 the transportation, energy and utility committee meeting. I'll call that to order at 5.59. And the first time on the agenda is the agenda. So I would move to amend the agenda by adding a section we'll say number 5.5. I'll make Neil next steps. Okay. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor of. I second that. I'm sorry. So we have a second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor of our. Agenda is amended. All right. So we have an agenda. Next item is approval of the minutes from our 523 and our 613 meetings. I'm also. I'm next is public forum. And I think we have a public forum. Sign up. Sign up. The first is. You can join us here. And I'm here to speak against the expansion of the McNeil. I'm bringing you some handouts. This is a handy size of particulate matter, which the top of the human hair. And way down here as well for our smoke. So we have a public forum. And the next section here is the particulate matter that me produces. I also have other handouts for you. I'll leave with you. I want to actually focus on the help. In missions from a meal. Congratulations. It is meeting code. But code does not correspond to what mental science says it's going to be. So if you look at the number two of 222 literature, scientific medical literature, there is no amount of fine particulate matter. That is considered healthy. And your plant by the 2023 emissions report. Is releasing one time. Of particulate matter. This past year. It's only slightly bigger than the coronavirus. So nothing in your nose or throat filters it out. It gets right into your lung and right into your bloodstream. And it stays there. It's cumulative. So the harms include asthma, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia, loss of intelligence, liver damage, fetal and infantile maldevelopment. And we're getting even more of that with the requires. So the pulmonary clinics at UVM are off the charts. Every time this wildfire smoke is getting into yellow, you probably don't notice it unless you have asthma. But it is a horrible impact on anyone with a lung problem, a heart problem. Children under 20, those over 65 pregnant women, nobody in those categories should be exposed to it. So that's a good point. There's this myth that McNeil is safe because it needs code, but code is not, not following medical science. So in addition to one ton of particulate matter a year, the last report said you, your plant was letting off 1.2 tons of sulfur oxide. And that also has. It can cause nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, damage to lungs, long-term inhalation exposure causes chronic breathing difficulties. The elderly and children should especially not be exposed to it. Your next emission is nitrogen oxide. You release 1.2.6 tons. And that leads to damage to lung tissue, breathing and respiratory problems. Of course, carbon monoxide is your biggest emission at 572.1 tons. And I'm assuming we're all on the same team here that we believe the climate science and that we're going to blast through 1.5 unless we stop burning anything. But wood is the same or worse than coal. It's very inefficient. It is very nauseous. And when I show this report, which I believe with you, this is the Vermont department of the conservation air pollution control division. This is your 2023 report. This report when I show it to people with science understanding and I say, would you like to live next door to this? They won't answer my question. Because they don't want to be quoted. So it's not exactly a wealthy neighborhood. Surrounding the plant. It also is letting out VOCs, which cause cancer and other health problems. I think there's plenty of other people in the room. Who can speak to the climate problem that it produces. But I'm going to leave you. This is one of the top epidemiologists. And she's just talking about welfare stuff in this. But I think you'll find it helpful for your own health. And I'm concerned about those working at the meal. And I am really concerned that. The scale of that. You just have the one copy. Unfortunately, I don't have a handsome printer. So, and this is not double sided, but I think you can produce this for yourselves. This is a blow up of this. And this is your Vermont report. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Steve. Why don't you learn? Are you on one? Steve. You are. Good time there. Yeah. You were Steve. You're muted. I am unmuted now. You're unmuted now. Oh, cool. Okay. I'll be quick. I know you've got people that are waiting now. I'm wet, but I'll at least I'm home and. Come through it right now from that motorcycle ride home. Just a note and based on what the previous speaker said, I think you're aware that McNeil has some pretty serious. Issues with emissions. Some of them may be within standards. Some like the CO2 or just. You know, not within any standard on even being really counted against this plan. One thing to note, something I didn't realize till recently is the plan for the steam pipe. I had always envisioned that as waste heat. Waste heat that was going to be generated anyway. And might as well use it for something. But that's not what the steam pipe is. The steam pipe is going to be using steam directly off the boiler. It's going to be using steam. That literally is. Using wood to produce heat instead of. Say natural gas to produce heat. It's not. Something where the plant basically operates the same way and that heat is used. Someone else benefits. This plant will have to run more. And Burma or would. To produce the steam. For the medical center. And I think you should look at it closely and realize that. The steam pipe clearly makes the pollution from the plant worse. I think you just heard some. Some of what that pollution might be, but I think it's really important at this point to look at this project and decide, is this our future? Are we really going to be burning wood? Wood is worse than any fossil fuel. And is that what we're headed for? I'm going to lock ourselves into a long-term commitment to that. Or we can take a step back now. Not move forward with increasing McNeil's. Pollution, but with some kind of a deliberate way of phasing McNeil out. So thank you for your time. Thanks. Next, we have Catherine. So. So I kind of want to tell you why I'm here. Before I start. And I just was listening to the VR today. And there was a long discussion on. Heat illness and how. More. Common it is to have heat waves, how they last longer, how they're hotter. How elders and children and people with. Existing conditions. Are more susceptible. And I thought, well, I guess I must be an elder. I'm almost 75. And I should be afraid of the heat. And that means being afraid to go outside. That means not being able to live. As the type of human animals we are, we need nature of need to be outside. And on top of that, I have three children and they're all saying we're not going to have kids because we see the climate changes. And so that they may not even be able to grow up. And become adults. So that's what leads me to. On the one hand. Be sometimes just wanting to give up and try not to think about it. I'm always amazed at how easy that is to just go along with life and pretend like everything's fine. I choose to try to do something about it. So that's why. So first I'd like to talk about the resolutions on the. The tank carbon emissions. And that it seems like. Making a draft for a plant eliminate aviation and brown greenhouse gas emissions. And then the second thing that's part of this. Proposal it is to make note. By recording the cap. We make known a record of the calculations of the aviation and greenhouse gas emissions. Created. By 2030 is something that we need to be doing as a start. Just so we know. That we're trying to get rid of the emissions. And then the second thing that's part of this. Proposal it is to make note. Of the emissions. Of the greenhouse gas emissions. Created by the base. And then of course, rounding the F 35. Would easily reduce emissions more than anything else. And it would be a lot more pleasant to live in a suit. The second is the McNeil steam pipeline. And my question is. Will this steam pipeline actually. Will it last long the life of the plant. It seems to me like it will. And the next question is, do we want to keep. But we don't want to keep burning. Wood. Maybe that causes emissions. That contribute to climate change. Not to speak of all the other effects of the missions like missions I can just spoke to. I've heard that the steam pipeline. May increase the efficiency of McNeil by 3%. But it'll also require burning more wood. To keep enough steam. The hospital. I don't understand all the complexities. But it seems clear to me. Then we need to stop burning everything. And transition to energy sources that have no missions. And then we need to stop burning everything. Thank you for that. Next is Dan Castro. My name is Dan Castro. There are a lot of things to talk to today. I'll also start with. Why I'm here and then have a few thoughts on McNeil. The airport too. The past couple of weeks have done a series of talks just teaching people about. How to get the best out of the bad. And then we can send it around and send it. Really help you watch it. Things are. Really bad. I just want everybody to know that. If we just do some rough math, we put about 50 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. And we've got about 250 gigatons left until we had one. So we have to, among many other things, stop burning fossil fuels. And I'm a dad, a young son. I'm here for him for a lot of reasons too. So I'll talk to McNeil and then the airport too, but for McNeil, we can't pour any more capital into the super polluting plants. We can't invest more money into something that has to be retired. We need to phase out a plan. And I think it's exceptional and foolish to ask for millions of dollars. We need to have, we need to have a date where it's going to start down. We have to stop burning trees for electricity. And I think, then the other thing too regarding both of these issues is, these are two soup, basically two super polluting facilities that the city owns and operates and neither is counted in the 2019 Burlington, that zero energy road map. And so if you just write both of these monstrously polluting plants in one language, then you can say that zero and we all have a party in this. You're not, you can't trick that sphere. So both of these things have to be counted. The 453,000 tons annually from McNeil and the hundreds of thousands of tons from the airport. I encourage you to adopt the resolution that Pike wrote. And F35s are super polluters, 22 gallons every