 If you want to change. All right, being six o'clock on Monday, June 17th, I will call to order the regular meeting of the Winnieski City Council. Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilor Mike Myers. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is agenda review. Any concerns about the order here? Any concerns about order from the audience? All right. We will move on to the public comment section. This is a chance for anyone in the audience to speak about an item that is not on the agenda. If you have a public comment to make, please introduce yourself. And if you have not already signed in, sign in in the back so we know your name for recordkeeping. I think we have a public comment ready. I think so. Thank you. And I did sign in. Thank you. Security issues. One is I talked with somebody in public works about having the lines painted at the end of Florida Avenue on East Down Street. And then last week they painted lines in crosswalks all over the city. They were this far away from that place where it needs to be painted and they didn't paint it. So it's still an issue. It's very dangerous when you try to pull out Florida Avenue to take a left on the highway. Nobody's ever, nobody, even a school bus stop in the middle the other day. So you can't get out of there. So that we need to have those lines painted. And I usually call them a year, but anyway, that needs to be done. Number two, it's a simple one. It's easy fix. I'll even pay for it. Coming down the street, when you get the tiger, the light of tiger, we can take a right. Can we change the green light to a right green arrow? It's just a matter of changing the lens. Because on the right hand side, how many times have people gone down there and that right hand lane goes straight? If we just put an arrow, that'll never happen. So that's pretty much an easy fix. And what was the third one? Something really important. Don't remember, so I'm done. Thank you, Dave. We appreciate the suggestions and can talk about, staff can talk about that with the striping operations and light change. Thank you. Any other public comments this evening? All right. So let's move on to our consent agenda. We have several items to approve tonight. We have our council minutes from June 1st and June 3rd. Paveral war ending May 19th to June 1st and war ending June 14th. Main street bond issuance and resolution. So this is the final engineering that we already approved at a prior meeting. Pool bond issuance and resolution. This is for the construction that we approved at a prior meeting. And internal controls checklist from the treasurer and accepting report on the implementation of Winooski all hazard mitigation plan, which is just a periodic update that has to be made. Any questions or concerns, comments about the consent agenda? Questions or comments from the public? Can I just ask so we receive some new internal controls checklist, right? Is there, what are the differences that were there from the agenda packet? So that was presented by your treasurer. So Alex can come up and if you wanna take that off the consent agenda and discuss it. I mean, if I don't necessarily wanna discuss it, but I'm just curious what the changes are since we can't have time to review the changes. Alex, can you come up and respond to that? Can I turn the camera to the incoming panel? Nope, you're on the consent agenda, come on up. So Jim is just asking why we have a fresh document here. I only change one line item that is, our financial statements presented directly to the treasurers received. I'd mark no, essentially they are. I received them through online access instead of physical mail. Okay, and also presented just the formal memorandum as well. Thank you. You're welcome. Any comments from the public? So I would entertain a motion to approve items A through F in the consent agenda. So moved. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Mike. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye, motion carries. Thank you. Next on the agenda is city updates. Great, thank you. I have a number of updates tonight. Just a reminder that next Thursday, June 27th at six o'clock we'll have our special city council meeting to set the FY20 tax rate. It should be quite a quick meeting, but we need to do it in order to get tax bills out early in July. If you are not able to be here in person, but could call in or we can set that up per our procedure, just give us a heads up that that is needed. And then the next regular council meeting after that will be on July 15th. That's six PM, Jess? Six PM, yep. Okay, thank you. So over the winter, we applied to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission for what they call their UPWP grant awards. It stands for the United Unified Work Plan Project, I think, UP, what is it? Unified planning for the program. There you go, that thing, which is essentially CCRPC's assistance to municipalities to do different kind of infrastructure and planning work. So as part of next year's funding, we received both awards for both of the applications we submitted. We just received word of this back after your last council meeting. So the first one is for our phosphorus control plan supports and $19,000 total project. And it looks at inventory and modeling of best practices to control the amount of phosphorus we're putting into Lake Champlain. The second is for stormwater inspection and inventory, which is a total $75,000 project to start the work of doing a comprehensive inventory of our existing stormwater plan and collecting data to build into our GIS system. So these are non-city, non-property tax dollars, or non-property tax dollars coming into the city to support this work. So that's great and good job to John and his team for getting me secured. Thank you to those of you who attended the pool groundbreaking last week. I think it was a really fun event. And just heads up to the community that people will start seeing construction, mobilizing this weekend next up at the pool. So big equipment on its way. Wanted to give you a heads up that Heather is participating in an initiative led by the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce to do destination branding for Burlington in the surrounding areas. We were invited to participate in that because of our recent branding efforts and our proximity to Burlington. So that process kicks off this week and Heather will be representing us. Additionally, Heather is participating in a two-part agency of commerce and community development work series around opportunity zones. Both of our census tracts in Winooski are designated opportunity zones, which allows for some tax relief with investment in development projects. So Heather will be participating on behalf of Winooski and hopefully developing a plan to realize more of that tax benefit in the city. We are into audit week. Thank you, Angela. So last week, the mayor and Angela and I met with the state auditor and his team to kick off our every five years audit of our TIF district. Additionally, this week is the first week of our annual audit process with our new auditors, R.H.R. Smith here doing their pre-audit field work. So they're here all week working with Angela and it's a lot of financial tracking and process paperwork flying back and forth. So Angela, thank you for all you are doing. I wanna mention several upcoming events and meetings we have between now and your next meeting. So tomorrow night at the OCC at five o'clock, we're having a community meeting on the Hickok Water Main project. As you know, this project is fully funded and awarded. This is really a meeting meant for immediate abutters and residents to understand what's gonna be happening on their streets, what's the opportunities are and specifically to meet the contractors who will be there. So again, that's five o'clock tomorrow night at the OCC for anyone interested in the impacts of the Hickok Water Main project. Along the infrastructure just by calendar Wednesday night, the Development Review Board will be meeting to hear the appeal of the Main and Mansion project. So that will be here in this room. It is a slightly off schedule meeting to accommodate their quorum. So again, Development Review Board here Wednesday night for the appeal of Main and Mansion. From June 24th to 26th, we will be doing annual washdown of the parking garage, specifically in the evening. So if people are coming in to visit us, you may wanna think about alternative parking locations for those evenings. Again, the 24th to the 26th. Winooski Wednesdays will be July 3rd, first Wednesday of the summer of the every first Wednesday in the summer. We hold this concert in Rotary Park. This Winooski Wednesday will be focusing on featuring the band Tufa and the Pride. So come out, get ready for fireworks. It's gonna be exciting. June 22nd, there'll be a tree crew working to help clean up the trails with our recreation team. And again, on July 14th. So if people are interested in coming out to help clean up our trails after the winter, June 22nd, more information on our website. Something I'm very excited about because I am a VPR junkie, Charlie Nardosi, who is the big gardening pro in the state. We'll be at the senior center on June 25th at 10 a.m. to do a free community talk on kitchen herb gardens and also just generally available to answer all your gardening questions. So again, that's June 25th at 10 o'clock at the senior center, Charlie Nardosi of VPR fame. I'm almost in. We have two openings on our Green Mountain Transit representative appointments are up for renewal this month. So we have posted ads for both a representative and an alternate Ray has served as our alternate and is interested in continuing in that role. But our city representative has indicated that she no longer wishes to serve. So members of the public are interested in either role, encourage them to submit an application through the website or come to city hall. And then finally the fun stuff on the recreation front. So Ray and his team have with Vermont Patriots have put together a pick up soccer every Tuesday evening this summer from six to eight at the school district. So that's for ages 12 and up up through adults. Tuesdays this summer from six to eight at the school pick up soccer. The teddy bear picnic is coming up. That will be July 13th again, right before your next meeting from one to three at Landry Park. The urban camp out which I am super excited about as well. Camping in Cassavan Park with families, marshmallows, games, et cetera. Bring your tent will be the evening of July 20th. So come camp out under the stars with your neighbors. And then youth co-ed football is ramping up. Practices start the week of August 12th. So it's a little ways out but if people are interested registration is open now or if you're interested in coaching we are looking for a few additional coaches for that as well and that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is council reports. Can I start with you, John? Sure. So I continue to attend the Winooski equity dialogue. We had two more sessions and our last one is tomorrow. Two sessions ago we focused on assessing tools and examples from other places around the country that may have some very inner similarity to what's happening in Winooski. And this past week we revisited the priority topics that came out of the April 6th summit and picked two that we are gonna focus on. One is making sure diverse voices are included in decision-making processes and the second is build and strengthen partnerships between cities, school districts, businesses and community organizations. So these are gonna be the broader topics that we're gonna be focusing on our final meeting I mentioned is tomorrow and that's where we'll really get into details of recommendations and actions that we can bring back to council with consideration at the next meeting. So there's been kind of a lot of energy and effort kind of coming to a pinnacle in this last meeting and we're all both apprehensive and excited about kind of finishing up that work and coming to some sort of recommendation at the end of it. I was also able to attend the first installment of the Winooski Wednesdays. It was awesome. There were a lot of other families there. We left exactly in time to not get rained on but it was a really great time. Free meals for kids was much appreciated and a really great compliment to that and we had food taken out from several different restaurants around the circle during that time. So it's an awesome time and highly recommend getting to the next one. Thank you. Okay, since our last meeting, I attended the Downtown and Historic Preservation Conference along with Heather and our new executive director of the Downtown organization. I haven't had a chance to ruminate on the notes that I took, but I will bring back some lessons learned from that in the future. There were, I noted a lot of examples from other municipalities on successful community engagement and other efforts with their downtown areas. I had meetings with V-Tang, South Burlington and I've been in touch with Burlington about coordinating a meeting. All of this is around the noise exposure and compatibility program, so I'll speak more on that further into the meeting. Jesse and I met with the superintendent and chair of the school board to talk about shared work between the city and the school district and we will be looking to schedule an extra meeting in August for joint school and school board and city council to really dig into that, which you have been alerted to. And then last week, the public works and planning commissions joined to host CCRPC on the East Allen Street scoping study. So this is the second public meeting that has been hosted to get resident input on potential improvements for safety and traffic on East Allen Street. I will be posting more information about that along with the link to the project and how other residents can share feedback. Later this week in the regular council liaison update on the city sites in Fort Worth and Facebook and such. That's it for me. You sure? Yes. Little league baseball just wrapped up two weeks ago and I want to give Jeff Russell a big thanks for another successful year at Woodin School League. He had a really good turnout, good season. A lot of families up at the school district, so that was fun. I wanted to thank everyone again for the groundbreaking ceremony at the Myers pool. I may have forgotten to say thank you to a few people and I'm going to just say publicly I'm sorry and thank you. And I'm hoping that the construction did start by the way because we took the sign off the pool and I was part of that. So I can say construction actually started on the Manuski pool and we're really, I think not only me, myself and my family, I think the city and the residents and the city staffers are really excited to see this project get going and hopefully it's, hopefully they get it open for 2020 and that's all I have. Thank you. So we can move to our regular items. The first item that we have on the agenda is for World Refugee Day proclamation, but we have a guest that's supposed to be joining and she's not here yet. So I would like to table that for now. We can come back to it when she arrives. So we can move then to item B, the e-bike agreement with John Rauscher. So I have Bob Dale with Gotcha Bikes here. As you remember, he was here to present the mobility devices and go through the e-bikes. So what we have for you tonight is an operations agreement. So this operations agreement has been previously approved by Burlington Council. So we were kind of waiting on them to kind of give sign off and then bring it to you all for review. It's also been signed off by South Burlington. So our two municipal partners have authorized it. And then our other partners are UBM and Champlain College who are being represented by Canada. So what the operations agreement does is it basically allows us to provide some feedback on how these e-bikes will be used within the city boundaries. So we have some stipulations on where they can be used. We talk about insurance requirements that we want to see from Gotcha Bikes. We talk about how many devices that we would want to see and how they sort of be oriented and what kind of hubs like the hub arrangements are. So good news, there's no cost at all with us. So it's not a financial contract. It's basically just stipulating how we want to see those devices used within our city boundaries. So one thing to know is there is an appendix that I outlined in the memo that basically gives very municipal specific requirements. So talking with city staff, we recommended that the Riverwalk East of Waterworks be off limits to the E-Assist function on the bikes. You can still pedal them obviously, but that area is, you see more pedestrian use and we don't want folks traveling on that with the E-Assist bikes that could go up to 20 miles per hour, say. So that's one location that we put for off limits. Sidewalks are off limits in general for E-Assist bikes. So that's why they're not included similar to the other municipalities. But that's really the only sort of a new ski specific piece of disagreement. So Bob, do you have any? Yeah, and I'm sure there's also some longer questions about the scooter piece. The scooter piece is right now from both our internal Gotcha legal standpoint and from the legalities standpoint of the municipalities. It's kind of agreed that scooters can't really operate in the state of Vermont until we get some more regulations passed at the state level. So that's kind of been put on the back burner in this contract. It basically is putting legal responsibility on Gotcha saying that we cannot and will not proceed with a scooter pilot until we get the go-aheads from the municipalities, a notice to proceed from the municipalities. All of that is obviously still contingent on some regulations being passed at the state level. So it's kind of been put on the back burner right now. And to add on that too, so within the agreement, there's the discussion about e-scooters, but in order for us to move forward with a pilot, we would have to come back to the council for approval with a notice to proceed, which is outlined in the agreement. So for the viewing public, this is follow-up to we are replacing our existing rideshare