the building as opposed to the one by the pergola you do the event lawns and the remaining landscaping any of the paths that are kind of connecting into the building you complete the site lighting again any stormwater associated with this phase and the tree house I should also note that that neighborhood stormwater features shown right along Spear street is on a separate track with DPW in terms of its completion I believe and so it's not built into our phasing but that's on its own timeline through DPW and this stormwater utility does it have its own funding? I believe it does yeah it does definitely we'll just save you and so that's the major phases and we can enter questions and have some discussion and see if you have energy left at this time of night everyone's cold well I think this design is fabulous and I think it's years in the making I'm guessing but I think you have been to a couple of the meetings and I think you've translated I heard a lot of the the public who came to those meetings granted it's a subset what they envision and would like to see in their kind of wish list of how to use the land I think I would note there were some folks that were really engaged and really excited and passionate and we saw them at every they're on this steering committee and they're at every meeting but we did see different folks throughout the kind of four or five years and so we did see a lot of neighbors we saw a lot of people in the community I think relate to this project and so I was really encouraged that it wasn't always the same 20 people in the room every time we had a meeting we got a lot of new people out for that public meeting in August with the hot air balloon and so we did get a lot of I think varied input throughout the process which makes me excited as a planner Sarah this may be up to the city and not to our consultants but timing of these phases you know we're talking who take a couple of years to do phase one and five years to do phase two or any thought around that I think I was just asking about the half a cent if any of that money is uncommitted but it might be in my mind eight years from now if we want to revisit the half a cent from the open space fund to pay for things like this I think we need to have several planning meetings to prioritize we have a lot of asks and we need to figure it out I think even within the phases there's opportunities to get people out on the site the city has already been working towards that and I think you know nudging regardless of the timeline making sure that you know those opportunities are continued to be pursued and you continue to mow the paths out there and keep them up and keep people using the park that you know is public land now is a really great strategy that the city has started already is doing a great job with so I would continue that and you know build things that funding becomes available and you're already getting donations who knows who knows I know it was really interesting because at the public meeting we had here a couple weeks ago a foundation one of the members that saw our foundation for recreation of parks and actually there were two a family that is interested in putting in the bike path through the park and then another person interested in putting in all of the benches so that can be worked through the foundation and that's non-cost to the city there's also a lot of people in the community interested in getting other people on the land so we had several naturalists that were volunteering their time to do some birding walks to do some identification walks so we have a resource list and so we'll continue to build that inventory to have people get on the land and appreciate the asset that it is as it is and I really want to commend SE Group and also with the designs just in incorporating that I think all of the suggestions from all different ages too you know there were even children that were involved especially on site when we had the big air, you know, hot air balloon and I really want to commend pulling that in and really making it about the community and I can really say that you guys really did a great job on that thank you thank you it's a pleasure to work with the city that values that so much because we do as well it is a jewel oh for sure more priceless they're a good investment have some things be more priceless okay well thank you very much I appreciate it sorry for the cool temperature in the room we're saving it, it keeps you awake I'm sort of shivering so we'll move down to February financials tell me you have five minutes go so on a straight line method for accounting we're two thirds of the year through with accounting February still in good shape overall the general fund is just over 60% spent in expenditures about 62% in the revenues that's up from 56% expenses for January not a lot of margin there and the revenues were at 53 in January so up to 62 on the revenue side the building and sign permits still tracking well we're at 67% there fire inspection revenue starting to slide a little bit but it is at 52% that's a little under the projection but much higher than it was last year which got us into a bit of trouble and the ambulance building is pretty much on target with their revenues on the expense side we have the final payment of Radio North was made for the communications equipment upgrade so that's now paid off DPW still going to struggle a little bit with winter I think over time in salt already in February over spent our salt budget so that's the good news we were able to get more salt we knew it let's hope we don't have to use it anyway we're a little over spent right now we certainly got March that's going to add to that over expense and then there's the there's a vehicle