minute, right? One minute, one plan, you have 22 gallons right here. That's combusted and then go straight to the atmosphere. We need to have deep growth at the airport. We need to ban private jets. We need to do a lot of things at the airport, not financially incentivize more growth and have endless expansion and many other things. So the three of you have really important jobs. You have two really important issues. Thank you. Thanks. Jack Hansen wrote an online saying he has to leave and it's possible. If I'm good with that. Yeah, go ahead, Jack. You should be able to unmute now. You should be able to unmute if you're hearing us. I guess we'll go to. Yeah. Yeah. We'll be able to mute. And then if Jack is able to. Well, Jack is calling me. Hello, Jack. Unmute. I don't know. Can they hear you if we put you on speaker phones? Speak. No, a little bit. No, not really. We can do that. We'll come back to you, Jack. Okay. So thank you for entertaining the resolution. I think I'm in now, but. Go ahead. Is that okay, Pike? Go ahead. Okay. Thanks. Sorry about that. I have to run to a 630. So I really appreciate it, everyone. Sorry. I've been a stranger at these. Committee meetings since I have been off the committee. I'm going to change that and get more involved. Appreciate the work you all are doing. Thank you. Thank you. Real quickly on the, I know you all didn't end up taking up the renewable heating ordinance. But I just wanted to share that. Last night, Cambridge, Massachusetts just. Took a really big step to regulate existing buildings and require. Large commercial buildings to. Eliminate fossil fuel use by 2035. And I think we're joining New York's New York City and Boston and a few others that have gotten into this. And I really hope Burlington can. Get on that leading edge and get something in place soon. Because we need a framework to. We need a framework in place now to get existing buildings moving because it's going to be a huge task. So I want to encourage you all to accelerate progress on that. I'll, I'll be connecting with you all with specific feedback on the. Nuances, but I think one piece is like the urgency of getting this policy in place. And then from there continuing to improve it, but having that framework in place. On the airport, I think this is, this is a great step and thanks to pike and everyone who's. Worked on this. This is an enormous source of emissions. And I think the city. I think it can be easy. And I know this because I've been in your seat. It can be easy to kind of say, you know, the city can't control this or can't do anything about this. I don't really believe that though. The city does own the airport. Right. The city owns the airport. So there's got to be some leverage. And I think it's a matter of. Flexing that power that the city does have, but it's going to take a strong voice. It's going to be a more unified voice from the city in order to have any leverage, I would say. The only, so I encourage you to move forward on this resolution. The only thing I would say is I would love to see maybe some more accountability within the resolution for the city, because I worry that the way it's laid out now, it's just asking these other more powerful entities to do stuff. And if they just ignore the resolution, then. That would be my only suggestion is something in there that. Commits the city to actually following up on this issue. And staying on this issue. But thank you all. And I will talk to you all soon. Thanks. Okay. So thank you for. Finally, bringing up the resolution that the city council looked at and passed on to. In November. I believe Councillor Barlow, you said you wanted to talk to the, the time before you brought it up here. So I'm looking forward to hearing the results of those conversations tonight. If possible. Back in April. Nick Longo presented a. Powerpoint preservation presentation about emissions at the airport. And I thank him for finally recognizing that the airport creates emissions above 3000 feet above ground level. And I appreciate that some of those numbers might get in some kind of document that the airport releases. I believe those numbers should be. Burlington climate action plan. Or the net zero initiative as they now call it, because we need to count all these emissions. We're going to reduce them. That's the first step. The. Resolution that you're going to consider tonight. I think is a first step. But I thank you for that. I think we need to recognize that. Three thousand over 3000 airports in the country. Exist and enter. And do very well. Without. A V Kang support. So. Despite what you've heard from the airport. And make my own go and. And predecessors. We can get by perfectly well without fire services. From the tank. Other airports do it. And 22 years ago. When I pushed a bit. Blackwood attorney Blackwood at the time. Came up with a number of about two little. Over two million is what we save for fire. Services there. That is a net loss. When you look at 280 acres that we give away. Every year. And I'm not here to do the numbers with you now. But back to the 20 of the April. Nick Longo presentation. That was from. He looked at emissions from 2019. I subsequently asked for the data from him and from the city. Republic records of best. And the answer was, well, we don't have the V Kang 2019 data. So I'm bringing it up yet again because. I have to question the numbers. If they're presenting numbers and they don't have the data to back them up. I would like. The city council and to. We're a small state. And in the end, what we do. If we're going to. Solve the crime crime crisis. We need to do it by leading. We need to lead by example. Forget it. Let's do zero emissions. In the, in the electric sector. We hear. I guess I'm mixing my topics now and we hear from Darren springer that, you know, if. Make Neil disappeared. We have to buy. On. From the ISO New England grid and it would be natural gas. 60% of our electricity comes from. Hydro. And the other 30%. 40% could come from hydro. If there was planning. I sent to you the Northfield pump station information. A couple of weeks ago. There's just not any real planning ahead phase out McNeil. And there needs to be. But back to the resolution. I think that. That. As a first step, things need to be counted. And as a second step. We need to. If the Air Force and the tank cannot reduce their emissions. We need to ask for a non-flying mission. The city council asked for a different mission, flying mission. A year ago, two years ago, three years ago, some time during the pandemic. And if you're not familiar with it, I can send that resolution out to you. It's time to go back and say we would like a non-flying mission because we need to reduce our emissions. We need to reduce our emissions. Because people are dying. Because this is an existential threat. Because the mayor said so in April. And then no minutes later, explain how we need to expand the airport. I'm rambling now. I know that. So I'm sure there's a lot more I want to say. And you'll, I'm. And you know, you're going to hear from me via email, but thank you. Thank you for taking this up. Next, we have a column or some. I know you've heard a lot already about, uh, concerns about air quality concerns, but all of that. I do want to remind you all of the global warming solutions act passed by the state. State has a target that we have to meet in two years in 2025. Based on testimony from the portable heat act. From the last legislature, we're not on target to meet that. But we're moving forward. And we're moving forward to not take a whole government approach when it comes to reducing emissions. And that includes the airport. And that includes McNeil. And that starts with proper accounting, which we're not doing right now. So. You know, this is kind of, it seems like the airport has kind of been this like. Thing that no one wants to take responsibility for the airport. that the state even barely mentions aviation. It's carbon footprint pathway. So we need a little bit of leadership here and I think this council can do that. Take this up, pick up the resolution. I mean, it was kind of, I do want to talk about that a little bit. So I'll just move to that now. The $40 million expansion for this steam plan project, as others have said, will help along the life of the plan. We shouldn't be doing that. That money can be much better spent elsewhere, especially if we're planning long-term or green energy production when we phase out McNeil, think about what that $40 million could do. In addition, we know McNeil is going to be losing revenue as the end of this sort of carbon offset scheme that other states have purchased from it. So we also have to ask ourselves, is this plan even financially viable at this point? And if it's not, why are we going to profit up with additional investment? So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thanks, Colin. Next up is Connor Wurz. Hey, I'm Connor Wurz. I live in Ward 2. Nice to be here. Thanks for listening. Did you all get the part about the carbon offsets and that sort of thing for, like, did that, like, make sense? Was there renewable energy credits and stuff like that? OK, just wanted to check. So I guess I was thinking about, if you're talking next steps, I think what is implied in a lot of this, like, oh, like, hold off on McNeil. We shouldn't be expanding McNeil. Is that we need to figure out what else we can do? And I actually think that maybe that's something that we can work on together as constituents, activists, and y'all as a subcommittee is, like, yeah, what is next? What is the plan that could potentially replace McNeil if we wanted to go down that line? And so I feel like that feels like a pretty natural, reasonable next step after the symposium is to commission a study and be like, what would it look like? And how long would it take? And what does that mean? I was reading up on, you know, BED's, like, district energy plan, and they're spending a ton of money on a plan, like, figuring out the proposal for that district energy, like, hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I think that a plan for, like, figuring out what other alternatives for Burlington's electricity would certainly not cost that much. And so I figured it might be something to consider if that's at all possible. And if that's not within your, like, wheelhouse, and you need support with that, I think that's something that the activists in organizing community might be able to help with as well. So if that's at all possible, just let us know, and we'll try our best to help out as we can. So yeah. And then, you know, reading up about the BED's hang