bicycles with a fleet that is e-assist. So you can pedal them or you can have electronic assist. We've also had this discussion about potentially scooters. However, the state has, that's not allowed at this point. So thank you for clarifying that. I was unclear what the process was if there was another checkpoint before that pilot could start. One other question I had. At the previous meeting, we had discussed the translation options in the app. And I thought when we had come to the conclusion was that some of the primary languages spoken in Winooski were included in there, but I didn't see any of those listed in the contract. Yeah, I don't think we have any of them specifically listed, but all of the language that we currently have translatable on our current green ride bike share website will transition both to the webpage and to the app that we offer, yeah. I also just wanted to commend a few things that I saw in there. Some interesting, I'm sure it probably came from talking to Burlington, the livable wage for employees of your business. I was also happy to see the opt in for data sharing and lack of personal data collection. So there's just some things I was excited about when I read through it. Jim or Mike, do you have any questions or concerns about the agreement? I do not. Excellent. Seems in line with what we discussed before and happy to see the staff is way down some of the restrictions there. Any questions, concerns from the public about this e-bike agreement? I have a question. Sure. You say you can't use them on the river walk and you can't use them on the sidewalk, so where are they gonna be used? They're used in the road. I believe bicycles aren't to be used on the sidewalk in the first place. Okay. But it sounds like you can pedal them. You just can't use the e-assist on the sidewalk and the river walk because it lets you go up to 20 miles an hour, which is a safety concern. So they're gonna be using the road? Probably. Gotcha. Sure. Just a clarifying question, are they, is the whole fleet going to be replaced with e-bikes so there's not going to be any sort of non-e-bike option? Correct, yeah. And is this through the same, is it called SOBI or SOBI? So social bicycles is what we are currently using for the app. Now once we convert to the e-bikes, everything will be done through a Gotcha app. Okay. Is there also, I imagine it's just gonna be a little more expensive per minute, per ride for the e-assist bikes? Yep. So the switch to the e-assist goes to a per minute charge as opposed to the current sort of pay-as-you-go option where it's $2 to unlock that gets you half an hour and then it's $5 per half hour. We're gonna be transitioning over to a per minute fee. So there will be a little increase sort of, you know, for those longer style rides. And we will still have the similar payment options a monthly and annual membership. Those prices will go up a little bit. But we're having to be keeping our student pricing the same this year, even with the conversion to e-bikes. Yeah, and I would call out to you, for anyone who isn't following the conversation, there's also an option for folks who don't have mobile phones to go through. So at the moment, Old Spokes Home is our partners. We are looking to expand beyond Old Spokes Home to allow for some more areas where people without smartphones can pre-pay using cash payments and are then issued an RFID card, which allows them to utilize the bicycles. Yeah, and I can say that on the partner side, one thing that we were really concerned about was making sure there was a sort of a subsidized form payment for folks that qualified. So that's something we worked with Gotcha Bikes on and it's also in the contract. Yeah, I saw those details in there. Yeah. Any other questions, concerns? All right, so this is on for approval. So I would entertain a motion to approve the e-bike agreement. So moved. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Michael. As a favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you. So the next item we have is potential public hearing on the tree ordinance based on some of the feedback that we received. Skip past the bold face on that. So at your meeting at the end of May, you approved a tree ordinance. There, since that time, we have received some public comment about the language of that tree ordinance suggesting some changes. So we put this back on tonight. Your options tonight are to go over that feedback was in your packet that was received. Consider alternative language. If you want to change the language in the ordinance, then I would suggest you discuss that language, then open a public hearing, take public comment on that, close the public hearing and then decide whether you want to adopt that language or not. If you do adopt new language, the 30 day implementation window will restart. Right now you are currently in a 30 day implementation window for the prior language. So that's the kind of process we're in tonight. John, do you want to provide a summary of the feedback in the language? So we received some good feedback on the ordinance language, really two main points. So one was the inclusion of language regarding shrubs within the right way. So the ordinance focuses heavily on street trees because that's kind of what the primary focus was on as we were talking about sort of managing urban forest and talking with our other community members and partners. So what we've done ordinance to kind of address that language is strike out shrubs as part of this ordinance because we are really trying to focus on the health of street trees and managing those items. So the other comment that we received was regarding sort of a waiver or a planting waiver requirement. So if say a resident wanted to plant a tree and went in the right way, the tree warden would look at some of the requirements. We have an ordinance about offsets from utilities and overhead poles and driveways and provide feedback on where they should be planting these trees and the species type and the planting type. So there is an opportunity for the tree warden to say deny a request and we do have language in there that says basically we would have to respond to any sort of community request for that. Some good points brought up in the comments where we didn't have any sort of time frames or process regarding that. So we did add some kind of small language regarding requiring a 30 day notice to respond. But I think we did note that it's, any sort of reasonable request for planting a tree tree would be approved as long as it meant the requirements that are in the ordinance. So those are sort of the minor changes that we added to this ordinance. Do you, it sounds like you feel good about them or do you have any concerns about the way this changes the operational impact of this ordinance for your department? No and honestly I think the sort of the exception requirement I think a lot of that could be worked out in the field. If you had the tree warden go out meet with the home owner and then they came up with sort of a compromise on where the tree goes and what exceptions could be made. I think that's where most of this sort of request work would go, I doubt we would see many requests so it hit sort of a formal written request in a 30 day timeframe. So now I don't see any operational impacts. Okay, so do we want to consider this change? Is the question posed? I think it would be a good idea to include this change to clarify especially the process for waivers and then the removal of trees because there isn't really the intention of the tree or the tree audience. I did want to recommend one additional change which is changing our diameter requirement right now to be considered a tree. Right now it's three inches, four and a half feet tall but that would actually exclude if there was a tree removal this is required to plant a two inch caliper tree but that wouldn't qualify as a tree under the tree ordinance. So I think to at least harmonize that if we plant a tree it should be considered a street tree then that should be added as well. So it would be changing the definition section rising three inch from three inch to two inch. Mike, do you have thoughts about reopening this? Um, I'm with Jim. I think what Jim said was spot on and I don't really have any other comment about it. All right, so a public hearing has been noticed for the consideration of the street tree ordinance. At this time I would like to open that public hearing. It is 631 and welcome any public comments. Oh question, what is the tree ordinance? What does it do? Can I defer to John or Jim? So Jim, the tree ordinance is a set of guidelines for rationalizing and structuring the way that we care for what we consider public trees in the city. So those are managed trees in a park or trees are created along the right of way. These are trees that are usually planted next to streets. They have particular requirements for survival but also for maintenance. So the city has this, we propose this ordinance to lay out how those trees should be cared for whose rights and responsibilities it is to maintain the trees, decide if a tree is hazardous and needs to be removed, protect a tree during construction and choose for the appropriate sighting of trees so it doesn't conflict with existing infrastructure or other uses. So the tree ordinance is really kind of codifying things that we all have been trying to do which is to maintain trees but provides more expectation and structure. It also is a pretty standard tree ordinance as we've seen a lot of other municipalities in our area and it provides kind of guardrails for when we need to manage trees or have an issue that comes up with related to trees in the urban area. Does that answer your question? Public trees only, not private trees. It doesn't affect any private trees. Correct, yeah, there's a definition of what's a public tree and what's a private tree this only applies to what's considered a public tree. All right, are you gonna look for like Burlington has done, the public trees that are inappropriate, that shouldn't place there to be in with, that are sort of dying, you know, their situation in the city or the park? Yes, we have, so this does not detail exactly a plan for how that's gonna be done. This does mention the formation of a tree committee which will be staffed by the Public Works Commission so they'll act as a tree committee and that body deals with things like inventory and recommendations for removals. So part of the inventory cycle is maintaining and then accurate up-to-date inventory of what trees we have and what condition they're in and then once a tree becomes hazardous, that's determined by the tree warden, then it would need to be removed. So we have a lot of trees right now that probably could be, that should be removed and some of them will be as part of main street revitalization. There are others that we just need to keep track of as they progress. Sure. So it's on. So there is no current tree ordinance. The draft that was, the draft that was proposed is linked to the council agenda for tonight and the draft that was previously approved is linked off of that council agenda. But there is no current, this is a new ordinance to the city. Which was May 20th, I believe. If you want to look it up and give you a reference of the city council meeting. Okay. So I need to go back to those. To the May 20th meeting. Thanks for considering my request about the change. And I did read the new proposed draft online when I was able to see it the other day but now in town for two days, it just got back 15 minutes before I showed up here. I didn't have time to refresh my memory or take a nap again. But I'm curious on the original draft in the section about public tree removal, there are two paragraphs, there are two paragraphs, three and four were mentions two weeks before the removal of the tree, the public will be notified via the trustees meeting and will have the paper of record. And then it says in the next paragraph, the tree board will notify the appellant of the hearing with the trustees. We don't have any trustees do we? We do know. So that I believe I'm debating whether it be a council or a tree committee. Yeah, so that would probably be the tree committee which would be a public works commission in the interest. So it's trustees, the right word to use there or was that just called from some other ordinance that you used as a law firm? Yeah, that was probably from one of the law firms. I didn't notice that before I would mention it. Okay, so you might want to change that. And then another for, oh, article four about the authority of the council show up on a tree board and so forth. And then it says the tree board will have control of the authority over all trees then shrubs which I know you've scratched. And plants, was plants also scratched? Article four of the first paragraph. Yeah, we didn't scratch that. Scratch plants also? Yeah, we didn't scratch that. We did not scratch that one out just to give some authority. So if, say they're, in my mind, I'm thinking of like traffic site distance. Like, if we have an issue of like a large bush or something that's on an intersection corner and we need the tree warden to kind of take a look at it for site distance issues, that's why we left plants in there. So you left plants in? Yes. Okay, okay. Because I know, you know, people plant lilies in the space between the sidewalk and the curb. That, you know, mazes and whatever. Okay, then one other comment is generally back here is there can be privately owned trees that are officially public trees because they're already planted in the public right of way. Is that correct? So if a tree is planted by a private person in the public right of way, it does become a public tree. Right, so say, you know, five years ago, I planted a cherry tree within the public right of way in my front yard. That's, I mean, I would consider it my tree, but it's officially a public tree. So I don't want him to misunderstand there can be trees that people planted themselves already that are not really public trees. Yeah, when we're saying public private, we're talking about basically the right of way when we're talking about streets, which is typically right behind the sidewalk, but it varies per street. And we're talking about parkland that's owned by the city. Right, parkland or whatever, that's one thing, but there are people's front yards that they probably have planted trees in over the years within the city right of way. So those trees have become public trees and the city can take down that. Yeah, and I don't think like even with this ordinance in place, like that's how we operate currently. So the ordinance won't necessarily change that because that's, you know, if it's within the public right of way, it is, you know, a city-owned tree even currently without the ordinance. That would only be in a hazard situation though anyway, wouldn't it? I mean, the city would never go and take someone's tree out of their property, even if it was public right of way, unless it was both a hazard situation or is that? Yeah, correct. Would that be the only, I think if it pulls a threat, I think that'd be the only reason I would hold anyway. Yeah, and this gives actually some more protection for that kind of situation where, you know, it would have to go through a tree committee, we would have to review it. There'd have to be an arborist, a certified arborist to look at it, so it gives more protection for those types of issues. And when you're talking about the size of the tree, you know, when you plant a tree, it can be a certain size, but five years from then, it can be a lot bigger than a hundred and a lot smaller. So has that dealt with, you know, what you were talking about, Jim, about that? Yes, it's any tree that's two inches or greater. So if you plant a one-inch tree that technically won't qualify as a public tree in this situation, if you plant a two-inch tree or bigger, then it becomes a public tree. For the other definitions of multi-stands, there are some species that form multi-stands structures that don't have a single branch that'll be that big, but overall it's a woodland tree species. So what about when you plant a one-inch diameter tree, one-inch caliber tree, and five years from now, that's six inches of wood. And it's a city tree. Okay, so. As soon as it becomes two inches or greater, it becomes at four and a half feet. Okay. Sure. First off, I think it's awesome that I'm gonna be living in a city with tree committee. And second, I'm wondering, as long as we're codifying best practices, is there anything that, and I apologize if I haven't read the ordinance, just gonna learn how to get into school right now, is there anything in the ordinance that provides any sort of protection for wildlife that may be in the tree as habitat, particularly when it comes to removal of a public tree? I'm gonna say no, but it would depend on what the ANSI standards are. I don't know if there, so this reference is a set of standards for doing tree work, and I don't know if those have any wildlife protection. Yeah, not that I've seen. I mean, obviously there's some, you talk about the protection for that population, things like that, that they don't fall in this ordinance, but there's a whole other regulation that would fall into that's federal wildlife, but there's nothing specific in this ordinance, and I don't believe that I don't think it would be appropriate in this ordinance, because we are just trying to really focus in on sort of the city tree and managing those. Yeah, and I'm just thinking, I'm sure it probably already happens now, I'm just thinking of like, if you have this tree where a red-tailed hawk has been nesting year after year, and needs to be removed as a part of this means for revitalization process, just, you know, is there a process to either, I don't know if we would just cut down the tree if there was a hawk that was being done at home, and just let me consider it. Yeah, along those lines, I know that like other people in Audubon, it's always discouraging people from cutting trees down and during the burden of nesting season, any birds, really, except maybe some mooses. But I've read that Tom Tom began reading articles from Audubon or whatever, so maybe it's not appropriate to include in the ordinance, but it would be nice if the tree warden and the tree committee considered that as part of their practice or whatever, and would anyone be interested to use the force of the driver type? There's an urban forest management plan that's separate from this ordinance that kind of guides the work of the tree committee, so that would be a place, I think, where that recommendation could be included. The one, as has been mentioned, hazard tree removal is really the big purpose, one of the big purposes of this ordinance, and once a tree's been identified as a hazard, waiting to remove it is a liability, because it at any time could fail and cause damage to life or property, so that's the balance, I think, that this tree ordinance instantiates is that there's a process for removing hazardous trees, and once a hazard's been identified, waiting two or three months could be a challenge. But I would say that those types of operational considerations would be something that the tree committee would include in the urban forest management plan, the way this has been structured. My total, yeah. It's not that the poll would be notified prior to the tree's been cut, it came down to yours, Laura, rank pass. Are there any other comments from members of the public? So seeing no additional comment, I will now close the public hearing, and we will move back to council discussion and potential voting. It sounds like we are on board to make the changes that are here. We have a proposed change about the diameter, and then a wording change about trustees. Is that, did I get everything? Sounds about right. So at this time, would we take a vote to move forward with the changes as described, or is there a... Yep, so I would, if you would like to move this forward, I would recommend that you consider a motion approving the ordinance as presented with amendments to change the diameter to two inches, and change the reference of trustees to an advisory committee. All right, so I would entertain a motion to approve the ordinance with the changes included, as well as change in the diameter from three inches to two inches, and references of trustee to the tree committee. Is that it? I second. Motion by Jim, second by Mike. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, everyone. I'd like to thank everyone for coming too. This is nice when you have people here to ask questions, it seems like we get more debate and more done this way than not having anyone here asking these questions or making the statements. Judy, thank you for coming. Having public prison for public hearings. Yeah, it's... Joyous. What a concept. Yes. So the next item on our agenda is discussion with potential approval of our official responses to the noise exposure map and noise compatibility program related to Burlington International Airport. So I don't have much more to add to that. We've been having an ongoing conversation about the release of the noise exposure map and the noise compatibility program, the noise exposure map public comment period ends June 28th. So the mayor and I have drafted the two different sets of comments for your consideration. One is on the comments specifically related to the noise exposure map and one is comments related to the noise compatibility program. Technically the NCP comments will have their own public comment period later in the summer, but since we have had many conversations, we can codify those now as well if you'd like. You do also have the option of approving these tonight or amending them tonight and then approving them or amending, having conversation tonight and approving them at your June 27th special meeting if you would like all members of the council to be here. So happy to walk through the comments we've, that Christine and I have captured here or just go to discussion. Well, thank you for drafting these. I would say to folks who were not here at our last meeting we discussed as a council what we heard at the public meeting where the airport came and presented the map, the noise map. So we discussed what we had heard. We had a lot of comment from folks who attended that meeting as well and heard their concerns. In response to that discussion and the comment that happened at the last meeting, this, our official comment on the noise map includes ensuring that the Center Point School of Ryan Community Center and all registered daycare and family childcare centers in Manuski are included in the map as one of the priorities that has surfaced in the community is around the well-being of children, prioritizing children in this noise compatibility work. We are also requesting the inclusion of defined data points of F-35, the actual noise of F-35. That's something that we had heard from a lot of community members. Inclusion of OSHA sound standards. That's also something that we heard is folks wanting to hear about health impacts of noise levels. And then we are also requesting the GIS layer of the map that the consultant is using so that our staff have access to that as we work through this noise compatibility. What we are hoping to do here is provide an official comment from the City of Manuski during this open public comment period on the noise map for the airport so that we can share our priorities as a community. All residents are also welcome and then encourage to share public comment through the btbsound.com website. But this is a way for us to make an official statement. Do we want to talk about the noise map comment first or we have a general discussion? There are quite a few additional points in the compatibility program comment as well. Now I would say that I think discussing them separately to me makes sense because there are different purposes. I do think that you've captured a lot of the comment that we had, the discussion we had and comments we've been hearing. So I do feel comfortable that this comment would be ready to go and I don't see anything that would be missing from talking to other counselors. So I think that would be like discussing this separately and for people to be good. I agree. Mike, do you also feel like the comment captures our prior discussion? Is there anything missing? I do. The one big thing that stuck out to me was the purchasing of the homes that won't be. Let's, we're just doing the noise map response first. Okay, noise map, no. Then we'll move to the comment. Okay. So before we start talking about the second comment on noise compatibility, I would just like to turn to the public to see if there's any comments about what we have focused on for the noise map specifically and the additional information we are requesting. So that's ensuring we have those locations where youth congregate, including specific data points on F-35 noise, including OSHA sound standards and making accessible to us the actual ealtron map. Sure. The specific data point business is that asking them what the actual noise level or destination is for the plane? We are asking for specific data at defined points from the modeling for when the F-35s take off with afterburners and without. So essentially, yes, but it's not, it's not like it's going to be a measurement of the sound because this is, it'll have to come from modeling because this map will be finalized before there is. Yeah. So this 65DNL business, that's an average. Correct. So what you're asking for is not an average for the specific measurement. An incident specific measurement. Okay, just want to make sure I understood that. Yeah, good question. Did you have another? I would bring it up to schools. I know that the Wintersky School was there. Do you feel like there's a need to comment about that? I can't imagine that the school will go unactive. So they, I mean, they will not be, the noise level impacts the entire city of Wintersky, but based on the FAA policies, you know, they have modeled this 65DNL line. We have talked to the superintendent and the school board chair, you know, they have the bond approval for the construction coming up next year. And this is something that's on their radar to see what mitigation they can do within that project. I also, I mentioned this earlier, I met with Colonel Smith at V-Tang over the last weekend. And so they have in the past at the request of previous administration and the school, they had kind of shifted where they take off with the F-16s in the past to address noise levels at the school. Colonel Smith mentioned, this is something that they were happy about, that they had been able to do that for the school and that they would be happy to continue seeing where they could make changes like that to benefit the school. And that they want to have a communication in place with us and with the school district to address those concerns. So that kind of answers your question. Is the school, are they providing an official comment? I don't know that at this time. I just think it's important to get it on record as much as possible, that it's a bad idea for the school, for the community. And I just, I'm worried that the noise is going to be worse than the modeling is suggesting. And I wonder if they are planning on reevaluating every five years instead of what that would look like. But just to have it on record. I want to hear it somewhere. Whether the Air Force is going to reevaluate or the Air Force? That's the Air Force. The actual, it's required to have sound study limited by a year, I think. But I don't know, it's all just based on modeling. Are there, you know, these ideas that are asking them to provide specific model points? It's interesting, but I don't know if they would actually do anything further based on practical evidence. The sound. I don't have the answer to that at this time either. I know that the last noise map was 2015. So they did meet the, you know, they're redoing it within five years. I think there's also something about we can advocate for an update if there's a significant change in sound or operations. We can't force them to do it, but we can make that advocacy. I also, this is something that I wanted to talk about after we sort of settle the comment here is how we are going to handle communications. So, you know, we have heard that a strong public comment is very useful in sort of advocating for interests. And so something that I had intended to do and wanted to talk to discuss with the council is reach out to the school, the housing authority, the churches, like some of the key stakeholders that are impacted and share what we're doing and see how they want to participate. But you don't have very long to do that. We do not. It would have to be taken care of this week. I don't know yet. Anything else on the noise map portion? So I could just confirm the noise, both of them have to have their public comments in by the 28th right here. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that the school point is a valid one and I know that there's nothing really that the MCP is going to do because it's outside the line. So like I think we, I do think that we as council should continue to advocate for that through other mechanisms or our legislation, our delegation to, I don't think it's necessarily fair that the Winnieski school district is going to use taxpayer money to do noise abatement. It's an expensive bond and maybe nice to see that reduced. So I hope that we can continue to put pressure in other places, but without a change in that noise line, the MCP won't help. So I don't know if it's worth, in my own personal comments, I mentioned that fact, but I don't know if it's worth including in the noise exposure map that just to acknowledge that the school sits outside yet is will be impacted despite the 65 DNL line. From a practical perspective, I don't think it'll change anything, but I do think the statement could be helpful. Did the school bond pass with a specific plan and set already? I mean, I think all the windows are getting replaced in the whole building now, right? Yeah. Did the school bond pass with that already in place though? Yeah, but our taxpayers are paying for that instead of the FAA or the Vermont International Guard. Well, correct, but the taxpayers voted on it and passed it to you. Yeah, but similar to the pool bond where we, or the pool vote where we now have a reduction in cost because of fundraising, there is a problem that just because the bond was voted that way doesn't mean that we have to raise the taxes to pay for it that way. I think this is a, I think it's worth advocating for other resources to offset the cost. I was just wondering what's kind of, you have data specifics of the engineering of what kind of windows they're already putting in. And if it's already a certain style window that's both thermally protected for the elements and sound proof, if it's only one, you know what I mean, one design already put in, I don't know if it's gonna help a little. I mean, that is not for us to sort out. Right. But we can absolutely see what we can do to advocate for additional federal funding. To your point, it wouldn't be through the NCP program, but elsewhere to say this is having an impact on our broader community beyond just the houses including the 65 DNL, how can you help us stay a thriving community? No big good idea is to get that community drafted person that they just hired on that with us maybe. Maybe they could shed some light. They will be meeting with Paul Sarns soon, I believe, as they start onboarding. Did she already get to you? She did, okay, perfect. Excellent. So you raised the idea of adding some language in here about the impact on the school. This could be, I mean, there could be a line added in the first paragraph that beyond the 65 DNL, our entire community will feel the impact of this change. Well, it's gonna go on the sound map, but they have purchased them wanting to expand it too. Because the school is outside. Wait, sorry, say that again? The school is outside that line. Yes, correct, yeah. So it would have to, they'd have to, that would include, if they spread that rain or a diameter more. So they won't, and we're not gonna ask them. I think the point to be made is just that there's impact to the community beyond that ring, that even folks who are outside of that could be impacted by these changes. So that would be comfortable if there's language that you feel you understand from these comments that can be put in and then we approve the comment that as long as that language is there, that works. Or do we need to write the wording? Nope, you can say that. This concept pending administrative changes. The only other question I have is about monitoring. Is there a place in the noise exposure map comments for actual monitoring of sound levels over time? Or is that part of the NCP? That's a good question. So I do think that this is where that would go in the noise exposure map because it would lead into the requirement to do every five years or a potential request for the community to do it more frequently. I can tell you just having sat in these meetings with the airport for the last two years, this is something that's helped Wellington and specifically the Chamberlain School, which is within the 65, has been asking for and it has never been prioritized. Not saying we shouldn't ask for it, but it has in the past been a very active and rejected conversation. So I think if you want to put it in here, this would be a good place to put it. I think reiterating that need would be important, especially if you tie it to some of our additional locations of disproportionate impacts on children, such as the OCC or the schools or daycare facilities. So specifically you're looking for noise monitoring outside of the 65, where there were vulnerable. I was thinking within the 65 to actually confirm the model results. But I guess it would actually be more useful to have ones inside and outside for validating model results. So if that's possible to do. And I think that's something that I definitely heard from residents about confirming the data down the road. And if it's, if we can align it to and ask that South Brompton has already been making, I think that's useful. I'm sorry, but the schools, was there a mention of CCD or is that covered somewhere? They're already in the 65 DNL. Right, right, right. Eligible for sound remediation. So the way it works is anyone in the 65 DNL is potentially eligible for mitigation. At some point through the airport and the consultant, they do acoustical testing to see where the interior noise level is within the threshold that requires mitigation. So we can't say that every property will be eligible that's within there, but they're all eligible to apply at this point, I would say. So everything you said is correct. I would just add the addition of, if a building was built while it was in the 65, it is not eligible for funding. So in, so for example, in 2006, the 65 was very similar to where it's now modeled to be, which was when a lot of our downtown was redeveloped. So those new buildings likely wouldn't, when they go through this qualifying process, likely wouldn't be eligible for mitigation because they were built with the knowledge that they were inside the 65. And I don't know the exact year CCV was built and how that crosswalks to the level at that year. So I'm hesitant to answer that question, but it is another hurdle that needs to be hit to qualify for mitigation. Do we wanna move on to discuss the NCP, the Noise Comparability Program comment? Yes. So here our introduction is rather similar. Share some data about our impacted community. And then based on the prior discussions, what we are advocating for here is that Winooski received 50% of all NCP funding as we are taking half, we are taking 50% of the actual overall regional impact. We are focused on sound insulation as our first preferred method of noise mitigation in order to keep residents here, keep the invest in the housing stock, second choice being purchase assurance, which is where the airport actually, if somebody wants to sell, the airport will purchase their home, do the noise mitigation and then resell it themselves. We are asking for the navigation easements to not be forever, so if there is a change in the map or if the map is updated, then an navigation easement might be removed because there's been a change or say it actually, the noise level increase, they could be eligible for mitigation again because