expense in DPW that took that vehicle purchase line over budget that's being reclassified it just got coded to should have been coded into the enterprise funds and it got coded into the general funds so Justin is working to fix that but we'll make that adjustment for the March financials on the enterprise funds side stormwater revenues are at 76% the expenses have stayed pretty steady at 114% mainly the carry over projects from last year on the sewer side revenue at 54% expenses at 46% so in good shape there happy to respond to questions I think I got that in 5 minutes yeah are there any Megan? Police salary southern budgeted amount of $15,000 in the data expenditures $34,554 yes I've asked Megan I'll have to email you and counsel I've asked Sue to get that for me today and we tried to reach Trevor he's tracking certain expenses out of the salary lines and I just wanted to confirm which ones were tracking under the other so I will get that to you and the park maintenance this is page 140 of our packets it was budgeted at $1,000 yeah and we spent over $4,000 that have anything to do with a half penny or is this something else so I'm on park maintenance it's capital park maintenance and then it is the fifth item down, park supplies wait park supplies is park maintenance oh goodness park maintenance salaries over time so some of the park's guys come in for plowing Justin has everybody to come in they're park maintenance employees so it's going to be reflected there we're just trying to get a more actual cost we've talked about whether we just have a line item for general overtime for anyone like if it's plowing where a storm water comes in and public works comes in the park's guys come in but right now we're tracking it per department so Justin's putting that down under parks and we haven't paid the Winooski Valley park payment yet that is on the next warrant actually I thought it was on the last one but we just got the statement today from the park district so that will be on April 2nd we just voted to stay in they did? I thought they voted to stay out they voted no the question was should we pull out that's when a vote no is a yes have we spent anything on the Howard Center employees that have been hired? not to date that hasn't been initiated I think their background checks just cleared so not implemented yet are the solar credits they're variable month to month just a matter of how much input we get it's kind of hard to budget you tried to budget for that but did they give you a ballpark average number for the entire year are you talking about the landfill we were hoping to get between 6 and 8 and in January it was really low I think less than 4 this has been awful we're back on track now February was better March could be on March March we're by half and half so far we'll see if your panels weren't covered with snow so maybe those aren't because they're low to the ground it all depends on whatever they do get one day of sun melt it right off yeah it doesn't stay on the the snow slide right off okay alright thank you item 15 consider and possibly approve providing the chair authority to sign the union municipal district agreement authorized by the voters on March 6th so I guess we need a motion to sign it what fiscal liability does that impose upon us at this time no I didn't think it did it is just the feasibility so they can actively plan as I understand it and come back with the rules and the bylaws and the budget operational stuff and then what level of story do you have at that point none just review or we can vote yes or no step for the council as far as implementing our role would be to approve the MOU which was attached to the agreement that stipulates how much you pay so once if you're in agreement with the plan the operational plan and the MOU on the payment schedule which is based on calls once you agree to that MOU you're in but for now this is almost an interim step where the municipal district has been authorized to be formed if the members vote for it and so there's an agreement to be signed that the attorney general has also signed it's difficult to sign so we don't put any money into this until we sign the MOU um I'm comfortable even if we do I think this is an important enough thing and I think there's a strong vote of support for it so I know we need to understand what the financial implications are for this but I'm trusting enough in the process that it'll come out I still feel that I was elected to know so I'd like to know yeah well we will in the MOU that we get back that has the whole design it also has a budget of the percentage of each community's commitment because you don't know what the budget is yet they got to develop that and then they have to divvy it up so there's no initial investment other than the time we haven't had a board meeting yet and so once all the six community seven community sign this the board will be formed and we'll meet and we'll have those discussions uh nothing would be spent without the approval of this council but theoretically we probably have a time of parallel payments right until up and running we would keep our dispatch so it is we've got to figure out all that stuff has to be figured out right now yeah I read about parallel payments that would be known you can't just snap your fingers right and there could be a phase we could have two communities start the third company and the likelihood is it would be that way two communities would come in together and would build rather than all seven joining it how often will you be meeting Kevin? I think initially uh monthly if not more frequently you'll be giving us monthly reports yeah and we'll um we have a chance to speak with our dispatchers at all and answer questions