resolution, I just want to say that I certainly support that. And it certainly seems reasonable at least to count the emissions. So I'll be looking forward to the discussion today. So, thanks. Thank you. Next is James Lees, made of copies from the city of Burlington as Jack Hansen mentioned, owns the airport. It's the airport for a prior term. And he said he thought that there must be some way the city can use that to take action at the airport, to on behalf of emissions. And so I'm going to lay out how the city can do that. There's federal law and there are FAA grant assurances. The airport gets these grants and has to sign a contract with the federal aviation administration of what is grant. And those grant assurances lay out what the federal law is regarding the limits that the city can place on aviation at the airport. And there are things the city can do. They enable municipal airport proprietors to establish nondiscriminatory standards so long as they apply to all the aircraft using the airport. That's the basic rule for standards that the city wants to apply. Now, exercising this power to set a nondiscriminatory fuel efficiency standard is the lowest of low-hanging fruit available to the city that's consistent with the city's declaration of a climate emergency. The city has the authority to ban all gas-guzzling aircraft from BTV. And the reason it's low-hanging fruit is that the city can do this without any cost to the city. Just set a standard. You don't have to, like in Flint, mission get retyped the city to save all these emissions, all these problems with the land. It's like impossible there. But here, just set a standard. Doesn't cost anything. You can save the mission. Most commercial passenger airliners get close to 100 passenger miles per gallon and some get 120. The F-35 only gets 0.5 passenger miles per gallon, 200 times less. Most of the luxury private aircraft, the ones that exclusively serve a tiny fraction of the 1% get between 10% and 45 passenger miles per gallon. So Girlington can use its airport for private authority to establish a minimum passenger miles per gallon standard or the equivalent in tons of cargo miles per gallon. And setting it at 50 passenger miles per gallon would cut out the gas-guzzling luxury privates and the climate killing F-35 and do it under the federal law and grant assurances, as long as it's non-discriminatory. But I'm going to argue that what they're doing now at the airport is discriminatory. And by doing this, you'll fix the discrimination. So the FAA itself only has authority to require a civilian aircraft. I'm going to go switch to noise now to meet its noise standard. The FAA doesn't have authority to regulate military jet noise anywhere in the country, any kind of military. But the city's airport proprietor authority gives it the power and actually an obligation that the FAA lacks. Without intending to, the airport is currently applying the FAA standard in a grossly discriminatory manner. It allows the F-35 to use the airport for hundreds of train flights each month. Even though that aircraft wildly exceeds the FAA noise standard, that limits the noise of all civilian aircraft. That's discrimination. All these F-35 gets the ability to do something with civilian airlines. The civilian flights of all times cannot do under FAA rules. So the airport could simply apply the exact same FAA noise standard and make it a level plane field for all the aircraft. So just doing that, just saying, all aircraft at this airport must meet the FAA standard. That's already there. That's applied for civilian aircraft. Every aircraft has to do that. Nobody can complain that you're being discriminatory if you're applying the same standard for civilian to the military for noise. And that would solve the F-35 problem if it didn't make it illegal for the F-35 to do that. Because it's discriminatory to be allowing it to make it this huge amount of noise where all the rules at the airport provided by the FAA don't allow that for civilian aircraft. Now, one of the most important purposes of the FAA noise standard is to protect the public, particularly children. Children are deeply affected by this incredible noise. Not only they are hearing, but they are cognitive developed. And we've heard that from the chief pediatric neurology at the University of Vermont Medical Center. And we've heard, and you can read all kinds of papers showing that the noise, in fact, the Air Force itself admits that this is a huge problem. So the city has the airport proprietor's authority to do two things. First of all, to end the gross discrimination by establishing a requirement that copies the FAA standard and applies it to all that crap so that there are no exclusions or exceptions, and it includes the F-35. And I have on the back of this sheet where I copied from the FAA grant assurances so you could see for yourself what the rules are. Thanks. Can you wrap up? Can you wrap up? Yeah, I just have some other speakers. I just have one more. The Burlington government may be unique in knowing about a severe harm to more than 1,000 children who live in among the 6,000 people an extreme noise zone. And it knows it has the power to stop the harm without any cause to the city. And it's still not using that power. How could that be explained? No one else in the country is that being done. So under the leadership of this committee, Burlington can do much better. And I'm urging the TVUC to submit draft ordinances to the city council that implement the airport for prior to power to set fuel efficiency standards and to set noise standards for the airport that would be non-discriminatory and would fix these problems to save both the planet and the children now. Thank you very much. Thanks, James. And we'll just conclude this with the wrap up. This one's too side of here. Back to Jill. OK, next up is Benjamin. Is it right there? OK, thank you. Today, I feel really honored and frankly quite privileged to be able to speak to the future of the state, which can have ripple effects, let alone potentially influence something. That would be another high hope of me being here. Please bear with me because I'm new to public speaking. Yeah, so I think regarding the tree burning plant, what's the name of that again? Yeah, so apparently that's very dirty emissions. And in regards to the climate, that's what we want. We want to have dirtier emissions because aerosols are the, while they are the least understood component of climate science, they're clouding about 50% to 100% of the warming effects of the emissions, which implies that the increase in emissions in the atmosphere is due to the plant's inability to reabsorb them through the ocean and other carbon sinks like peatlands and rainforests. So as far as the global warming is good, we want dirtier fuel. Let's burn back the coal. Let's start burning more trees because that's going to cloud the, but we have another problem there because that hurts people's breathing over, I don't know exactly, about 7 million people lose their lives each year to atmosphere pollution, completely unrelated to CO2 levels. So I just want to put the human condition at the center stage because these are the lives that are most valued on and is the center of our debate is the quality and maintenance of our societies. And regarding the jets now, they have very clean fuel, which is better for the short term long health of people, although it's very potent CO2 that has, it's all greenhouse gases when you burn the jet fuel. So things like that are extremely impactful compared to all other kinds of greenhouse gas emissions. It's more impactful than the kind of fuel you use to drive your car. So, but honestly, that's my last concern regarding the jets. That's at the bottom of my list because no one told me about the jets. You know how I found out about them? I moved to Winooski. And I said, well, this is just I can't handle it. It's not physically, I'm the person with the history of physical mental health struggles that worked through during that time. But the jets were not an OK part of that for me. So I went and found an online group. I can address this. I can make this place more habitable. And to detail off something James said, yet the chief of pediatric neurology at UVM did come out with a formal statement comparing the damaging effects of the jet noise to lead exposure in young children. So the fact that that's not the first concern in protecting people's health and particularly the young people's health is, I don't know, where the human concern got lost. But there's a disconnect between the heart and the mind that has to be regained with a reconnection. So we are not prioritizing violence and extremely destructive machine practices over the conscious lives of individuals who are going to be responsible for guiding this shift of humanity into the future. But very real stuff seems abstract. But we're all going through this process together. And so that's my big question is, why aren't we talking about people's health, people's mental health, and the childhood development? And we're just seem to be greenwashing everything as if human values don't matter. The only thing we care about is a number in the sky. And so I think we really need to get our priorities correctly. I don't know exactly the role we all play in this. But I think if we start thinking in a more unified way about how to address ecological capacity of which climate change, global warming, is really just a small symptom that's just causing flooding and wreaking havoc. And specifically in lower island places, not necessarily in America right now. But America is part of, we're all connected right now. It's just poor people in sea level nations like Bangladesh, who are millions are losing their homes due to flooding. And this is obviously not our direct responsibility or a direct fall. But we as Vermonters have a lot of influence in the most powerful country on Earth, the United States of America. And because we have two congressmen, the pizza monster and the spaghetti monster. So they represent our state. And I was just surprised Bernie Sanders didn't step in. He's a spaghetti monster to protect our people, our citizens. Nobody cares about monsters. And the other guy's the pizza monster. So I think that we have a lot of power to influence their decisions and to be real players, real peacemakers rather than just working together with the aviation industry who puts industrial enterprises all over the country to glean political influence, which we're just playing right into using our quality of life. Just as a gift, I guess, for these violent proclivities that somehow happen, I think