the situation has changed. We are also including here some language about memorandum of understanding that we want to pursue regionally to get Winooski a voting seat on the advisory committee, confirm that the airport will request funding annually, that they will hire a local liaison to actually work with folks locally who are getting mitigation for the airport to continue to provide the 10% municipal match as they historically have done. We are advocating for ratio funding increase, so historically they have received about $4 million a year for 381 persons with an impact, so we are asking for 64 million a year for 6,000 plus people. I think it's a high bar to start with, but it could put us in a good negotiating spot. We are also asking for quarterly meetings between the airport and municipalities throughout the implementation so that we can all keep our residents apprised of what's happening and a commitment to seek funding beyond the NCP to see what other funding that they can lead the way in helping us get. So that was a lot. Do you feel like this captures our previous discussions? And so I was gonna- Go ahead. I feel like it captured our discussions, but I did know when going back over notes that in our public comment, we had a request to benchmark fair market value in terms of the purchase assurance, and I didn't see any language in there for that. Yes. Is that something that is already structured into the NCP or would we include that? I followed up on that with the airport staff and the consultants, and the fair market value is benchmarked against the entire county. It's a regional number, not just Winooski, so while it doesn't happen until the point of sale, it's not based on Winooski values alone. So that should mitigate, if we did see falling home values, they're not gonna be in the entire Chittenden County, so that should mitigate a potential loss there. Why did you call that out? Yes. I also thought, I might have a question regarding prioritization of funds for sound mitigation to households containing small children and large developments, I think it was. Yes, there's a general, that is generally noted as a priority in the introduction. I forgot to call it out because it wasn't one of the bullet points that's listed, but yeah. I have one comment regarding that as well, which is, if we could modify that position in such a way, funds to as many households and small children as possible, I worry about the situation where there's a large development and maybe four units in there maybe only two have children, do all the year's funds get summed up by that large development, which really only serves as two units of children and the other remaining households in Winooski that are affected. So I don't know what the process is, but there's just something in there to be sure that each year those funds get spread out to as many households with small children as possible. And I don't know if that means putting a priority on single family households or I don't even know if in a large development they can just target those units or something like that, but I worry that each year's funds may get quickly sucked up by those large development. So we have specifically asked that funding is prioritized to impact children up to the age of 18. That is called out specifically beyond a focus on density. I would say that reading this, it feels to me like we are saying that's the number one priority is supporting places with children. Yeah, and I also just don't know how much how expensive it is to soundproof one of these new 75-unit buildings opposed to a single family house. And if you're to soundproof a unit that's in there, do you basically have to soundproof the entire wall all the way across this giant building? I'm trying not to contend to leave as little, I guess, the depth of the details. I don't want to be stuck in a situation where they have $30,000 to roll out each year. And it turns out to provide some solidation to a large building to cost $30,000 for one unit. Because there's all this going to this large building and do all this, whereas that same $3,000 could be used for three or four homes in single family homes that are... So one, I am fairly certain that if they're touching a building, they're doing the whole building at once. They wouldn't do unit by unit based on occupancy. Okay, so that's a concern. There's only two units. They're gonna have to do that whole development, right? Is this ownership or rental property? I think it's both. It wouldn't matter if they're building a new building, they're gonna put the same windows in the whole building. They're not gonna say, well, this floor is only for children and this floor is only for professionals. They're gonna do the whole building. And the newer buildings you're talking about, Jesse just mentioned that, if they were built since what you just said, 2006 or... So my understanding of the decision point is if they were built when they were within the 65, when there was knowledge that they were in the 65, so the engineers could have designed to higher standard, they don't qualify. So the only 75 unit building that's even under consideration right now is the Main and Mansion Project that's under appeal. And if that's built, it will be built within the 65. And so it would not be eligible for mitigation. But there are some other large, I don't know if there are some other kind of buildings in these buildings that were built before that 2006 or whatever the noise went out. No, whatever that noise went out. So this is the question, right? When buildings are eligible for funding is, when were they, what year were they built and what was the noise line at that point? But the new buildings, any new building coming online would not be eligible within this timeframe. And then the downtown redevelopment I think is pretty, again, without going through this process of allocating the funds, in 2006 when the redevelopment was at its peak was in the 65. So Hall Keane, for example, or Keane's Crossing, for example, was built in that type of period. Now, next to West of Bedford Warehouse, there's a multi-storey, I don't know if their apartments are condos, that big building there. So that's Winooski Housing Authority property. Oh, it is? They would have to go back to the year that was built to understand. Oh, you mean the one on East Street? The East Street. Yeah, right next to the Bridge Warehouse. And we would need to go back and research what year that was built. Well, I know that. What about the Winooski Housing Authority properties? Like the one on East Spring Street, that's a full building. Right, so the answer's the same. So if they wanted to access mitigation dollars, they would need to demonstrate the year their building was built, and what the 65. Well before that. Right, and well before when the F-4s were here, it was a different sound map again. You know, you'd have to go back in history and recreate that history. So all I'm saying is that if we're prioritizing household storage units, and so because you have to do the whole building all at once and could suck up all those funds just for those two units. So I don't think it would with this statement because we're saying we want to prioritize children. So if there's only two units there with kids and we've got other locations with more children, I don't think we would do that large building first. I think we would do the other households with children. So by saying that. I mean, I need this as a combination because I see that there's a, the prior bullet to this does prioritize multi-unit, or says dollars should be prioritized to multi-unit buildings with the greatest impact on human life. And following that, we also are prioritizing children. So I would think that the prior, and this is ultimately up to the NCP process and not to the comment, but I think that I do think that it's important to prioritize both. Cause I do think that when we think about our vulnerable residents, it's going to be children who can't vote and it's going to be tenants who can't access services because it's at the one with the landlord. So I think that we do have to balance those two competing pieces where single family homeowners, it's up to the homeowner to access the funds themselves, whereas a tenant in a large rental building has to either get all of his renters, his or her neighbors together, or we have to help somehow to get that done. So I think that was the logic and including both multi-unit housing and children is that where those two coalesce would be, the sweet spot would be like the most impact because it's the most number of people and the most children, but we still want to maintain priority for those two groups of housing stock conditions in our city. And it's my understanding of where this combination was coming from and I think that we do, like I personally hear you on the children as a priority, but I also think that this multi-unit housing is something that we should be considering too. Well said, Jen. Thanks. Were you mentioned asking for 50% of the annual income I think it would be a good thing to say starting day one, not like the last 50%? It does say 2019 to 2029. Okay, okay. It sounds like there's a bit of a shift though. We're not prioritizing just children, but also density. Renters enlarge, enlarge adults, is that right? We are prioritizing dense, density and children. So to Jim's point, the sweet spot would be a multi-unit building that's full of kids because that's how we can have the most impact at once. Okay, I just, I just, I'm still trying to run my head around the rationale for high density renters in general. So let's be clear that high density does not equal renter. You can have density with condos and ownership. I don't want to skew that here. We are saying that you can do more. You can impact more human lives if you deal with a dense unit or a dense area versus more sparse parts. And when I look at the map, what I see is that the majority of what's in the 65DNL is on multi-unit housing. You know, most of our single family housing is closer to the edges of the city and is not even included in this map. So my only concern with that approach is that you may prioritize a 50-75 unit building full of healthy adults over two households with developing brains inside, no children. And I think the protection number, I think I was kind of hanging towards where you're saying children because I think there's some, there's data and studies about developing brains where that may not be the case for the average adult person. And so I get where you're coming from is that you can reach a lot more people with a high density building like that. I just don't necessarily know if those people that are in there need that same protection as children that are living in the other households and know that there may not be as many children that you can reach for those funds. I hear your concerns. I would go back to how Jim described it in that the discussion that we heard at the meeting and here, while children were a priority, there was also a priority to mitigate for as many people as possible. I personally am comfortable with where this stands because I think we are saying we wanna focus on both of these things and we want to ideally start with where we can help the most children possible. I think you make a good point, though, Jim, about this potentially reaching more of our vulnerable population who can't relocate, who don't really have a lot of options of their own. I know you've been waiting for a while, Heather. No, I actually am responding to a different thing now. I want to, because I remember of the housing commission and we've discussed a lot of the data, I just wanted to point out that one of the block groups that's impacted holds 96% of our affordable housing group of people who are seniors or disabled. So we've got other vulnerable populations besides just children. So I'm just, you know, there are some really densely populated people. Absolutely. I completely agree with all of those statements. There are a lot of people affected by this, including many vulnerable. However, there was a reason we were focusing on children because I think those are the most vulnerable because those are developing individuals, developing brains. They're the ones that are going to be the most impacted on loud noise exposure. Therefore, that's why we thought that the prioritization was necessary for that vulnerable population. Is there data that shows what residents live in? The, like, are there more kids? Are we able to see that kind of data? No, I can only look by block group. I look at census data by block group, but we do have a large, we have 398 or subsidized homeless people who are within that 65 DNO. So you're looking at people who don't necessarily have the resources or ability to access those funds themselves, who would be relying on the land money to get those funds for them. In addition, we have a large portion of our senior population and the population with disabilities within some of those block groups. So I don't have it by parcel. I don't know if the elderly, the disabled, many people are affected by the sound, I'm sure. I think, I'd like to go on the record and say, I just think the basin, that 35 is a bad idea for this community and it does not serve as well in any regard. However, I also like to acknowledge too that this council, Mayor and City Manager have done phenomenal job advocating on behalf of the city. All I'm saying is that there are a lot of people that are affected by the sound. It's just that these young children, the problem, I haven't looked at the data in a while, but those between zero and five with where all that development is actually happening are the most affected by those non-desperate levels. And that's why I wanted to make a clear prioritization for that demographic as opposed to the other vulnerable. Thanks, Bobby. And I would make one more point that we are commenting on the entire noise compatibility program and saying that we want to prioritize density, also prioritizes Winniewski, frankly, over the rest of the region. So there is additional force behind that statement. But I get what you are saying here about wanting to put children first and foremost. I have a question. When the sound mitigation starts, or if it ever does, are they going to go on a grid by grid basis of the most affected and spread out? How do you have, do they have a certain plan on how that's working? So they don't have a plan yet. What we have heard from the consultants who run NCP programs across the country is what they typically do is start highest impact out. So they start in the 75 and they do all the 75 and then they go to the 70 and they do all the 70 and then they start at the edge of the 65 and work their way out. So it's kind of an outward process from the highest sound point. I think part of our attempt to Christine's last point with these comments is to say because we are bearing 50% of the burden of this location that that may not be the most appropriate way to allocate the funds that we may want to think about how what's the impact on the number of humans. So if you're talking about and this is an awful conversation tab because you're prioritizing lives, right? If you're talking about sound mitigation on a single family, small home in South Burlington right next to the airport versus a four unit duplex in Winooski, perhaps you should allocate funds for 18 people who live in this unit versus three people who live in this unit. I think that's one of the things we are trying to get at is not just that once you're into the 65 how are you dividing up the dollars but getting the dollars faster? Does that make sense? It does. I was just seeing if as a pretty hit target schools and less of daycares or lesser daycares that grid of X amount of feet by X amount of feet then does it start spreading out or does it start from South Burlington to Winooski to Burlington? So it essentially follows the curve line. The curve line, right? It's what we've been told but there is an implementation plan in place. Yeah. Other thoughts, do we want to make any changes additions? Do we think that this statement is good to go? I would say we also add a part, the same change to the introduction as we are doing for the news map comment about the impact being on the entire community not just within the 65 Daniel folks who reside in there. The only thing I'm wondering about changing this to cut to your point Bobby is if we want to especially call out children zero to fives right now it's children aged to the age of 18. I'm wondering if we could reward that as a funding prior test to impact children up to the age of 18 with a special focus on those from zero to five. Just to again to think about here's a prioritization that we're looking for we're really worried about that early childhood development stage. Obviously a drawback to more specificity in that section or not. I said we do it even a little older than that because zero to 12 years old brings because I have teenagers, I have grown kids out home and I know what they do the other year but then I mean a plane going by isn't going to bother them because they have their ear plugs and ear buds in. So I think the younger kids all to Bobby's point if we could make a specific age group we say going all the way. If they then go from 13 to 18 because all those that age range is in a loud environment anyway between playing sports, temperalities, music, concerts. I think the zero to five maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that was specifically related to the World Health Organization study on noise impacts was identifying that particular age range is susceptible or am I misremembering that? That sounds weird but I don't know. I think that's why I was suggesting zero to five in particular is that there might be a developmental impact earlier in life but if we don't know the number then maybe it's not worth it. I mean we could call that out in this comment especially to those indicated in the World Health. We could call out that expert study. I would be comfortable with that addition. Any other comment yet? If there are any types of racism concerns about just like a decreasing tax base in the city as people move away and sell their homes for a cheaper and cheaper value? The statement that there's gonna