locally I want to reach out to some of them as well and I will CC you before doing so since they're employees but uh at the town meeting night they wanted to chat just on their perspective yeah we have uh we have some constraints because um because of the collective bargaining agreements as to what we can talk with them about I think that was just for this initial but I don't think that applies to council members it's still ongoing with the board yeah because because we have a we have a collective bargaining agreement with our dispatchers right now and so we've been cautioned by legal council to be very careful about how you approach them to discuss this and accept that um we have an agreement with with the union representatives to enable a more robust discussion uh under the under the umbrella that we all want to work this out so I think I think now that now that we know that there are seven communities and which ones they are we'll be able to have much better conversations and and discussions about the operational part of this and we'll develop that with the dispatchers um the budget all those things we can get to work by now before we could because we didn't know where we'd be in you just said seven communities seven six past it is there a seventh though? yeah there's only one that didn't oh wait a second so Essex didn't take it out the one that didn't come in was Shelburne maybe there's six yeah so is is there any um I know that there's like no max in here but um I know that a concern that I've heard from constituents is it's going to become so large that the um local knowledge of the streets was no longer possible for the dispatchers that that was something to avoid and that makes enough sense to investigate that question the technology today pretty much avoids that issue completely because it's all GPS based and um also local characters you know it's just that knowledge of you know who's calling in to 911 well yeah I think I think local knowledge is a fine thing um but we're you know you have one dispatch center for all of Boston yeah it can work on cities that size I think it's just worth talking about I don't have an opinion I'm just relaying and I think it's worthy of the discussion well there's there is the possibility that as the six communities try to work this out that they can't right I mean given you know the different contracts of the employees and each city and or town and how that how that comes together or doesn't and that the ultimate cost I mean for us it probably will not be more than we're spending now but first for other communities it might be because the salary level will be increased for their dispatchers there's a collective already coming up to be negotiated this summer right is it included dispatchers? there's a separate there's a separate discussion that's going on actually it's April 2nd we're getting dialogue about about dispatch specific okay so in order to design a contract that would dovetail with a transition to this it's what we want it to do we want some sort of language for that right yes this district would take the PSAP from Williston the PSAP actually exists in Shelburne except they kept saying the first that's where the sheriff calls the Williston why doesn't it go to Shelburne? for us because there's one in Williston and there's one in Shelburne they're different cashman area so if Shelburne were to join they'd bring the PSAP with that would become the primary so just one last question with regard to the dispatchers could they come into a city council meeting and you recuse yourself as a negotiator I mean if the council can hear from them anybody who comes in you almost always recognize people if they want to have a statement certainly the dispatchers could do this it would be hard to have a discussion because we're not negotiating the MOU no but we will be talking with Kevin so if we could be a conduit and he could recuse himself do you have to leave the room or do you engage in any kind of dialogue with him but I really truly think that this will be seen as and I think it probably is in many ways as good for the dispatchers good for their working conditions good for their career opportunities better technology it's always better for people to come on their own we think they will it's just exploring all the questions and listening to them right okay so I move to support signing the giving the chair of the authority to sign this document the agreement to create the Chitton County Public Safety Authority okay is there any further discussion can I just ask you when you anticipate I mean what's the timeline in terms of coming back to us with this is the plan, this is the budget this is the MOU do you have a time frame in mind? I think it would be a stretch but it would be a good goal to have at least two communities start up by the end of the year calendar by December so if we were one of them and it's like I guess everyone would have to sign on and start it out right so in September, October kind of thing I'm just curious to have the design done, a plan done I think so we're considering bringing in outside some outside expertise to help with it but I think by October be good the whole plan done in the phasing strategy okay an external supporter or contractors that gets paid by all the communities so you just figure that out so there might be some talk to this in this calendar year or this budget it could be well it's always been designed to come out of the current amounts that we're paying for dispatch so it's anticipated that the shift would occur and the same costs would be there if we're paying the dispatchers as employees or if we're paying for them as right but leading up to that to get to the plan there may be I mean it's not huge