based out of fear, not out of conspiracy or love of catastrophe, but just out of fear, really. And there's no need for that, because everyone wants to work together. I mean, I want to protect our families and the future. And so, yeah, I'm rambling here, but I'm really grateful. I'm afraid you've got a gracious audience. I hope you have a great rest of your day. Thanks. I think that's the end of our in-person comments. I'm just going to time keep for us a little bit. I'd like to wrap up the comment up in the next 648 by 7 at the latest. So please keep that in mind as you comment. And our next speaker will be Ashley Adams. Hi there. Can you hear me? Yeah. Hi. Hi. Thank you. I'm here to support Pike Porter's A-10 greenhouse gas resolution. And I really appreciate that you're taking it up this evening. And I hope that you agree that it should be passed. I think that we know from the McNeil biomass symposium on June 13 that it's time for truth-telling around carbon emissions, whether those emissions are from burning trees at McNeil or doubling down on McNeil by spending $42 million on a misguided steam pipe to the hospital and thereby burning at more trees or from passenger jets or from the F-35. Burlington really owes it to us, to its residents, to our children and to future generations to start telling the truth and counting all emissions. The aspirational language, such as that contained in the Air Force Climate Action Plan in Burlington's 2019 Declaration of Climate Emergency, is really just meaningless if it isn't backed by action. Beyond accurately accounting greenhouse gas emissions from all sources, such action should include calling for a non-flying mission for the F-35, which burns 22 gallons of fuel per minute, causing damage to our environment in addition to daily harm to the human beings who live around the airport. We need to tell the truth not only about emissions, but about the injustice of this plain spacing and close proximity to densely populated communities. And let me tell you, it is real suffering. I don't live in it, but I work in it, and I invite you to come over and experience the bottle, the bodily, the real pain that it causes to human beings. We aren't built for that. So just to leave you with this, and I know there are many others who'd like to speak the window on making difficult but deliberate decisions as quickly closing on climate. And I really just hope that we choose to make these difficult decisions today, rather than allowing them to be made for our children through the chaos of ecological collapse. And thank you for taking my call. Thank you, Ashley. Next is Peter Duvall. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Peter, can you? Can you hear me? Yes. As the first word in the name of the committee is transportation, I should mention, that true modern roundabouts are an FHWA proven safety countermeasure. The best available for intersections are efficient, lower emission, several times, not just a few percent safer than signalized intersections. For a traffic engineer charged with providing a safe roadway for motorists, let alone pedestrians and cyclists, it is a dereliction of duty to choose to construct new signalized intersections. There are a number of new signalized intersections planned for the southern connector, Champlain Parkway. It should never be opened to motor traffic for many reasons related to urban planning and climate response, but especially for the city's failure to design a safe roadway. Search proven safety countermeasures at the Federal Highway Administration's website for advice to traffic engineers about highway safety. Energy and utilities are also words in the committee's name that overlaps with the Burlington Electric Flight Commission's specific turf. But when the commission makes mistakes managing the electric department, it's everyone's duty to step in and help them correct those management errors. An essential aspect of managing a utility, an expectation of regulators at the PUC who approve major decisions and rate increase requests, is prudence. It is the test of a utility's decision. Imprudence leads to rate case denial and bankruptcy, as in the case of the investor-owned utilities in the aftermath of the 1990s Hydro-Quebec-Vermont joint owners' contract. There are lessons to be learned from that mess. Right around the same time as the big utilities were leading the small utilities toward financial disaster, I had the honor and pleasure of joining bureaucrats and environmental groups. And many of those same utilities' technical staff in the public service boards docket 5611 investigation into environmental externalities. This was in 1992 and 93. We spent many months meeting with experts, listening to the best researchers about all sorts of environmental impacts of utility decision-making. Ultimately, a rule was drafted, which excluded forest biomass from the definition of qualified renewable resource. And I will read from page 14 of draft 7. Qualified renewable resources will be excluded, will exclude, rather, non-sustainable. That means open loop, which is a federal statutory definition, yield biomass, conventionally-fired biomass. That's McNeil, conventionally-fired power plant, and hydroelectricity. Further, I should note that on page 13, natural gas combined cycle plants were used as the reference case for emissions. So anything that had worse emissions than that had no business being used as an improvement over business as usual. I point all this out to alert you to the fact that regulators and utility companies have been well aware of the fact that biomass plants are high-polluting power plants. There's no escaping that knowledge. And it's very important that the Duke and the City Council exert some influence on BED's decision-making because it's been quite incompetent. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. And our last speaker is Cheryl Joy Lipton. Hi. Yeah, I'm down in Chester, so I don't live in Burlington. But this affects me just as much, except for the fact that I don't have to have the pain of having the F-35s fly over me. Though periodically, something does. And I wonder if that's them coming down here. So I officially want to support the VTANG resolution. And I want to point out that there's another issue that isn't getting as much attention as climate change but is just as important and critical. And it's the biodiversity emergency or biodiversity crisis. We just had, so burning wood is driving excessive logging and destroying habitat for forest species. And as well as destroying a free and very effective solution, which is the forest. And it's increasing already. So when biomass is burned and destroying this forest is increasing already overpopulated deer population, that's also not allowing any cut forests to regenerate and to regrow. When biomass burning is continued and expanded, such as is happening in Europe, and as will happen as you continue to burn and continue McNeil and even increase it by using this scheme to continue it by the steam transmission, more deforestation occurs. We're losing forests all over the place everywhere. It's contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss. And we see it happening down in the South to fuel the plants over in Europe and around this country. And our forests here are just as important as the rainforests are, and even though we mostly focus on those for some reason, McNeil is fueling more logging in this time that nationally we're trying to focus on our lack of old growth forests. And after hearing about the urgent biodiversity crisis from COP 15 up in Montreal recently and Biden's focus on that last Earth Day and this Earth Day, right now we have as much old forest as the amount of young forests that we're supposed to have. We're only supposed to have 1% to 3%, maybe a little bit more of young forests, all in very tiny patches. And McNeil and its burning of forests is increasing both climate change and biodiversity loss. You've heard a little bit about that already. And I think I'm going to finish up since you want to stop at 7, but I could talk more about the biodiversity loss fueled by McNeil, but I think we end not just McNeil, but burning biomass in general. So please do not continue working with McNeil and really take the ethical move to phase biomass burning out and phase out McNeil and don't continue using it. It's unethical and everybody has eyes. Your eyes have been opened. You've seen the data and you've seen the truth. And it's time to move on away from burning up our forests. And thanks. Thanks very much for listening to me because it's just as important to me down here. It's affecting my world and my breathing. I have asthma and I don't need it to be exacerbated by this. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I'm going to close public comment if there's anybody who didn't have a chance to speak tonight who wanted to and wasn't on any of our lists or had their hand raised, you can submit comments to us and I'll make sure that they get attached to McNeil. Our next item on our agenda is the North Muskie Avenue update. And I'll turn it over to Chapin. Great. Thank you. And for, yes indeed, I give you two copies there. Yeah, great. There are other copies for members of the public. If you're interested and it is posted online on the committee's web page for anybody calling in who would like to see. So I am following up from the April 17 council meeting where the council passed a resolution I think brought forward by Councillor Bergman here to refer to the TUC work on studying the impact, positive and negative of the North Muskie Avenue corridor study. And we had a conversation at the May 3 meeting of the TUC and staff had agreed to propose some draft scope of the proposed draft scope of work. And what we have here in the memo are four main areas that we are proposing the staff to bring forward for that evaluation of North Muskie Avenue after implementation of the lane reassignment safety. We're proposing to collect crash data over the next two years to parking utilization and conducting at least twice a year, day and evening occupancy counts on the two block corridor and one block deep on the adjacent side streets. By pedestrian counts, we have worked in the past with the CCRPC to facilitate those counts and would seek to do that again. And we've been in touch with the business and workforce development about undergoing a stakeholder survey for adjacent stakeholders along the border, residents, organizations, businesses, et cetera. There was also a discussion at the meeting on May 3 about a parking and transportation equity analysis. We would like more opportunity