be an impact on the entire community outside of the 65 DNL that's one of the things it alludes to. I think that's gonna be the ongoing work outside of this comment for myself council for our representatives to be pushing to our congressional delegation that there could be economic impact here so how are you gonna help us outside of this FAA funding? I don't know that I think there's an appropriate that this is the right venue to make that statement. Sure. Values in houses are not going down. They're going up. My daughter bought a house in Winooski last month. They wanted $269,000 for it, for a two bedroom. They're not going down. I have seen the current trends, yes. I agree with that statement too and people know that 35 should come in here and we've also always lived with the Vermont Air Guard base next to Winooski so people know what they're getting into when they move to Winooski. I mean, you're not moving to a community without doing the research. So, I mean... Right, but I also have known people who their realtor has said if you don't want to be invited to Winooski, so I think that message is going to be reaching people more readily as the noise becomes available and quite frankly the fact that the previous noise mitigation plan was just to destroy the homes and have nobody live there, I think is massive. There's a better, there's a greater plan for that though. There's just not, there's a greater plan for them. There's gotta be, they're not destroying homes for no reason. So those houses were also right next to the airport. They were in a higher noise level. That's not what's going to be happening. The airport has made a commitment not to do that again. Right, but just my understanding is in terms of health, that was the original response. It was, I don't want to speculate on that. I would say yes, there is a potential that there could be impact to home values. We don't know what that could be and I don't know if you two feel differently. I don't think this is the place to address that issue. I think there's a different venue for that conversation. Well, I think to some extent this has been addressed. I think that we have shown a preference through the choice of options that you're selecting. Selected for sound proofing and purchase assistance and not going for home sales assistance because I think that I would be uncomfortable just sound mitigation and not allowing people a way out if that's what they needed to do. And the purchase assistance provides at least the housing stock improves when someone leaves. And so I think we are trying to take care of that. Whereas home sales assistance, someone sells, there's an easement, no mitigation has done, that house is much less usable. And I think that that is a value judgment that we're making right now, that we should have one option and not the other and there could be an impact to the city tax base. But I think we are balancing two competing needs of people who, a city who needs to maintain its finances and people who might need to leave for whatever reason. So again, I don't think it goes to the question of what speculative economic impacts we want to call out. But I think we are starting to make value judgments as a council, which should be aware of that. Ms. Stated here too, on the document. But to go to your point again about the real estate agent, a house in Lewinuski does not stay on the market very long. Even if someone wants to buy it and they do say that, I say, oh, you know what, good point, I don't want to live by the airport. So, but the house will sell. And people are moving to Lewinuski because Lewinuski is a happening place. So. My concern is that I don't, I don't actually want to move. I also just don't want to sound. I don't want the nuclear risk. I don't want the crash risk. I don't want to hear. Well, and also just, I just think, it's not just about the home prices. It's about who's choosing to move into Lewinuski. And I feel like we're already facing a challenge of young families moving out of Lewinuski to go to a different school district. And just feel like this is one more thing with a family with small children to give them excuse to leave Lewinuski, not stick around. So, I don't doubt that people are still buying houses. It's just, are they going for their young family, are people with families with young children, are they going to continue to buy houses and last day Lewinuski? So, that's a very good point. Because I was under the impression that a lot of young families were moving into Lewinuski because most of the people that seem new come into Lewinuski. They're not the resellers or English learning folks that are moving here. It's young families moving here too. It's, like I said again, it's a happy place. There's a lot to offer. The school's getting, a lot of work's getting done to the school to make it better. Our pool's gonna be done hopefully by 2020. It's supposed to be done by 2020. And I was under the impression that from what I see, I could be wrong, because I don't have the facts, but from what I see, I see young families moving to Lewinuski. So, I feel like we are straying from the task at hand right now. Real stacking. I would like to come back to, are there any additional changes that we wanna make to this comment? Or do we think this is good to go? Good to go. And so, we're saying we wanna call out kids zero to five based on the World Health Organization standards and add the statement about there is impact to the broader community. Yep. I like to see the kid. I like to see the kids go up a little bit, to be honest with you, but if you're gonna go with zero to five. Well, whatever, we're gonna reference this World Health Organization, so there's a data point to work with. Oh, I'll see what you say, I'll be back. So, it might not be zero to five, but that's what we suspect is. Zero to X. Yeah, to X. Okay. So, before we go to approval, I just wanna talk briefly about what like communication in next steps would look like. So, one, these are final, like if we approve these, or if we wait till the 27th, whatever it is, which would be a very short term. I, what I would like to do is we share this out as our official statement through our regular channels, you know, the city website, social media, et cetera. With guidance to residents that they can also make a public comment and that we would encourage folks to do so because it's to the benefit of Winooski to have the most comments possible. I would also personally reach out to some of those bigger stakeholders, I mentioned earlier, like the schools, the housing authority and such, to see if they also wanna make similar statements and submit those. And then I have been in contact with Merrow Weinberger's office to have a meeting with him. I'm not sure how this will play out, but the other part, so South Berlin 10, I reached out to Williston, but not heard back yet, to see how they, how we like regionally want to work together to advance these priorities of ours. So just keep you all in the loop on that. Whenever that comes together, I can let you know and talk about what it is that we are trying to push for. I think that's a good idea. I mean, the more help we can get to help our cities, that needs a win for us. And we have seen, South Berlin 10 shared their draft, just kind of their response, and we're pretty aligned on several, we both wanna see some mitigation and purchase insurance. So there's a lot of alignment there already. Sure. I'm glad you said the story, but reaching out to the, sort of, the news keepers and things like that, how? I mean, yeah, downtown, I haven't fully flushed out a list of who all of our folks are. That is something I would run by snap and counsel to see if you have suggestions. If there is no more comment, it sounds like we are ready to move forward. I would. Can I make a suggestion? Move forward. So I understand the intention of wanting to get something approved tonight that then could be brought around to stakeholders is what we're trying to achieve. So I would suggest that if you want to do that, that the three of you could approve this tonight. So it would be an approved document of the council and then we would re-approve it on the 27th, so it can be actually signed by all the counselors if they so choose. I'm a little, from a strategy perspective, I'm a little concerned about providing city comment with three signatures on it. You know what I'm saying? Yes. So you can approve it tonight. It will be an approved city document and then we'll re-affirm it at the 27th meeting. Yes, okay. This will buy us a little more time to encourage other folks to join in comment versus having one day of opportunity. Is there a need to approve it at this point or could we just? I mean, could I move forward with another approved document? I mean, in theory, you could move forward saying it's a draft document. I think it may carry a little more weight with partners if you say this is improved document by the council. You can always re-affirm it or update it afterwards, have a newer version down the road. But I think in terms of strategy for building that consensus with other partners, it may be valuable. So can I entertain a motion to approve the noise exposure map comment and noise compatibility program comments allowing city manager Jesse Baker to make updates for adding language on broader community impact, noise modeling, ongoing noise monitoring and special focus on children zero to X age per World Health Organization standards. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Mike. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you all for a lot of very good feedback. So we can move to our next agenda item, which is the 2019-2020 policy priorities and strategies. So changing gears. So on June 1st, we met as a team and had a retreat, long conversation about our strategies this year and our priorities aligned to the strategic vision given the adoption of the master plan. Staff then spent some time reviewing your feedback and crafting the document that's linked off the agenda. A couple of things to call out about what's before you tonight. One is when we talked about this at the retreat, we had things in three different kind of buckets, priorities in three different buckets. What we've presented to you tonight based on our conversation on June 1st is what are our priorities and what are our priorities pending additional resources? So for example, the UPWP money that we were awarded will help further some of these second column priorities. We also wanted to clarify the difference between work we're going to do this year and priorities that are listed here that we're going to bring you budget proposals for FY20 on. So you'll see that called out where we see, or sorry, FY21. So you'll see that called out where we say FY21 proposal. It's not necessarily, for example, the K9 program that we had the conversation about. We're not going to stand that up this year. We're going to research it and bring you a proposal. And then the last thing I wanted to mention just in terms of table setting is prior years, we've had, I think, a lot of shared success doing monthly updates to the Council on Strategic Visionaries. So in your memo, you see the schedule that we intend to bring those goal updates to you in accordance with. So that will be the second meeting or in summers when we hit, just have one meeting. The one meeting of the month, you'll get those goal updates. So that's the table setting I wanted to do. You also, so you have before you the strategies document and then you also have a memo from Eric Warwald, our planning and zoning manager, trying to codify some of the conversation we had about direction to the planning commission. So that's a related conversation. Thank you. So this is an update. We had June 3rd. June 1st. A weekend special meeting to discuss strategy and priorities for the coming year. This is the result of that conversation. I feel like this captures what I recall the discussion being of a few minor questions, but I think that's the first piece of this discussion is does this capture what we discussed? Does this look good to us moving forward? And then I think second, we can move into the discussion on the planning commission items. I was just, I do think it pretty much entirely reflects what we talked about. So thank you for the work to restructure our musings into something that's more structured. And I just had a note to myself as I was reading through is why I couldn't recall why bringing the Wienewski Housing Authority properties into the registry was not considered like a this year priority. So that requires the partnership of the Wienewski Housing Authority. So we see that as an additional resource that's needed. We can't, I guess we can't very aggressively solely do it, but I think that the idea was to do it in partnership with that organization. Sounds good, thanks. I've said some very minor comments. One was about the standing up the finance commission actually I can table that until we discuss the next item about restructuring commissions. There's a note in here about under implementing the tree ordinance, the tree commission, I think Jim as you reiterated earlier that role will be fulfilled by the Public Works Commission. I don't know if that needs to be called out, but just that we're not, we're not establishing a new commission with that note. So this is in the bottom of municipal infrastructure. Oh yes, yeah, tree commission, yeah, Public Works Commission. Kind of along those lines, I think moving plan for EAP, pending resources should be in the pending resources column. Okay. I guess that's a minor point, but. Yep. Something else I wanted to know is, so with our safe, healthy, connected people, in implementing the police department strategic plan, there's a bullet point here about community policing. And so I just, unfortunately chief Hebert is not here today, but I just wanted to call out that I have again heard from community members wanting to see more like foot patrol and have more contact with officers. So I just wanted to share that thinking as part of that community policing effort. Do we have a one? Is there bikes, they're biking patrols? They have a motorcycle. Well, not that one. Not actually a bike. Yes, I think they're getting some head nods. Do they have? I don't think so. I have bicycles, but it's not necessarily, obviously you're round. It's when they have availability. That's good to be. Availability? Yeah. I think they remember you said you said you were round, but I haven't seen her in a while. Okay. I realize you all may not have, may not have reviewed this document out of time, but are there any questions or comments from the public about this strategy and priority plan? This is essentially what will drive our efforts as a council over to come in staff as a group from here. So no public comment. It sounds like we are all in agreement that this well captures what occurred at this meeting. I did alert Amy before she left that she was welcome to share via email or if she had any comments. I think she might have left before this was sent out, but had not heard from her, how didn't raise any concerns. So I would entertain a motion to approve this document as is with the two noted changes. So second. Motion by Mike, second by Jim. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, wait. So we need to still need to discuss the planning part. Come on up, Eric. So if I could just do quick table setting. So I'll take no credit for this. This was Eric's very good memo and opinion about trying to capture some of the discussion we had about the planning commission's guidance to the planning commission for future work. I think this is a really hard conversation to have because it's not necessarily a hard vote. It's not necessarily a go do this project. It's a little more ephemeral. So the question for you all is to what extent do you want to take a strong policy hand with the planning commission and say, we want you to look at X, Y or Z, or we want you to come back with an ordinance saying X, Y or Z. Those are two different kind of extremes or two different types of ways to give feedback. Or do you want to say, here's the discussion we had. You are our policy extension arm. Go forth and do some research and bring us back some recommendations. And of course the mayor serves on that as the liaison to the planning commission as well so can help facilitate that process. So that's my take on that. Yeah, I think that's a really good overview of kind of the information that I was looking for to take back to the planning commission as we start to develop our work program for the coming fiscal year. Now that we've finished the master plan, it's time to start implementing it basically. And so there's been some community discussion around some specific topics. And we at the planning commission level have also identified several items that have been things that we wanted to start to explore, many of which we talked about at the retreat and are reflected in the memo. So it's really more to get a confirmation of from council if these are our items that we want to continue moving forward with to explore at the planning commission level either in depth or loosely. For example, with the historic preservation topic I think what came out for me anyway from the strategy's discussion was we really need to get an inventory of what we currently have and what we're trying to protect. So that wouldn't necessarily be a role for the planning commission aside from looking for some funding or getting other resources involved and integrated to start conducting those inventories at this point. So that might not be a planning commission function but at least to make sure the planning commission is aware that that's the direction council has indicated we should move in so that they're not spending time and we're not spending time at the planning commission level going down that road if we're not depending on, we're not spending a lot of time to develop regulations that may or may not achieve the end result that we're looking for. So from my time liaising with the planning commission I have heard them express that they are concerned about parking, they are concerned about historic preservation, they are concerned about these zoning updates. It feels to me like there are two different