amount when you divide it I'll come back and at least monthly it'll be a standing on the agenda we do want to get rolling there's an interest in moving forward okay so we have a motion that's been seconded all in favor signify by saying aye thank you and then 16 this is a consider and possibly authorize the city manager to send a letter of intent to the superintendent of schools and chair of the school board relating to the transfer of land at the south end of the Marcot central school parking lot property to the city for the use and construction of a community center and the transfer of a small parcel of land to the city on the east side of the Marcot central school property needed to construct Garden Street in the construction of a new guaranteed and permanent entrance to the Marcot central school property so the the letter that you have has not been sent it hasn't been sent no it has not been sent in a way it's your approval to send and then the map there's a map attached to the to the documents that also depicts the different parcels but this is this is essentially the same concept that you sent the LOI on last summer maybe the summer before last summer and excluding the space for the recreation or for the the creative art center so it's the same essentially the same deal without the creative art center so this would give us the additional land directly behind the proposed community center where we would construct a road to connect the Marcot parking lot to what will become the road on the side of the community center project on the east side and giving them guaranteed access and permanent access to the street on that side and also in all likelihood access to garden or to Mary street to the west so giving us land to build a road and additional parking and just kind of breathing room on the site for our building how would you get access to Mary street the Snyder-Braverman and Tefipo square would allow the extension of that to be built over to Mary street at the deep back part of the and you've talked with Elizabeth Helen at our last steering committee meeting we gave them this pretty much this letter in the map and we discussed it we asked them to please make a decision by April 1st it's not high on their priority list as they discussed but my understanding is they're taking it out tomorrow Wednesday but they haven't seen the letter yet well they got it I mean it was sent to everyone or was it just sent to David and Elizabeth it was sent to them to have for their packet but if you approve it tonight I'll tell David it's approved did make sense to me I supported and Elizabeth's reaction was we'll wait and see what the board says yes it's not their high priority and she stressed that they had lots of things on their agenda but we just asked them to please decide one way or rather and the decision might be we don't have time to take it up that's a possible outcome and then we can go to plan B and come up with another site and we told them that that was possible so it wasn't like they're saying it's this or you're destroying building or going forward with Market Street that there are other options this was our first choice but we need we need some clarity on this pretty soon if we intend to go to the boarders in November you all have participated in the design I think for the community center the plans are pretty far along they knew that we were going to look at it tonight Elizabeth so was that a motion to add? sure I moved to support the city manager communicating that we support this second any further discussion all in favor signify by saying aye thanks I'll let David know tomorrow do we want the city manager's report? yes I was just going to ask if we want to go back to announcements and city manager's report do you have a date on that wrong by the way? whatever I just saw the year was wrong 2017 so I corrected it great but anyway it took me a long time to use the 20 right well so do you want to start I attended the you and me imagining a library session last Saturday and the underwood master plan the Saturday before that and the arrow light ceremony the cup scouts transitioning the scouts I didn't get any cake you left early right okay ma'am I attended the leadership meeting back with the committees the reimagining the library I also am a part of the library's humanities advisory board Jennifer Murray asked me and I asked Helen if she saw any conflict I know so also instead of the boy scouts I went to the police chief meet and greet so what? the police chief meet and greet oh to the public one how many people showed up at that 15 well I think he met quite a few people I gave him a flavor but people who are I think will be in his his sphere so Tom? I saw the chief at Mardi Gras the new chief he was driving the lead car I waved at him I don't think he knew who he was I went to the underwood underwood meeting I was really disappointed to be away for the library envisioning it is so beautiful option D it has a lot of potential it's not in my opinion it's not quite there but it's getting close well it's still a drawing it's a sketch but it's getting close that's good but they really incorporated A, B and C really nicely you have your round table meeting with the SBBA board on Tuesday night the 27th that's over at the police that's over at the community room at the police department so I'll get a note out on that I went to the chamber breakfast this morning the speaker and the president pro tem were there talking about pending legislation pretty good crowd actually this morning some made it there and connected they're both of them I spent a fair amount of time last week with Sean Burke meeting with different groups of people those all went quite well and I also got him out to