to discuss that with you and understand your interest. There was some discussion about trying to understand the amount of publicly available parking transportation resources in each commercial district. And I think each commercial district in Burlington is its own different set of interests and assets. And there are already some studies under way, such as the city's TDM study, that may be trying to accomplish some of the similar work. So we would like to have a greater conversation with you all around how that interest would be carried forward. Some final comments here. We're proposing that the four areas that we're proposing to study the metrics on, we'd like to wait for a period for the public to settle in to the new corridor as often uses shift and changes. People are getting accustomed to the changes. Next, I wanted to just highlight that we have already, and under my initiative, have directed the parking services team to have a one month warning period for the parking changes in the corridor. I think many members of the council have asked about how the changing regulations would impact low income folks. And so we want to give people a chance to learn the new parking regulations along the corridor. In addition, as part of that, we have gotten the commission's approval, the public works commission approval, to lower the parking violation fines for a time limited violation down from $75 to and July $20. We're continuing staff to work with community health center and trying to assist with their off stream parking needs. I have met with them three times since we've last discussed this. Public Works has shared five conceptual options for off stream parking to them. We're waiting to hear back which ones, if any, are supportable, are their preferred alternatives. And as I've indicated to committee members and emails, I've committed to them that I will work to find additional funds to support additional design work, should there be a viable design that they would like to bring forward. Paving is scheduled for the week of the 16th. They're finishing up structure work now, which is adjusting manholes and water valves and gas valves, and then are planning to pave in two to three weeks. The changes to the lanes and the addition of bike lanes and the consolidation of parking would happen concurrent with that final layer of the asphalt. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, but I don't know. Let me start with the first additional comment. Sure. It seems to me that we need to have a baseline from right now. I understand the waiting, but I think that it's important that you know what is happening before the changes and then making that delay to see how things are going. I don't know. How long did you say in there? It's not in the comments. I think you mentioned something that I missed a couple of times. Each one, safety we can count from the get-go. It'll be something we look at annually, the crash data each year. The parking utilization is proposing by annual. So I mean, I think that when these things you were looking for things to settle in, so I think that in terms of parking, we need to know what's happening now before the changes have gone on. So that's my comment on that. I would love, depending on the resources that we have available and whether we can try to get some more free even resources, by annual seems not to be enough. I'd like it at least quarterly, but I think the different times of the year have an impact. And I think that it's not clear from the memo what the frequency of the bike pedestrian traffic counts are. And it's also not clear what the streets are that are going to be, but ultimately having recently spaced counts. So I think by annual, that's twice a year. I think it's not sufficient enough. I would think that the stakeholder survey, three months I think is OK. I think six months is a decent follow-up. One six months now, I would like not to. I think it's too long on that. So just lay that out. And I would actually request that you go back to the commission and extend the reduction in the parking fees to say not just to July, but I would like them pushed back to September as well, so that you got. We're getting through the UVM student in not in the context, but their failure to house their students more and more students into World War II, my word. And as a result, the demographics change in the summertime, starting in late August, students start to move back into into the city. And so I think it would be best to extend the the reduction of the parking violation by into September beyond the one month. I don't think the one month is sufficient. And that is some of the comments right now. Do you have any data on how many warning tickets you have to give out? Like, have there been an increase in the amount of tickets or is it reasonably the same as it normally say? Right, the new parking regulations have not gone into effect yet because the paving hasn't happened. So the the change is that they're currently time limited parking changes on the street. I don't think they are significant changes, but there are more parking limited spaces that will be added and they will be in different spots. So we don't yet know how the learning curve will go for the community. So the thought was to have a one month warning period, which is far more than what I have been familiar with for changes on the street, but since there are global changes on a two block corridor, we thought it was reasonable if the two would like us to extend that. We can certainly have that conversation. So we don't know yet how much how much learning period, how much effort it will take for the public to understand how to park on the street. There will still be unregulated spaces, but there will be more time in these spaces. So just to follow up on that, if we get a lot, you have to issue a lot of warning tickets. My suggestion is that we expand that, right? So this is obviously not working. I think that is a fair comment, Council Member Bergman. And I agree. If we notice that there are a lot of warnings, then I can use my authority to extend a warning period. How are you? The last thing is just data. Again, coming back to the two. Yes, with data on sort of all this stuff. So I've asked you for some changes, but whatever data that is relevant to parking utilization, to ticketing, to other things, thank you. We are fully ready. And you know, my apologies for last minute cooking here, but we're busy as construction season in the memo right under the proposed metrics. We do commit to coming to the TOOC and the DPW Commission with the metrics that we collect and absolutely want your feedback on the metrics and what changes if any need to be made. I've been accused of last minute anitis and you know, like, I'm OK with getting stuff done. There we go. It has to be done now that it has to be done now. Yeah, I just I have two questions, but I'll follow on the parking line. Is the oops program applied to the time limited spots or only a meter violation? Yes, they would apply to any violation that is not a safety violation. So here to corners, illegally parking in a handicap spot, things that prevent parking in front of a hydrant. Those are things that wouldn't apply to the other non-safety violations would apply. For those listening and who don't know what oops is, it's a forgiveness program that allows you one sort of get out of fine free per year, I believe. And so that would apply here. And it may actually take, you know, might be used as a tool in this idea of China, you know, bring people along and phase them into changes along the corridor. Yeah, my other questions around the stakeholder survey. I think this is a really powerful tool for us to use. And so the first is what how do you do an adjacent stakeholder? Just someone on the corridor or would this be like, I mean, will it be like by invitation or will it be open? I mean, because there are ripple effects to parking removal on the corridor that impact adjacent streets that are on the corridor. But so I'm just wondering how that's envisioned. You know what the answer now is still being thought about. I think in my mind, it was I was imagining to level one direct stakeholders, those who live or work on North Moosky, that we would work with the business and workforce development department and maybe counselors and others to canvass the street, get information, make sure we directly reach those who are immediately on the street. I would imagine that we have a question of where do you live in the beginning of the survey and that the survey could be filled out by folks on adjacent streets from a resource standpoint. I think it's most important that we hear from immediately affected, but then adjacent, as you point out, there may be important impacts that we need to consider. And then and then the survey questions themselves would be I understand that you need someone who's skilled in the art of survey development to create this. But if you nice to have a look at it before it's it's given because we might, you know, we'd be able to see if there's any gaps or additions in my life. I am happy to share a draft with the two useful on that, given the interest that CHT expressed in the entire process that has led us up to here. Have you reached out to Champlain Housing Trust, which has buildings there on the corridor just to enlist their assistance in communicating with their residents? And if not, can you add them to the list of folks to be. Absolutely, we we worked extensively with them in the Park Management Plan. I talked to CEO Michael Monti as we were discussing shared parking options. I have not talked to them recently about communication, but more than happy to engage them as part of the stakeholder survey. I think that is absolutely essential. They're probably the biggest organization that is connected with the residents who are living on the street. Where is Jason? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Questions. Who's will close that item out there and move on to item number five, which is the resolution on retain carbon emissions. This was referred to us by my mark. There's a point of order in terms of agenda that I just want to let you know about. I've sent the walking tour team home, given how long public forum and the agenda items were going. So I hope that was friendly, given it was hard to break in. So I made that executive decision so that item we can do it. So it's okay, but I'm happy to give a brief verbal update on some key elements and leave it at that. Given the way that I mean, the length of the meeting, the way it's running that way, that is friendly. I agree. They also. So. So item number five, resolution on be tank carbon emissions. This was came from a communication to the school council that was referred to our committee back 12, 6. And, you know, I'll be a responsibility for not getting on getting into the agenda until now, but it's something that that we're taking tonight. So I don't have really much of an intro. Everybody has the resolution. I'm it was it was given to us without any specification on what we're to do with it. So I guess we're considering it as a committee tonight. So I will take input from committee members. So I like the resolution. I would make a stylistic change in switching the resolve clauses around and I am sympathetic or supportive of council or former councilor Hanson's call for a city to have more accountability or follow up and so an additional either building into the existing resolve clauses or having an additional one to invite the tank to the to communicate with us is what I've come up with for that. But I would actually like for this committee to sponsor this resolution and send it back to the council for consideration. I think just to make clear, I also think that there are it looks like there are footnotes that are here because within the body, particularly the wearer, the wear as is, but they're not in the body of the resolution. So I would hope that the person who drafted it, Mr. By Porter could assist in us putting in to the a numbered resolution for the actual footnotes that would give citation because I do think that if those sources are there, then we need to put them down there and if their quotes are if they're not cited, then we need to put them in because that's just something that's important for its purpose. I think it would be best for this count, this committee to be the sponsor. I am willing to be a sponsor if it would not come out of the committee and just do it on my own. But I think that if you all agree that this is something worthy of adoption, that you will join me in it would be a great, much greater impact in court. I would also say as long as we got it that Jimmy Lee's remarks and his requests, I think are meaningful and significant and I know enough of the political process and the pushback having tried to push envelopes to their natural limits and beyond. So I think that it would be appropriate for us to ask for a legal opinion, probably from the council that assists the the the airport as opposed to the city attorney's office, it's sort of like they contract for things because this relates to FAA regulations and what have you, but a legal opinion, as well as an opinion from BIA management about their thoughts on this. We will logically get those questions. So we might as well ask for for that. And I would say that included in that would be there was reference to there being an order, you know, being ordinances to effectuate that. We do have a section of our municipal code ordinances on the airport on airlock on airports. It is silent as to this type of activity. So a legal opinion that would also include how that would be implemented, I think would be maybe even draft language that would be based on this would be, I think appropriate and would be the right next step on that. And I do not think that inaction is the right next step. So either one of these areas. That's what I've got to say. I can make motions, but let's. I'm happy. I'm happy to go next. The so I am I am supportive of the second result clause, the one that calls for calculating the carbon index. I think I agree with those who say that we're not counting everything as accurately as we need to be and there should be car about not to say that those things aren't there. Like in the case of McNeil, that's the way they count commissions for biomass is when you cut that when you burn. But I think we need to be cognizant of the impacts of the staff. In the case of the airport, we know we have this carbon accreditation certification process underway. And I have asked Nick about trying to make sure that the guard is involved in this process. I wish we had Nick here tonight. I actually asked him this morning if you could attend this meeting tonight. And I just I was probably trying to get him looked in. But I still plan to follow up with him on that particular aspect, because I don't know where they are since their last update to this committee with that process. And and I would be interested to know if the basically the intent of the the second result cost is incorporated into that work. And so I would like to know that. But I don't know that I can support the resolution as as as a whole. But I am supportive of the counting part at this at this point. I agree with Mark. I definitely think that getting more data is important. But I don't know if I would support the car promotion. I would love to have to hear the objections to the first resolve clause and to the resolution and any other aspects of it. I would I would like to hear it. I think the public would like to hear it as well. Certainly, I'd be happy to talk. I don't think that this committee can and the city council are in a position right now to tell the I would like to understand the contracts that we have with the guard. I'm not sure that we want to tell them just to end their aviation mission here. I mean, this is a broader discussion than just within this committee. So I'm not I don't know that I'm supportive of that. Yeah, I mean, I think there have been concerns in the past of the council and committees using language saying we're directing another entity to do something like that. That always ends up being an issue. And so I would rather work that out before it go into a full council. Love is I just imagine that will be an issue. So my my response is that is that we are asking we are we would be calling on them to work collaboratively with us to draft a specific plan. We're not making them do anything. An effect calls on is the same as requests. One could be so bold as to say pleads. But this is, I think, more appropriate. So I hear that. Sometimes you have to get intransigent people's attention. And sometimes that can be done with softer language, but usually is not. So I that's the something to response that I have with. With your position, Councillor Kaye. And I don't actually think that this is calling for the elimination. We did hear public testimony about the elimination of the flight. But it does it mentions a lit to eliminate aviation and greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe that can only be happening by just not having them fly. But so does it does it go as far as you are you're critiquing? I don't know. But I do think that planning for this is important. And I do think that it's important to have planning. For this is important. And I do think that them trying to do everything that can be done to reduce the number of flights is important. We all experience them every day. So I am comfortable with this. I'd be curious if there was language from either of you that to amend the resolve causes. Also, if you had any concerns about the the whereas causes, besides the fact that attribution needs to be included. So I actually, after hearing you say that, I think I feel more comfortable with the resolution. That is right now. I am still wanting I know my moves slower than people like me do sometimes. But I would like to know I would be supportive of the second clause. But I'm not sure the second result was still I am not. I'd like to know where where we are and if there have been discussions in it. The tank has been working to provide their accounting of greenhouse gas with the airport in their carbon accreditation process. So that's the second the second result for us. And I'd like to actually do that or get that information. Is that prior to the introduction? I mean, that's the bestest part of this resolution. I'm here tonight. I'm not a part of the first law class. So is there no change to the first resolve cause? That there's nothing that I can come up with on the fly right now. You're asking not even not language, not necessarily drafting, but sexual. I don't know that I am on board with the guards. And I should hear or eliminating the aviation mission. So I wouldn't I'm not, I guess. So, yeah, if you're looking for a path to committee sponsorship of this resolution, there isn't one with my endorsement and sponsorship. But it doesn't mean you can move something like this. OK, then if there was a way that you look at that, but if not, but if not, I want to be more deliberate than that and then doing this on the floor. Anyways, and like I said, I still have questions about where we are when that second result was and then we may not be anywhere, but we may actually before I before I move to to have an endorsement of this questions that you're having, you don't need to have them answered before in terms of the second. Well, I would like to if they're doing the work, I mean, that's the only part of this that I support right now. If they're doing the work, there's no reason for the council to call on because we sort of asked for this in our prior meeting, except that this does talk about based on the annual. So whether they and making that mean, I guess the annual part would be maybe more we go in as anticipated in the accreditation process that is we had asked for two things that were not part of the accreditation process. One was to count emissions of three thousand feet of which we had and to include the Vermont International Guards Competition, which I believe in the accreditation process as presented isn't required for military aircraft, but we'd asked for that. And so we know we've seen we've seen the above three thousand feet of emissions. The point is to incorporate that. And I know that I was talking with the government, I just like to know where those are and what they have committed to provided and whether or not it's on an annual basis or just as part of the accreditation cycle, which I don't believe is something else. So the one concern that I've got in the the first resolve clause has to do with the date by which a specific plan would be drafted and I appreciate the need in emergencies to act promptly, but that is not a realistic time for this all to happen. So I would be interested in amending that to April 1st because I just I understand how slow everybody is and change in this and with the need to get the citations included in that and switching these the order around, I would move for the committee to sponsor this and send it back to the city council for its consideration. I would second that. Is there any more discussion? No more discussion. We can take a vote. All those in favor? Aye. And