discussions here so one is historic preservation because I think to Eric's point that it's not necessarily gonna be handled by them it's not something that we would move immediately to regulation, right? We need an inventory, we need to know kind of what it is we're driving towards. I think the zoning updates and the parking coalesce and that I have heard the planning commission discuss our parking requirements working is form-based code working. I think the two, they tie in together because they're the different parking requirements one in the gateways, one in residential areas maybe there's more than two but. Well there's really, I guess the bigger issue is that there was an attempt during the development of the form-based code to incorporate specific parking requirements for the gateways that was not included. So the parking requirements for the gateways are the same as all the other districts. I see. We regulate all the parking the same basically. Okay. So they have been raising concerns about do parking requirements make sense? They've also raised concerns about is form-based code producing the vision that we thought it would? I feel like these two pieces align in that we are talking about one are the projects being developed meaning community vision of what we wanted our gateways to look like. And then two, are they meeting these goals of having efficient like green efficient buildings and the affordable housing targets that we've set? We already know that no one has taken the bonuses that we offer to incentivize the energy efficiency and the affordability. And we believe from what we've heard that that's related to parking requirements. I feel like that discussion could be having the planning commission revisit the vision for the gateways, look at some actual projects that have been developed and say, did this meet the community vision? Did this meet our goals for affordability and energy efficiency? And did the parking work? Or were the requirements too high, too low? That's how I've been thinking about this portion of the discussion. But I've... I think a lot of people have been thinking, excuse me, that way. Did you guys at your planning commission, public chores commission meeting last week, did you guys touch on any of that? No, we solely focused on the East Allen. Well, East Allen's gateways, so is that... It kind of came up a little bit. A little, okay, I was curious on that. You know, there was a discussion there about whether or not to, how much parking to include, which we'll go back to the original discussion. Well, what the foreign base code, the buildings on the streets, is that? That was touched on in the ability to have that construction and also have street trees if there's not actual curb line changes to the road. So that all relates to this. So I think that's, I mean, I think having them revisited is a good idea. Like you were suggesting. It's something that has been talked about too in the past is a few years into gateway zoning. Checking in and seeing if there's anything worth revisiting. Yeah, I mean, I think that that, if you're looking for my comment, I really think that opening those three things up, I personally really strongly feel that the incentives either need to be made into incentives or removed, and we should just be honest about it. If we don't have incentives that actually incent a different path and that's because of parking and we can fix the parking incentives get taken and great if there's no way that incentives will ever make sense even with our master plan energy efficiency requirements, like then we should just take that out. So I'd love to see those two, three pieces really looked at and tandem the parking and then the two different incentive options. And then I think kind of your point, Mike, I think, and I think I like the idea of using what's already there as a framework to assess whether we're getting what we want. I think imagining build out with these types of developments being the norm. I think if that will with the street scape changes result in what we thought we were gonna get then great if not, I'd like to know now rather than 15 buildings later. Well, because there's already two more projects. Well, one we know of, but two maybe after the appeal process on Main Street. So we might have a real good vision because those are already. Correct. They're already zoned in. So once those get really wrong, I think we'll even have a better picture but I don't know if we wanna touch upon that prior to seeing those buildings erect or get, I mean, I don't know, how do you wanna move forward from here? Well, if those are already applied for, it doesn't matter if we change something or not. They'll go in. Right. Do we want to revisit this planning commission well now before those built? I mean, they're already done, but we might have a better vision to see in them when those buildings are actually up. Oh, you're saying so weeks. Should we wait or should we get into it? That's one. I wouldn't wait. So it's not them. Let's get on. Does this make sense? Do you have questions? I think it does. I think this is actually helpful in determining what type of work we need to start looking at from the planning commission level. I mean, obviously we'll be doing other things and working on smaller amendments that are just more cleanup of the regulations as we go forward, but I think this definitely helps provide some direction for moving forward for sure. So thank you very much for that. Um, for the historic preservation piece, so we talked about this inventory. I think this memo also brings up the next question after that is what, how are we going to determine what the level of protection is that's desired by the community? Exactly. The footprint or, I mean, if the building's renovated so many times, is it going to meet historic preservation value or if the footprint wasn't changed, but it's got vinyl siding and all brand of windows in it and it looks more like a newer house than a house built in 1800. I mean, how is that going to be all processed? Are we going to count that because it has the same cobblestone foundation or? So that's a question. I think the other piece is what does preservation mean? You know, we had a resident who was at the meeting that talked about adaptive reuse and so not being stringent like this is old so it has to stay this way. Cross-effectiveness. But rather kind of keeping parts, yeah, incorporating it in. So that's another like community value decision to make. I think the question at the moment is like, how do we even get there? Yeah, I mean, my inclination in thinking about this is that an inventory without a policy that will utilize it could be work lost. And to your point, that's not necessarily something that the Planning Commission will be doing in conducting that inventory. And I guess the question I, like my first question is why our initial attempt at historic preservation didn't work and what was missed or broken in form-based codes? Because my understanding from the person who attended our meeting and others is that there was an effort and then an expectation that historic preservation would be linked to the state register or the federal register for what I've heard. So if that is the case why didn't it work and if not, how do we fix that and do we wanna fix that? So I guess I'm wondering kind of which one comes first. The inventory would be helpful for understanding the scope of what we have, but it's also without a specific framework or policy that will utilize that inventory. I wonder what we get out of that effort and if we should wait a year for that effort to go through before then thinking about the policy part of it. Does that also- Shake an egg. I mean, don't we have some of an inventory on some property zone already? Well, if I can interject on both of those things for just a minute, Heather, I'm gonna try and channel you so jump in if I miss channel. I think the conversation we've had as a team is the inventory comes first, understand what we're trying to preserve. And if we're trying to preserve specific, I think the, and period in a sense, I think before one of the reasons it failed is we didn't have something to say, here is what we're trying to do. So we went to the inventory that existed and the value was what are the parcels that have been somehow valued at the state level as buildings, as standalone entities that we wanna preserve. I think there's a feeling amongst us that the inventory may show, yes, there are some specific buildings we wanna preserve, but there may also be a land pattern development or there may also be a history or there may also be individual human stories that we wanna preserve. And therefore how we do that, the policy for how we preserve those sets of things may be different based on what we learn in the inventory. So we really need to start with that to understand how the policy follows. That's, I think that's how we've kind of made sense of some of these conversations that I've been swirling about that does come with a risk of waiting a year and going through this inventory process and running into another development challenge. But it also may allow us a little more creative thinking about how to honor the history of this place that's beyond just no footprint and four walls. How did I do? Oh good. I think that may also be saving us time in the long run because I think what we did with the form base code originally is we put in a really quick fix that didn't work and now here we are down the road. Whereas having that time with that inventory and hiring a consultant to do that and to have a process, we can have community voices at the table which are telling us what those values are and then we can start from the place of knowing what we're trying to. Thanks for laying that out, that helps a lot. It does raise the question of if we have a connection that's broken right now, do we continue to allow it to wait a year? And I think that's, I mean that's a big question and there was a call for moratorium on any new form base code approvals and I don't know that that's what, I'm certainly not advocating that right now but that's the only, the risk and I mean you pointed that out very clearly but do we consider some intermediate measure in that year that those, that that inventory and assessments going on? And I don't know the answer to that but it might be something for discussion. So, Eric jump in when I don't say this right. The current, or Heather, so what is in form base code right now? Basically says that we won't allow demolition of a property on the state or national historic registry. So what's happened in the past is properties have been removed from that registry and then because that was the only level of protection and there's nothing else. That's generally correct. I would just clarify that it's not specific to the form base code. It's not specific to our gateways only. It's for the entire city. So any property that, currently the way our regulations are written is that any properties that are in our, in section, I believe it's section 4-4 under our design standards is that any properties that are on the state or national register would need to get approval from the state before they would be eligible for demolition. Otherwise there's some adaptive reuse items that can come into play. However, those components of adaptive reuse are, I believe are, if the property is in the gateway district, they're exempt from some of those components and also if they are, if the property is not, if the intent is not to reuse the property then they're also exempt from those as well. If the intent is to demolish the property and start with new development then that adaptive reuse wouldn't be applicable. So I think the big challenge right now is our regulations don't have a lot of protection, quite frankly, but we also don't have a lot of expertise on staff to really enforce that type of protection. Additionally, I think to develop regulations will require a community discussion of what it is that we're trying again to preserve and what that's going to look like and that in itself will take some time to get to that point so that we're not creating regulations that will establish or create unintended consequences for other development patterns going forward. Or be too onerous for owners of those properties that they in essence can't do anything with their property. So there are some challenges involved with even trying to correct what we currently have in our regulations. Thank you for that little detail. But I would say with that, I would say ultimately I think it comes down to what the direction that we want to, how we want to move forward as a community. So Heather just mentioned a consultant. I know there was discussion before about trying to leverage a UVM graduate program. How viable is that as a path for us to rely on? Well, I haven't spoken with them at all. But they do have at UVM one of the best programs in the country for historic preservation. So I think that the possibility of getting a graduate student who might be interested in doing something like that is probably pretty good and probably be a capstone project. The other option of course is that we could go for a municipal planning grant again and hire a consultant to do that work. So I think we have more than one option there. It feels like the inventory is the most viable option for moving forward. I mean, we don't really have an alternative. That alternative would be taking on some other effort to try to figure out what the community desire is here. And that feels very ambiguous for us to take right now. It'd be nice to find out so we don't have neighbor versus neighbor, like the mansion projects going on right now. So if we can get start something there, just so everyone knows that everyone's on the same page, I think that's the way to go. I think what's hard here is that to, the point that staff is making is that we can't just make a patch. In the meantime, like we can't, there's no immediate solution available to us. There's not. Yeah. That's why I think the inventory started, that's our start. And then we move on from there because some of the properties might not be fixable without being dangerous to someone's, like, I mean. Part of the municipal grant, sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt, sorry. The municipal planning grants can also be used for doing the community discussion piece, like can it be hitched together? So I guess I'm thinking if this is a difficult, not difficult, but just a conversation that we don't quite have a footing to set up right now through either the Planning Commissioner Council with everything else. If that is something that goes into the planning grant, I see that as more viable necessarily than a UVM capstone student may not have the correct skills to do that. So I guess I'm wondering if we do go that direction and see if we can marry those two things together so that similar to the visioning that was done on four base codes, we're having kind of a curated process for having that conversation with as many residents as possible. I think it would be a more competitive grant. If that happens. Okay. So. Questions or comments from the public? Do we want to give that direction then to staff that our primary interest is in getting an inventory ideally through a grant and a consultant to get some community input? I think it's a start. And then we can start implementing or figuring out regulations and what people can do with if they purchase one, I mean. All right, so we don't need to vote on that specifically. But I do just want to echo that Eric's previous comment that I think this conversation is actually very helpful for us to understand how to best support the other humans doing this work. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, very good. Great. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thanks, Eric. So the next item is discussion of commission realignment. This also comes out of our priorities and strategies meeting. Yep. So what you have before you tonight is again a revisiting of this conversation about how are we ready to report my commissions? Staff has had some internal conversations about this as well. And we feel very good about the new commission structure. We also like the idea that has been discussed about trying to align the commissions to one night. There might be some logistical challenges but the opportunities of being able to provide childcare or a partnership on projects that are cross commission might be beneficial. And then we did per year conversation at the retreat and thinking about how we give the commissions and the people who are giving up their time and energy specific direction on what to work on. We did take the liberty of going through the priorities spreadsheet and trying to pull out the pieces that we felt might be good part, good work plan items for each commission in the first year. So items that had some kind of policy impact or a real user impact in terms of impact fees or those kinds of things. So those are also presented in your memo. We also provided the charters of the existing commissions as they currently stand. And with your blessing of this process I think the intent would be to bring back those charters for approval at the July meeting. Those revised charters back for your approval. So I had some thoughts about the priorities of the commissions separately about the charters. I think that the schedule is another discussion. Where would you all like to start? That sounds good. So I mean what we have here it looks like is essentially been pulled out of our strategy and priorities which makes sense. Directly. I think for me looking at the priorities in the finance committee commission I feel like maybe some prioritization is needed because there's a lot there to determine kind of order. The infrastructure, some of that it looks to me like it kind of follows the way work goes. Like we're already in position to address this Tresa USA situation. East Island scoping will have been along the pace that CCRPC sets eventually. I guess there's a couple items in there maybe that we might want to consider prioritizing. Housing looks a little white. So I think we could talk about that. What are folks thoughts on this? Once the commissions get established, wouldn't it be good idea to get, kind of give them a standard of what to follow like these priorities and then get there into it? Because if they're trying to, if they're volunteering for something like this they're gonna have maybe some kind of education on it or experience maybe. Maybe they'll see something that we haven't seen. Yeah, I think that's a fair point. I continued in the discussion previously about how we were struggling to get good, you know this is a policy advisory arm for us essentially that it might make sense to provide a work plan and list of priorities to them to guide what they do. I think like I could see us providing that initially and then by all means taking in feedback if they have different thoughts. I think I was struggling with this list to identify what timing and deliverables look like for the commission. And once I kind of realized that these have kind of cut-paste from the list and that makes sense that the wording is that way but in terms of implementing public work standards I don't see like that being, I mean I could see where there could be a review and advising role but I think I'd love to see less review and advising roles for commissions and more on maybe looking at the FY21 proposal step of each of these like if you have a year to work on something meeting once a month you can actually work on it. So I could see Mike, your idea of providing like these are three things that we need done and if you wanna prioritize stormwater utility over a sidewalk plan like you can do that but we need both done and I guess I would love to see this kind of, I think it'd be easier to figure out if this is a viable work plan and a good work plan for people if there's more of a deliverable kind of schedule if that's possible with these types of things because if these all need to be done this fiscal year it's gonna be hard to pick and choose for the commissions I think like how those will get done. So that was one reaction I had and the other is that I think the timing kind of stinks I would love to see the equity work finished and recommend it back to council before these commission work plans are set so because I think that would be, that is a point of discussion is how this commission realignment could also further that work and so that's just I'm raising that as a concern and I have that going too far down the road of setting work plans without having that recommendation from the group, I mean I said we could wait. So that should be presented to us in late August I believe is what we are looking at right now at the joint city council school board meeting. So we're looking at between now and then probably one, two meetings for each of these commissions. You mean with the equity outputs? Right, so I'm saying like if they're gonna meet twice already before that information is available before we've had a chance to discuss it I'm thinking about how much would actually the timing on that. I guess I would like to see that be kind of the charging up front in terms of using some equity lenses to look at some of these issues I think would be, I'd love to build that in at the front rather than add it on to six of the way into the year. I also think that the action items I mean we only have one more meeting than it's tomorrow so the action items will be on the table and then related to the commission can probably be communicated to this group before then would be my, I think we could ask the consultants to do that if it really affects the ability to stand these up kind of in a concerted and coherent way. So from the staff's perspective or speaking up, yeah for the staff, I think we're as invested in the equity work as well and if you want to hold off on this, on the real, you know the actual approval of the final charters and the realignment until early fall when we've kind of gone through hearing back from the equity commission having the joint meeting with the school trustees I think that's fine with us. We want this to be useful and provide the clearest direction to volunteers. I think we were also feeling like you would have some discussions and there's some volunteers out there kind of swirling and we were trying to say if you want to move this forward you can but it is certain if it's your will to hold that that's fine with us as well. Yeah that's a good point too because we do have some volunteers so I'm gonna have to end before we lose their interest. I mean do we have to reel them in? Is there a way to do that now? Can we temporarily put them on a commission? I mean... Well I think that the, I mean I think we're gonna end up with these commissions right I mean I don't think the question is whether we'll have a different commission structure. So yeah, so I know what like we'll definitely I would hope at the end of this meeting we have these new commissions. I think Jim's right, but I think... It sounds to me like the work plan. You're looking for a delay in the work plan. Yeah that's right. But still moving forward with the charter and the member selection. Exactly, I think we get these commissions set up as soon as we can because you know when a person volunteers that says something about an individual and you don't want to lose that individual because you know there's something stronger than a volunteer they say. I mean Jim was there anything in the actual charters that concerned you related to the equity dialogues? No, okay. So I, so that's fine. I think we will be looking to you all to how does as the liaisons about how to talk with the commissions in the next couple of months about you know I think so all of the commission membership is expired. So we need to do a pretty massive reposting for folks who are interested in serving. And so I think our thought was to try and put some more bumpers on what that service would look like with these work plans. We can put out a more general call of here's the strategic vision statement here's what is outlined in the master plan for these areas of work. The work plan will be developed over the summer and fall. That makes a lot of sense. But we may need some help with the liaisons to communicate that smoothly to the commission. So one thing that we would really love to have from council is one or two things that that would be kicking them off as your advertising and posting like to begin with you will work on X and Y and Z and others will come later. Is that would that be useful to have from council at this point like tonight or? I think that's what we were trying to do a list of say as staff these are the things that would be useful for us to present to the commission or hear their feedback on. I think we can as smoothly achieve that by saying come join the municipal infrastructure commission. Here's the new revised charter. Here's the strategies that have been adopted by the council. Here's the master plan section related to that. And that's a lot of information about the universe of things they might be asked to work on and then how you all prioritize and they prioritize their work with the equity lens applied in the upcoming months fits within all of that information that's shared. I think it's a good starting point. And if there's something that we want to if we as a council want to see worked on more we just stress it more, right? And then or if they come to us and you know we think this topic is something that we really feel strongly about that's our job to kind of compliment them on that and say okay, if you feel strongly about that as to keep the council will vote on it and move forward. Yeah, I think the one caution that just having been the one person who hasn't been able to go to a commission meeting yet that can be challenging if we get a proposal back that we can act on as council because it doesn't fit within the structure of the budget. So I do think that I mean I'm all about like clear deliverables and a plan because if someone wants to participate and they know that they have to achieve something by June and they've told them what it is like that's really helpful I think for from people I talked to who serve on commissions it sounds like that would be helpful. But I mean I guess I think that a menu of possible options that people could be working on like specific things that come from this list could be included in that advertising that's being done. I mean this is the menu right here, isn't it? The priorities, is that what we? I mean I think it's theory over the next eight years the priorities are the master plan. And most of these come from those priorities. So maybe it's as easy as just sharing those pages. How do you feel about Jim's suggestion of a work plan format? Like is that something you feel like this list could easily be converted to now? Or is that challenging in what you were looking for us to weigh in on? Well these are your commissions. So if you guys want work plans for them then by all means we can develop work plans. I think what I think the to make sure we're aligned what might be best is if we're gonna move forward with the commission realignment now, pause on the work plans until the equity work is developed. It might what might be best is for the liaisons and the staff contact to work over the summer on developing that work plan together. And so there's buy-in from you all of what you want them to be focusing on and then we can provide the guidance on what's going to, what we're gonna need feedback on when based on the budget schedule and the legislative schedule and the funding application schedule and all of that. Does that make sense? Does well, cause I've only attended one commission meeting Jim. So I'm one up on you. So I'm learning as well on this. But from serving on the community service commission I didn't serve on that commission but I was a sub, the pool community was a sub commission on that. So I got a taste on how that commission kind of worked. And I think if you get people that are, if you find the right people for each commission I think this is gonna be a very helpful tool. And I don't know where they are. I mean, are they disbanded right now all the commissions? Are we still, do we still have, I see the finance one's not meeting but the infrastructure ones has been meeting the house. Some are, some are. There are different stages of development. Okay. So the community service commission's still meeting, correct? I mean, is there five members? There's three members. Okay. Three from the public safety commission who are not inactive and would be asked to join potentially the safety and healthy connected. Right. What about picking, so I mean, I can see that model working of having the staff. I mean, I guess I just wonder about having one council person directing the work of for a quarter of a year for a commission. I mean, I presume that we would all in good faith choose something from the list that's helpful to you all and the staff contact and liaison for each of these commissions. So maybe that is a start, is a work plan for one item that can be completed in three to five months in that time. Does that get to, does that kind of accommodate your idea, Jesse? Of starting out with something to do but not having the full like cross cutting work plan all baked together with all the equity components through it. Am I making sense? I feel like I'm not. I mean, I guess I'm a little just stepping way back and thinking about like how this is actually going to play out. If tonight you say, okay, we're going to approve these commissions, they're not what we're going to do it in the July meeting is bring you back to charters that you'll approve, which is just the high level. Here's the high level purpose. And then we're going to do an appeal for members and a combined group and whatnot. So that's going to get us through August. You're going to hear the equity work results. So really the first meetings of these kind of new commissions will be September at which point I think that has given us a staff enough time to develop a proposed set of work plans hopefully with some input from some or all of you that's informed by the equity work. And then the commissions as they stand up are kind of often running with tangible real work to do. So I think we may be thinking about like an interim period that doesn't actually exist. But it won't the housing at least housing and public works commissions being put to continue to have three meetings in between. Right. And I think that, so I think housing has a pretty unless you guys want to switch it up. I think housing has a pretty clear charge around the trust fund. I think public works has a lot of capital projects to just continue to kind of keep an eye on and wrap up the East Elm Scoping Study work. I think the primary work for the Community Services Commission has been looking at programming and looking at the NRPA grant that they've been doing. I think we'll continue to do, you know public safety's not meeting. So the question is, do we want to invite those three people to start joining the community services meetings? And then finances, there's going to be a lot of if we can stand that up in August for a meeting which I think is just a logistic question mark anyway. I think finance commission, there's going to be a lot of just table in the first couple of months that's going to be all education on the budget and tips and rate setting and all of that. So I think we have, and guys correct me if I'm saying something wrong, I think we can keep them busy through the summer working on what they've been working on that allows us to get through approving the new documents, the equity work and doing some shared work planning. So on top of that, we have a housing update in July, municipal infrastructure in August, safe, healthy connected people in September. I feel like those updates could be a good point to get all of us up to speed on what has been and that could be the foundation for a discussion of the future work. I think my understanding of timing was off so that way you lay it out, Jesse makes sense. So that works, great in my mind. I hope one of you was listening to that. So if we approve this charter tonight, does that mean the applications coming in that want to volunteer are going to start being reviewed or are we going to wait until September? So we won't be able to approve the charters until the July meeting. The July. And then we will solicit membership. And then it would be, I guess August is when we would be looking to approve because we'd have to bring them in and you, like members actually come to us to be approved. That's a good point, yeah. Yeah, so that adds that have the timeline as well. So the next question I have then is there people, are they coming in and asking to volunteer in a commission or do we have a backlog of people that just be patient with us, we'll let you know in a couple of weeks. So we have not done a big push for new applicants during these conversations. So we have the people who are currently serving, many of whom are interested in being reappointed, I believe. But then we have not, so no, we're not getting a lot of new applications because we haven't been asking for them. There is a link on the website to say if you're interested, serve. But we usually get more interest when we push it out to say there is an opening, please come and serve. So I'm timing's everything, I'll too. I'm wondering if we wait. You wouldn't want to wait till August or September? Because once it starts getting to fall, people seem to be getting a little, you know, so it's busy. So we're seeing all short season people are, we might get a better push if we wait for the fall. But that's when we'd be advertising for, we'll be advertising for. August and September, sorry, right? August and September, you're advertising for positions and filling. Yeah, so I was thinking we would be ready to start post, you know, recruiting for that, starting right after your July meeting once the charters are approved. So we could think about bringing you appointments like at that first meeting in September. Okay. Or if you want to give it more time, we could do it at the second meeting in September, that's. Well, maybe we would start the first wave then. Yeah, we can see. Just do another round of advertising if it's not fruitful. Just make it known that it's gonna be decided on in September so people can realize they're not taking up their last weeks of, well, I mean, kids go back to school in August, you know, people are on vacation, August is a big vacation month. So I don't want to miss out on someone that thinks I'm not gonna be in town anyway. So, I mean, I think that's important. Yeah, well that's a good point. So let's talk about this concept of having all of these commissions meet on the same day. This is something we've discussed in the past, the previous council, that there could be benefits in being able to partner up on an issue more easily without having to schedule a special meeting if like two commissions want to talk about one thing, potentially even just like being able to overhear what others are talking about and then also the potential to provide childcare to reduce a barrier to serve. It seems to me like if we went that route, we would not be able to host these here. I think we'd likely have to do them at the school. Yeah, so we need to ask them about that. The school might not be viable option over the insurance and going on. Yeah, I mean, I think they're not gonna shut down. My understanding is that they're gonna still be, there's not a plan for them not to be operational to some extent, which means there'll be classrooms that we can take over in the evening. But yeah, we haven't talked to them about that. You might promise you would I, Jim's case is both hand and hand. It'll be childcare, it'll be fine. Well no, you've got to serve on the commission though. Oh. I mean, that is a concern. I think also just from being able to have cross-pollination. So like if I am the liaison to, for example, the finance commission, I can't attend the infrastructure commission ever unless I swap with someone or leave them liaison lists. So that's the only, there's one challenge there. And I also wonder how that will work for you. Christine, in terms of, you know, being on two to seven commissions, I don't even give it to them. If you do need to, if there's any staffing or liaising problems there. However, I think those