CPAT and then I was just going to update on the mental health counselors but are we going to do that well just let me update the four of them have been hired and they have all passed their background checks both Howard's background check and the PD background check because they're going to have access to PD records and free access into the police departments themselves and they're now getting their they're equipped and they're now going out to different departments to meet to begin meeting the police and fire leadership and they're also in training I think there will be some minimal level of service possibly by the end of the month minimum level but but something by the end of the month so your other business that's all I have the question is how we're going to pay for it so I understand from previous conversation that we're using the five unfilled FTEs in the police department and that we are as a city paying 25% of the total cost and my understanding is that this council needs to approve that because it's not the departmental transfer we're sending money outside of the city for service that's county-wide and I think that we can do that since we have the money and the budget the police haven't spent on those five FTEs through June 30th but what do we do after June 30th because I didn't see it in our budget this was news to me in our first meeting in February and so I think we have to talk how we're going to pay for it and I personally don't think that South Burlington should pay up to five times more than other communities participating in this program I understand that there's a need but if it's a need felt county-wide it should be the cost should be shared equitably so those are my questions okay I just want to say I have similar questions and I think these are worth answering my concern is just adding these types of topics to un-worn items on the end of the meeting it doesn't give staff time to prepare for these things and it also doesn't give the public enough time to be able to attend so I want to answer these I like it on April 2nd in other business we just say we're interested in knowing this and then put it on the next agenda or talk about it in advance to push our conversation sure that's fine can we have a full conversation are there other questions that I mean I'm certain that as you present this you will share with us how you determined those percentages and what it was based on my understanding is that it is based on something not just our largesse but that would be helpful and to know what will spend this fiscal year and then moving forward in the future I would really like to have the council see something before it ends up on the front page of the Burlington Free Press as a done deal because when I saw it on the front page I was great but I had no idea that we were changing into it and I mean I'm going to push back a little bit I think we've had conversations about this we've talked about the support but this whole concept and surely you didn't think it was going to be free I was waiting for it to be on an agenda and it never was it never was not once we've had a number of updates from Kevin which I thought were pretty candid and shared the issues we have discussed at different times with Trevor some of the concerns that we've had or he's had he shared with us around the issues with the staff and the high number of really intense mental health calls that they have and the impact on the police force and we all acknowledge as I recall I mean most people were shaking their head saying we need to address that that's nothing we should just ignore we then expanded our mental health services to the force so but that didn't necessarily solve the issue or helped I hope with some of the police officers but I don't think the real issue at hand went away we've had numbers of you know I mean I think we haven't perhaps as an item said a discussion of what is this or but we certainly have had comments and discussions and agreements with Trevor and Kevin I thought that this was a really important very important thing to pursue I give a lot to my role I give a lot of my heart and with my heart I agree with all that you have said Helen but I have to give with my brain I have to give with my math skills and see our budget and when we are in January looking at our underfunded CIP not able to fill all of the new computer the regular maintenance or the winter coats for our firefighters I needed to have the whole picture in front of me and I did not have it somewhere in this process well that may be true I just don't think it's fair to say that that's the first you heard of it of the cost it was the first meeting in February well I'm talking about the program and I think it would it's a little naive to think that we're going to go forward with that and it's not going to cost anything I didn't say that it wasn't going to cost anything but I expected to come to this and I I think I've been around the city council block enough to know that there is a cost to everything so I just expected it to be front and center we are not at our best after 11 PM at night definitely not are there any council support committee assignments committee assessments are down so I think we're on my track for a lower GMT assessment next year and then we have one other item under other business then the idea of open planning sessions for prioritizing all funding in the city if I understood your good question so you would like that to be an item that we discuss in the future? yes that we really I mean we just had a beautiful presentation on Underwood of course I'd love to write you a check or video check if I had that money and we have requests for bike lanes penny for bike lanes penny for pass athletic playing