I am opposed. So I don't know. Maddie's here recording us her that we're skites. Get our staff. This is my. But we will assume that that. She knows I don't know because we're talking to the court. So that passes on a two to one vote. Can I make clear and I would be willing to to draft this that might and it may be that sort of a reconsideration, but that we also add a either within the resolve clauses or in a separate one, which I think is probably more likely inviting the guard to come to a meeting to discuss this. Yeah. So if that means we can get that on our agenda and then we would get this on the agenda that I'd like to put this on in the in the in the resolution that if we need to formally reconsider and then go through all of that dog and pony or if we can just. It's all good maker in the second. Yeah, there we go. Or perfect. OK. Thank you. OK, thank you. So that brings us to our next. If there's nothing else on our next item is five point five, which was added. I'm sorry. I did ask about the asking for a legal opinion. And the Department of NICS opinion about what Jimmy had said, I think that's great. So I would move that we get a legal opinion from the Air Force Council and also from the director on the. Remarks and the proposal to adopt. Any recommendations? Yes, Mark. Yeah, I'm sorry. All those in favor. All right, bye. So while you did you catch all what was happening or show you. Sorry, my computer is going to die. And there's a lack of ports to plug into. But I can watch that. OK, well, we voted on the resolution two to one vote. Come to Bergman and came for a square. I was not. They're moving this to the council as a two sponsor resolution. And then we just moved to get a legal opinion from the Air Force Councils and the Air Force Director and the Air Force Director on the remarks, the recommendations and the remarks that James Lee's provided to us today. Now, as you know, thank you. OK, so our next item is 5.5, which we added to the agenda. This is McNeil next steps. And so I sort of the one thing that I definitely wanted to consider was that we had an offer after this symposium to get my notes here. Joe Nelson is offered to provide tours to those areas being managed and that are sending it to McNeil. And we want to we want. I think we've all expressed interest in doing that, just to get that bit of information and education ahead of some other decisions we're going to be making at some point on district energy. So so the floor is open for just processing some of that and getting thoughts. I will say that it does appear that is in Joe is that he wanted he would do small tours. He said is he said to 10 was a max or maybe said five to eight. I don't recall now. But anyway, small numbers. So there's that. And the other thing is we're cognizant of open meeting on having a forum of committee members there without the meeting being. So he's when we expressed that concern and he said he would do multiple smaller smaller groups. And my feeling is we might want to take him up on that. And that there were some times we figure out when and then if there were other members of the public or what we need to warn in this meeting, if it's just if we want to open it up to small groups and we could have a sign up then. I think we have open law problems with restricting access is sort of like you can. I don't see it. So could so there's no way to work on it. I was warm or something. I think that that's right. I think if we I mean, you could do it as a work session, but I don't think that you know, you can exclude the public. I mean, you can limit the public's actual participation, but you cannot limit their presence. So it's something like a work session. So I don't I don't think you can do it without each of us were to attend a tour. Yeah, independent of the others. And would we be able to have others join us on those without? Sure. Without without any other members of the public, the public would join or or other counselors, they didn't they comprise a quorum of the council. But there are limits to the number on the tour. And the first come first serve, we don't follow that. I don't think so, as long as you don't it's not a meeting of a public body or good. Then I would on this particular next step, I would propose that we engage Joe and propose that and then I'd be happy to do that. I think you're right. Yeah. And then so now it's open for further discussion of other next steps. I think we need to have a conversation here at the very least. We probably may be needing a bigger room to talk about district energy and get questions out there. Things that were not directly asked to formulate additional questions or just have more questions. I think a forum to ask questions. I mean, we did when we started this process. I'm looking at an early iteration of questions that we had. Like the McNeill Lifestat span these renewable energy credits and has come up. District energy, some of those. Yes, I think we had some piece of a forum of it. But that is, I think, something we want to really get more clarity about. I mean, I have the questions that we have come up with originally. I don't have any additional ones, but perhaps other members of the public and us figure that out. You know, additional questions. I mean, I think it would be fine to give folks another opportunity to get answers. I actually do have additional questions, which are like around McNeill's world in the bigger power generation ecosystem, you know. And so, yeah, and I'd like to dig into that a little bit more as well. And that sort of it's part of the question we've all heard around. If not McNeill, then what else take would take take its place in a phase out, which isn't specifically around district energy, but just more about the plant life cycle, you know, when is it, you know, when, you know, how long it might be used and so I understand more about that, more than what he can go in from the web site and some of the other information so that I have a place to ask those questions more directly, and then I'm not sure we need more independent expertise. Yeah, but we might need another. Another, I don't know, like it's after that. Yeah, yeah. And to be quite honest, I think we need a bigger room. And I am not opposed for asking these questions of BED to have it at BED. You know, we're, you know, they've got big rooms there and it would be them that would be providing answers at our meeting. So public, we've did a chance to talk, but we're getting information from them. And what we do with that is is a next step for us. I'm in favor of that. One other thing that I am very interested in is whether the Medical Center or UVM has explored geothermal as an alternative to this plant, this steam pipe slash district heating. So that makes a fair question. I'm not exactly sure who. So would we are to hold some agenda planning sessions outside of this meeting, like we had done prior to this symposium, where we talk about, you know, the kinds of things that we would like to do aware of how we might like to have the meeting. We might want to have a tent so we could do that. And then maybe between now and I don't know if we can do it between now and our July meeting, sort of two, we might be able to give it a go. Want to figure that we could also do something on Zoom. It was hard to get us all together. Of course, or by email, you know, or all the other things. Yeah, yeah. In early or mid-July, I'm around, but we're going camping Sunday through Thursday in July, not even be in a cell friendly place. I'm going to be out of the fifth or sixth. We're like, I'll be from that ish. So probably for the July meeting is not that word. We're meeting on the 25th. Yes, we're meeting with the next. We'll talk about that's what it's on our plan, but I'm assuming we'll meet the fourth Tuesday of July. Yeah, I think we should. Rush the conversation. I mean, we just do it in August. We can be more intentional about. Like, there's not really any progress to, like, rush and be like, we want to do these types of things. That's like, that's not a good conversation about that. Right. There's also been a request that's brought up at the Council by Councilor Carpenter, and he was asked of me and by President Paul and I haven't talked to her yet. She didn't need a text yesterday, I think. Basically asking about a work session on the meal. And in terms of the sequencing of these things, it seems like we want to have another do we want to have another we want to get on our questions answered before we have a council work session. And so that would drive the schedule of that. We're going to move into August on, you know, have have something planned for August or is that what we're saying? I mean, I guess the question is also when is the looking to come to the council? Right. And I don't think there's clarity on that. I think we can take that away and ask administration, I don't know. Besides when we're about forward. But I know that he is out. So it's planned to talk about the schedule of the meeting sometime soon, once we get to the Western Concern. OK, and we can use the same process means we will circulate email messages. Yeah, yeah, OK, cool. One of you was I train some more email or talk to to Joe. Joe Nelson. OK, we're moving along now. Next on agenda, I can find it. There's directors. All right, you make it very quick. Goals and objectives every year. We work with the commission to develop our kind of annual goals and objectives on which the commission evaluates my performance and that of the city engineer, Norval is also appointee of documents on the Commission website. If you have any feedback for us, the draft document was given to them last month at this month at their June meeting. You'll be looking to have the Commission refine it in July. July one is also a big day because it's the last day, the first day of the new prohibition of recycling bins. And so now toters will be required in any effort you can do to help the last remaining bin users to get their toter at public works would be appreciated. So that things go as smoothly as possible. My neighbor doesn't talk to me. He's so rude, so I don't think that I can help the one person who lives right across the street for me. Yeah, but sorry. Just question on process for that is because I still see a lot of folks in morning, especially because most of them are renters. Would a renter come and get it or is that something? Does it matter like it doesn't matter? OK, yeah, we saw a 50 percent subsidy and they're affordable twenty twenty five dollars. So if we prefer, the landlord gets them so that they kind of stay with the unit and that the landlords committed to managing