are logistical issues. And I think that the benefit of people seeing a larger body of people trying to help with all these things and working on different aspects is also motivating when you're not sitting around with three people that you see a once a month, but you're sitting around with 18 or 20. I think that could be powerful. There certainly is a logistical challenge in trying to sub in if anyone is unavailable for staff or council liaisons. I also am curious, I think the days they meet on were initially chosen by like members who are serving on them as convenient times. I don't know. I guess I'd be curious what actual current members would think about this idea. If I don't know that we've brought it up. We've talked about it a couple of times loosely not in any kind of systematic way. You know, we talked about realigning them with the master, as the master plan was being developed in the hopes that there would be more joint conversations around that prioritization. You know, I think people kind of romantically like the idea. I think there's this interest in like, oh, we're all together, we're all doing this work and we're all gonna have dinner afterwards or that there's gonna be this kind of community coming together feel. But I think sometimes that gets overshadowed by the logistical challenges. I also think, you know, there are ways we can achieve the same results. And I'm curious, I'll be curious to see if this comes out in any of the equity work. In fact, like if the meetings are at different times do we come together on an annual basis all together and invite them more, you know, extend the retreat and invite them more into the retreat process? Or is there another way we achieve some of those same goals outside of just this kind of monthly meeting process? I will say that. But there's been no systematic data collection on what they think. I have read about being able to provide childcare being like a very effective way to reduce barrier to participation. From what I've read in other municipalities it's like the number one challenge for having more engagement. If we were to do that, it would be much more cost effective to have everybody on the same night. It does feel to me like this is something that, one, it would be nice to hear from current members. Two, it would be nice to make this decision after being informed by the equity dialogue series. I don't know if this is something, like if this is a specific thing that you all have talked about or were considering. Can I ask you tomorrow? Yeah. It's been mentioned as one of the ideas that's been on the table. So I think the members would be aware of it but we haven't really dove into any Winooski specific suggestions yet. So I feel like we could wait to make this decision after that point. I think that falls in alignment with soliciting membership and typically in the past we have set the meeting date after getting some membership in place. I don't think, well, sometimes. You don't always know what date, like people could be interested and then can or cannot based on what date is determined from the meeting schedule. So is this something we also want to table for now? I think it makes sense to wait at least until July to make the decision. And I don't think it would hurt in the meantime to try and ping members to find out what they think about the idea. I mean, that's certainly, that's an email conversation or a phone call. I don't know if it has to happen in a commission setting to at least get people's initial reactions. Doesn't mean you have to do what they want but we'll do what they say in their initial reaction. We might still have a discussion but it would be a good pulse taking in the month in between. Um, the last part here is these charters and I had some feedback, I don't know if you were looking for it but I had some feedback on how to adjust the new charters. Sure. They're your charters, so you can feedback all you would like. The public safety, the meanest and public works and community services charters were all pretty similar. They looked like to me. I personally preferred some of the language in the community services one. I don't really remember why. It looked like we could essentially just use that same format, update the authority purpose and scope to reflect the new breadth of work, particularly for the safe, healthy connected people. But that we should probably remove the recommend department budget language. There's, right, like they can be advising on prior, they're not like the ones making the recommendation of here is your budget. That was the most noticeable thing to me. I had some specifics about the finance one as well but did you all have, like were you even thinking about that when you reviewed the charters attached to you? Yeah. For the finance one, I think the purpose and scope and their needed updating based on our discussions about being focused on policies and planning versus reviewing specific, like the previous iteration was very like specific policy reviews. And then I noticed the format of that one didn't really look the same as the rest but. Yeah, these are all adopted at different times in history. I don't, Angela was probably here. I'm not sure if it has to have some work. Yeah, I basically just wanted to mention the scope piece being not aligned to the recent discussions we've had. No, it's not. Yeah. No public comment? Do y'all have any other comments about this particular topic? We'll read about our next steps. All right. I hope it related to commissions that I didn't see any mention of the Trojan Chain Commission. Yes, so that was kind of an oversight about this item reflecting the restructuring. We will bring that, I think, to the next meeting to talk about that. Okay. What was that? The Charter Change Committee that we discussed also at the primary setting session. That was neglected from this list so we need to talk about that next meeting. Sorry about that. I want to call a two-minute recess before this item. So we will reconvene at 8.45. That did last longer than I thought. Yeah, me too. Let's reconvene the regular city council meeting at 8.45. And our next item is grant approval for a build grant for Main Street revitalization. So we are requesting to put an application together for the FY19 build grant. So we did prepare an application last year and were unsuccessful for the Main Street project. But some of the work that was done through a consultant were looking to reuse that and put it in for the FY19 application. So for example, there's a whole cost benefit analysis that was performed through one of our consultants. We could reuse all that data for the FY19 application. Just to go through some of the numbers. So we are looking to put this application mainly for the general fund piece. So that work through our preliminary design phase is $14 million total. So that would be, we're looking at 80% grant portion and then a 20% local match for that. So the city would be on, potentially be on the hook for 2.8 million for that work. But that's sort of worst case scenario. So the build grant has a rural component and urban component. Urban is a population over 200,000. So we're in the rural piece. So there is potential to be 100% grant eligible for the project. We haven't seen that in previous applications. So that's why we're showing the 20% local match requirement. And I think it's important to note, if we don't get this and decide to move forward with Main Street, the worst case scenario is that we cover $14 million based solely on property taxpayers. So the worst case as John's mentioning is stepping down from that, being responsible for $14 million to jumping from $14 million down to $2.8 million. So it's still a much better scenario to be awarded than that. Yeah, absolutely. And that gets into the page that I handed out. So what I tried to show here was sort of the debt modeling that we have been showing throughout the project. The existing debt modeling to date, we're showing a little more accurate, 3.7 million is what the general fund project cost is. So our phase one portion that we've been modeling, that project cost is at 5.4 million, which is an annual sort of debt payment of 312 million. So kind of comparing that with say, if we did get a bills grant with a 20% local match, that would be a $162,000 annual debt payment. So much lower than that sort of even just phase one piece of the project. So potentially, in theory, you could do the whole project for almost half of what the phase one piece would be. So just to say another sentence. So on the modeling below, which is just screenshots from what we previously presented, the new revenue options that we've identified primarily are the local options tax, which you see even conservatively budgeted for this year is below that 1.62, 1.62,000 that we would have to incur to get that 20% match. So in theory, we could fund that portion slowly based on that revenue stream that we've already talked about committing to capital projects. And we had that discussion with business owners. They were more in favor of having that tax if it was committed to capital improvement projects. So that's something we've, that's a thing we've been saying that we would do. Even to the residents all have one of the selling points to try to get the residents on board with the tax also. God, that's going that way. And let's just be clear. I think we are optimistic that the federal government will get behind Winooski and give us $14 million. It is a very aggressive grant application. So while we are going to be confident, we're going to put our best foot forward of all the grants we apply for. This is probably the most competitive grant. So I think, may not be a huge chance we get into it. Are you doing anything different from last year's application? Was there any feedback you were able to act on? So we weren't, because it is a pretty large federal grant, we were not able to get any feedback. We are going to be, as the new grant guidelines come out, tweaking the grant to kind of a more aligned with their guidelines. I mean, I will say, you know, what we've heard is with this grant in particular, the more times you put it in, the better chance you have. So yeah, the first round we weren't surprised in not getting it. But we're also talking regionally and trying to find out who's putting in built grants. So for example, I mentioned the memo. Last year, VTrans did get a pretty large regional grant for freight railway connections. This year they're putting in a much less sort of desirable project that's in like culvert replacements. So we have a better chance over maybe a state built grant. So that kind of comes into play too. We do have statewide, there's a $90 million cap on these funds. Project-wise, there's a $25 million cap. So we're trying to be cognizant of what our regional partners are putting in as well. We did meet with a representative from our congressional delegation last week, Heather, John and myself, to go over this project and have her understand really what it, what the nature revitalization project was and that we would be submitting this grant application. And in the past, our delegation has been very supportive of trying to advocate for us. And again, this might be a really good time to invest in Winooski. Keep this project. So the funding you're showing us here is, these numbers are specific to, sorry, not the revenue, but the debt modeling is specific to the general fund piece only. Correct, so, yeah. I mean, obviously I want you to apply for the grant and get us free money, but are there other questions generated by this information for you guys? Did this answer your question? Yep, yeah. I had asked over email about if there's a running total of already committed cost share from our obligation on, but that's I think is, I think it's clear that this is within the allowance of what we have. So that we wouldn't be overmatched. Oh, right, with the 20%? Overcommitted, yeah. Or closing us off from other opportunities by committing this 20% match. Yeah, and I will say the funding that we're showing and putting in will also include the engineering soft costs that have been approved by the council previously. So there may be some funding that we could try to recoup that's baked into this number. If we get a word of this grant, is there a set of guidelines we have to follow? Is it fall into our Main Street project picture or is there other things that we have to do to get this grant? So it's a federal grant in what comes with that or all the sort of federal ties that come along with grants like your sort of contract requirements for American Iron Steel and some of your payroll wage requirements. But since we've already received and accepted a USDA grant, we're already on the hook for those federal requirements. So there's not none that we've addressed that are gonna be kind of superseded those USDA requirements that we're already following. Any other questions or concerns? So I would entertain a motion to approve the grant, the build grant for Main Street revitalization. So a second? Motion by Mike, second by Jim. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. The motion carries. Thank you. We welcome Heather for our next item, another grant approval, the Trans-Bike and Pedestrian Grant for Main Street. I also would like to get us free money. So staff request permission to apply for an $800,000 grant through the Trans-Bike School and Pedestrian Program. This also is another grant that we had applied for last year and did not receive. There's a 20% required local match that would be covered through the general obligation bond, and that would be $200,000. The application, as was stated previously, is part of our ongoing effort to obtain additional grant funding to reduce the impact to our tax base. With this, this would be applied then to the general fund costs as well. Correct. I didn't have any specific questions about this one. Motion to approve the V Trans-Bike and Pedestrian Grant for Main Street. I would entertain one. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Heather. I'll just keep the dog flying around my head. Thank you. The next item is discussion, introduction of chapter 28, the updates. So this is our ongoing fine tuning of this chapter of the ordinance. And there's both proposals for community services and planning and zoning indicated here. Yeah, so the fairly straightforward, and hopefully decently explained here, one cleanup item of just adjusting the language in the ordinance to reflect the resolution that was passed in January for annual rate setting for Thrive, for the Thrive program. So that had been prior established in ordinance, the resolution that was passed this year during budget process states that that'll be happening on an annual basis through resolution moving forward. So the cleanup language here just kind of reiterates that in the ordinance itself. And then with North End Studios coming into the O'Brien Center space, another cleanup item here to strike the fees for the O'Brien Center since we are no longer going to be charging those. And then for Eric's, I'll speak for him. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a residential and a commercial rate and not a mixed use rate set for DRB appeals. So this just adds that third category. I think that is what we have got at the moment. So we're looking for a formal introduction tonight. So at the July meeting, you can hold your public hearing. Any questions from folks? It's pretty straightforward to me. Yeah, absolutely. So I would entertain a motion to introduce the chapter 28 fee updates. So hold. Second. Motion by Mike, second by Jim. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries, unless I miss some language. Great. Great. Thank you. So let's return to item A, my guest never came. So we have, this is for resolution. Proclaiming International World Refugee Day. This is something that we have done as a city in the past. It is on June 20th, so it's coming up this week. I was, I had invited a staff member from the Refugee Resettlement Program to come speak to us in conjunction with this item, but I'll have to follow up with her after. Unfortunately, she has not been able to attend. Basically, we have done this resolution before. It's similar to how we had one for our every day to, as a city, recognize this holiday. It's not really holiday, but it's basically in recognition of June 20th as World Refugee Day that Winnieski recognizes that as we have refugee residents here that we want to recognize as well. Would you add anything to that about resolutions? Nope? Yes. Yeah, so we have, like I said, we have done this resolution in the past, and I wanted to bring it forth to do, again, as a community, as well as a city for community. Any questions or concerns about this item? Well, I want to thank you for making sure that this is done annually. I think the news coming out of Portland and other places where we're seeing new refugee arrivals even this week, I think it's important that we're continuing to keep this in our minds. And the only question I had is what sort of outreach or event communications anything's planned for on the 20th, like will the city do a press release or anything like that? That's a good question. So the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program is hosting an event on the 30th at the school for it's like a new American event for in honor of World Refugee Day. We, in the past, I think we just kind of did a post. We partnered on that event, yeah, we posted there. Yeah. But I don't think we've discussed any additional. That's fine, that's just curious. Any other questions or concerns? So I would entertain a motion to approve the World Refugee Day proclamation. So moved. All second. Motion by Jim, second by Mike. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries, thank you. I hope maybe to get our guests from the Resettlement Program here at another time, she was gonna speak a little bit about experience in the new ski of their clients. So I'll try to make that happen in the future. With that, we have made it through our regular items and I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Motion by Jim, second by Mike. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Meeting adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you. Small but.