fields recreation facility community mental health initiative I mean all these things cost something and I think that we really need to lay it all out and plot it all out and have people partake in this discussion because these are tough choices these are budget processes that we already went through why would you bring this up in this respect because we have meeting after meeting about the budget process starting in November going into January and we have a CIP booklet that's this thick that comes out what was it I mean I I understand you couldn't fit in the bike pass we couldn't fit in the Underwood well this is something new that we're going to have to look to the future for obviously we don't have cash to go out and buy all the nice features on that now but before I say to the bike pass people yes or no to the penny pass I need to know what we're looking at in the future we really need to plot this out what that means for our community well doesn't the CIP do that though but we are underfunding it so and we were told that we should just throw it out because we've underfunded it so we went through our prioritization process and we said healthcare was 12% right ran this was three quarters percent only right so revenue was down on fire inspections right there were a number of costs that went up and revenues that were down and so we were left with what we got which was you know four people voting against one of the 3.85 versus 3.65% tax increase right and we so it's never a perfect process to get excited nobody gets everything that they want you know so and so I think that the process we went through was a pretty good prioritization you wanted the coats for the winter coats for the fire department right but we didn't get them but you wanted you know an extra $20,000 I think you got the winter coats and you wanted the $20,000 and the budget so I don't know how we can get any more public with the process we go through to derive the budget that we've already gone through so are you prepared to answer the penny pass question that's not on the agenda tonight I know I know but just I mean I'm not I need to know more about what we're looking at are we doing the community health initiative paying 25% years on out which is a lot of money what are we going to do with the 5 FTEs we hear from our new police chief that he does want to recruit and hire the needed police that we have so then what do we do I mean all these things that those are legitimate questions yes we need to see but that but that's a singular subject by itself in addition to maybe you know some outlining expenses in the transition for the dispatch you know UMD but those are questions that we're going to have to have agenda items for to talk about as well as underwood as well as everything else right but the penny on parks I mean it would be a long-term initiative it wouldn't just be one year it would be a long-term initiative well but they haven't come before so they are I think they're scheduled for the second or the 16 I think the 16 they are coming for it because they did come to us and as you may not have recalled we ask them specifically we need some more data what what's what are the dollars what are what's the usage so that we could make a decision on whether this was even something that had broad support before we went out to even would consider putting that as a ballot item so Megan said penny for all right I might be a little you meant paths right so so they have they have done a bunch of survey and I'm sure they've called you and talked to you about it and then they came before and I they did and we said go away and get some more information and and some real hard numbers and then come back to us with the plan so they we will hear from them on the 16th I don't think that means that we have to decide that but that will be something in the budgeting thinking and spending thinking going into the future because that is in the future they just you know as they've said to you they think August would be a great time and that's a discussion that we would have to have right but I'm not sure we're going to have everything in the next five years clear to us before we have to make some decisions well I would like to have kind of those discussions prior to us deciding whether or not to put it on the August ballot what discussions what are our costs going you know forward with these big ticket items talk about what I've been talking about but we've got the one big ticket the community mental health one FTE just one we'll talk about that next meeting you've got another big expense which is a possible library city hall right so we're working on that as well we have the dispatch where we might have some overlap that's a chunk of change I mean we couldn't even get $5,000 of computers in or whatever it was I'm getting the impression you're just concerned that we're not close enough to these issues that we're not talking about them enough I really feel that I felt blindsided to be quite honest on the mental health but we're going to talk about that next time next time so I need to know that I'm not going to be blindsided in the future I really well and we can talk about the process but you know I I think I agree with Tim that we have a very structured and I think full process to consider all the items in the budget I would also acknowledge that things come up mid-stream you know a ceiling or a roof goes off and you can't say we didn't plan on that, we didn't know that we don't have the money so that's why you have contingency funds and so forth so I think we will continue to have these conversations about pending budget items and I feel like we've been moving along in a pretty thoughtful way about that maybe the community mental