it. But that's going to go up to. GMT, Council Bergman and others have been pushing me to represent a desire for transit financing efforts. I have continued to bring that up and am still bringing that up with the organization. If the organization is struggling right now to manage a couple major items, one is driver shortage and is having a hard time meeting all of its root requirements with the staff that we have. The board took the unusual step of the last meeting to raise wages outside of a contract negotiation session in the midst of an agreement to raise wages to try to get more mechanics and drivers in the door. And the organization is also transitioning to collecting fares as of January one. And there's all the fare box procurement installation. That said, I will continue to advocate. I've already met with the new GMT commissioner that you all pointed, Andrea Suozo. And she seems enthusiastic and committed. So I will continue to advocate for the regional study. But it is having a hard time kind of finding the focus to launch. Well, Anderson was the alternate. He's the alternate. Have you have you reached out to him? I have copied him on an email to the general manager to have the general manager schedule. I have not met with him yet, but I will. Very important. He's a fiscal analyst for the state and perhaps, which is why I was pushing for him that you could get him on that sustainable study and use that on his right. Use the talent or yes, our efforts. Yes, because we got paid for this. Perfect. And then lastly, bike share, the press release just went out this afternoon. The launch will be Thursday. Ferd is the new vendor, Katma is running it. There are seven partners. There will be 200 bikes around the community starting as of Thursday. If bikes are missed parts, there's information in the press release. And on the app about how to address those issues. Let me know what you're hearing from the community as this project rolls out. Those are quick updates. I'll give you a brief champagne parkway update when we get there. OK. Council updates. The one thing I just had a meeting with a South Burlington City Councilor and asked him if he would be willing to come here to share his experience and information regarding their solar ordinance that they just asked that he should be more than happy to do that. It's actually a building code in there in South Burlington. It's in their zoning because they don't really have building codes, but they've got it under the zoning code. But yeah, and it's part of the state building codes. They just took the solar aspect of that construction and brought it in here. But and they're taking a bunch of our stuff on motherization. So it's a good proposition. So I would like for us to schedule him for maybe the July meeting to have that conversation with a hope that we could come up with an ordinance. And perhaps Chapin, you know, this is not you anymore. This is Bill Ward. I'm sorry, dating myself. Get somebody from permitting and inspections here to hear that. And comment, I do not believe that we have a similar code to what they just thought. So we would even ask someone from permitting inspections to be here with the South Burlington City Councilor to hear their presentation as we can be available for questions. Yeah, I like that idea. I don't know if we can get it in July yet or not, but I'm open to that if we can. If not July, August, August, September. But no, I know I would like that was when you brought that up during the council meeting on some pre-client. I mean, I this south end zoning, the reasoning that this district, I mean, they're going to be eight stories high. They should be lead platinum and they should be solar room and all the other good stuff. You're going to be that big. Yeah. OK, so that's that's my big. Oh, and I do think that in light of the conversation you were having about making you know that getting more information and perhaps getting there and to talk about the potential for a solar project on the old city belt and maybe having Cindy White, Chief and Spencer and there and Springer come here and have a conversation about that. So we need a parking lot for meeting helpers, but I guess it is in our minutes. And since that is our parking intended, we have a SharePoint document that we manage all this, so we don't lose our minds. OK, thank you. Yeah, otherwise, I was even less than I am. I'm like, well, I got it under control. And my only update is I since the since the symposium had been digging into electricity generation. I mentioned it at the council meeting, but I get fascinating that there's this whole hidden world hidden to me prior to the symposium, the forum I'm reading about, right, about power, electric power. And so I'm just going to pitch these two books. One, I'm just finishing by shorting the grid by Mirinda Anglin. And it's just it's one of those ones that is it's disturbing and like revelatory. So it's hard. It is, especially coming on the heels of the symposium, which is sort of like that. And then and then this this other one that I had suggested in emails was No Miracles Needed by Mark Taker said is one that I'm just beginning. So we have a book club. Well, we're looking for book club members. It's hard to find takers we're talking about. Our agenda does feel like. So those are my updates. I'm still continuing to sort of to dig in and try to educate myself on information and facts around all these decisions that we're going to have with us some day soon. So that will move on. Our next meeting is our we I think we said earlier, we'll try to do it on 7.25, which is the fourth Tuesday of July. And with that, that's we able to everybody to move on to the Champlain Park. Just no longer walk. That's right. No longer a walk. I will make this less than five minutes. So the reason I wanted to have a walk with you all is wanting to celebrate the progress that has been made and give you an opportunity to walk safely on a construction site and see the new alignment and how it's coming along. But also second work is now going to be pivoting to Lakeside and Pine Street. This next couple of weeks. As a matter of fact, work on Lakeside was occurring last couple of days. And the work that's happening around the Baltics and that the cutting is that part of it as well? Yes, they are removing the rail site in preparation for turning that space into a shared use path. So we are now pivoting to a much more public phase of the project with significant traffic impacts. So we were planning to have a public meeting in July to lay out the season's construction schedule. We are sending out front porch forum direct targeted emails to particular neighborhoods along Pine Street as this work gets underway. Feel free to pass along any concerns. We do have a mailing list that we send out weekly updates to. We're not going to be able to get out of town on the south on this west side. You will be able to get out of town on rush hours. It will be too lane two way traffic during off peak times. There will be some alternating traffic on Pine Street and on Lakeside. So the great news is this project progressing well. Pine Street will be getting granite curves, elevated crosswalks, intersections, new crosswalks, a shared use path, a lot of amenities that have been held up since Jean and I were in different roles here in the city. So if you hear anything, let us know. I want to communicate as well as we can what's coming this work this season is expected to get to substantial completion for this initial construction contract, which means then the conversation is what do we do about the final construction contract? So that's not a discussion for today. But I think coming months, we'll need to talk about that. Really, what's going on here? Really, our enterprise project is working through its environmental permit, NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act permits, the federal permit. We are expecting to wrap that up and have a preferred alternative that not only we have selected, which is alternative 1B, which is that kind of battery limited connection route, but wanting federal highway and VTrans and us to all be in alignment and to have federal highway concurring that this is a viable and preferred alternative. We expect to have that in the fall of October. Is our current timeline. And that's talking to it. I am. Yes, it is looking good to having that be the preferred alternative. Right now, the federal highway in the city and VTrans really are looking at a situation where there's one feasible alternative other than a no-build and that one feasible alternative other than no-build is alternative 1B. So the risk is that through this process, that the no-build alternative could be selected through the environmental review process is my hope that we do not end up there. I don't want to know from the final, please tell them I'll have to be fifty million dollars in debt or more. Because I'm not supporting them. But let's go. Do you have any sense of how the prospects for alternative 1B, is there any good or anything? You know, I believe that it is the right solution. If we have done our duty to narrow the design to the greatest extent possible to minimize the amount of pavement, the length of pavement. We're really just trying to get the multimodal connection between pine and battery. We've talked a lot with the stakeholders. Alternative 1B is the grand compromise. Every property owner along the quarter gets impacted somewhat with the understanding that we're all in this together. There's no right of way there now. We've got to take or acquire rights to create a road where none exists today. If one is going to succeed, it is going to be 1B. I do feel cautiously optimistic that there is a realistic project there. So we are still, you know, plugging away and committed to it and talking to VTrans and Federal Highway about can we start lining up now that new federal highway grant programs are being announced daily and one just came out today that we are looking to make the REP the next big pitch that we do. And Federal Highway and VTrans are excited about that because their contributions to date have been capped at twenty million dollars. And I can tell you that given the mitigation environmentally, the railroad mitigation, the property rights acquisitions, the stormwater management is that we are looking at a project well north of twenty million dollars as little as it is. It is an expensive little project. Essentially, for that sake, I'm spending a lot of my time and leadership team time on it because we agree. Thank you. And I will say with no further business, I'll adjourn us at 8.08 from duty.