health missed the boat for you but I do think we have talked considerably about and continue to gather information and data about the library and you know we put off that bond vote because we didn't have the time so. Our charter requires this council to approve a transfer of funds from the police department budget. It does not you're incorrect about that and I'm not going to get into it. I've asked you okay so we'll talk about it on April 2nd. Megan, but you can't have your artifacts. I've asked you by email and you I never get a response. You sent me the provision from the charter that specifically gives me the authority. I said please confirm. I thought you'd answered the question yourself by sending it to me. No, I said please confirm. So I'm not going to get into it tonight. Let's go to the next meeting. Okay. Is there any other business? There's a dog park. We're going to talk about that next meeting. No, we opted to put that as an item, didn't we? No, we're going to talk about it. We had it as an item. We were leaving as an item. Oh, that's right. Do you want an item on the next council meeting? Well, no. No, I can't have it. No, Tim and I can put it on Helen. Tim and I can put it on. That's the right way. I thought you didn't want to discuss it any further. No, I said the processes is that either Tim or I or Pat can put it on. We want to have some discussion. We can right now. I heard that was the proposal by Kevin to take the gates off. That was my suggestion. I thought it was. Could we take the the gates off? And so my fear of that is how wide are the gates? They're accessible. I imagine they're three feet. They're probably three feet. So I hate to say this, but they might want to block. Will you take the gates off? They might put something there to block it so that the dogs can't get out. So now you've turned it back into a dog park. If you're willing to remove one side of fence, just disconnect it and roll it up and take it away so that one side is without any fencing at all, I probably would be amenable to, because once you remove the thing, it's no longer a dog park. I don't think you have to take all the fencing down, but if you're going to take and block it to make it turn it back into a contained area, then you've essentially removed the dog park. You remove one side of fencing, you've removed the dog park. And I'm okay with asking the dog task force to look at that, to look at the issue of so can we take the the doors off and so that space in the park is accessible to somebody? Close it off now. Right. And it just seems like nuts to me. That's an anti-park. Tim, the question is, is just taking the gates off, is that a friendly amendment? Well, if you're... You'd have to accept it as a friendly amendment. We voted to close the dog park. We didn't put it... We just said indefinitely, right? We didn't even say it. All we did was vote to close the dog park. We didn't give us a period of time so if the dog park became dismantled, right, it's not a violation of our... But is it just the gates or do you mean also the chain link? If you just remove the gates, people will obstruct that entrance and turn it back into a usable dog park. So then a friendly amendment would be removing the chain link fence? A distance sufficient enough so that it's no longer able to contain dogs. But we can also say this further. I like the chair's suggestion of letting the task force wrestle with this issue because they're going to go into all the specifics. So, if we're going to respect the rules, the rules are that Tim gets to choose what the friendly amendment is or nay, and if it's not a friendly amendment, then we drop it. We can't never talk about that dog park ever again. No. We can't never talk about JC park ever again. Right. I think there's a boundary to that Robert's rules and it's within reason. And if we want to discuss adapting and adjusting how our policies are affecting public lands, we can do that. And if there's still not three votes to make a change to something, they love you too. If we voted to close the dog park but then there was a suggestion to remove the dog park, then I don't see a conflict there at all. If we voted on anything, we don't have to have an amendment or anything like that. Can't we ask the dog task force or what the heck do we call it to come back with some ideas about whether you take down half of it? It's snowing and frozen land out there. You can't do it anyway. You can't pull the posts out. You could take the fence off maybe once the snow melts a little bit but that's probably a pain. You could take the gates off. I appreciate that it could turn into a dog park again with some of the I just was more concerned about the space that would be in use. It was just an idea. As soon as the weather allows, if you remove some of the fencing as well as the gate, I don't have a problem with that. For the record, I was really happy to see it on the agenda and I'd love that idea. I don't know if I can get it off so they can wander around in there but whatever. No, because with all the research we've been doing if you have them for safety purposes it's best not to have that there at all if they're not going to want it or have it closed because if a child ran in there a dog might chase them right in and a child could end up getting hurt or a smaller dog could just be if they ran in there it's an enclosed area that I think you have to there's a chance if there's a big dog and there's a kid running the big dog could chase the child in there. That's fine. Thank you Betty. I'm going to fall on some sort about and that's very good comment so thank you. It's a call to second. It's a call to second. So I wouldn't yeah, motion to adjourn. Second, all in favor. Thank you.