 will now be recorded. Why don't we begin? So I'd like to call to order the South Burlington City Council for a special meeting on Monday, March 29th, 2021. First item is welcoming everyone and agenda review. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items? Okay, the only thing under other business, I just want to remind everyone about green up day. And apparently we are going to do something. It's just be a little bit different than in years past when the land trust organized things. So hearing no other issues, the consent agenda has one item. Consider and sign the disbursements. I would, Megan, we can't hear you, but you're moving silk candy. I see your mouth moving. Are you locally muted? Then maybe Tim, you want to move that or Matt? I'll make the motion and move the consent agenda. And a second. All right. Is there any discussion, any questions or? All right. All in favor of the consent agenda as presented, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Can you hear me? Yes, we can now. Thank you. So the consent agenda has been approved for zero with one after. So our next item is interviewing two applicants for the DRV and it looks like they both are present. Why don't we go alphabetically? So Dan, you are interested in the DRV. And identified that you've done a lot of work on DRVs for other communities. So you think that will give you a good background for taking on South Burlington's. Are there other issues you'd like to share with us or? No, just to recap, I've lived here in South Burlington since 2006 and with the Regional Planning Commission for 17 years and about two or three years ago was working on assignment from regional planning to the city under a contract relationship between the RPC and the city helping out in the planning and zoning office with Paul Conner and Ray Belair last year or two before he left and was doing a good anywhere from 20 to 50 hours a month there for a while before Marla got on board. And then last year or two, hadn't really done too much of that. And then just recently had been on a short-term assignment helping Shelburne out with there and things are busy there too. Sea walls and small apartment complexes and a couple larger developments as well too. So I feel like I have a good grasp of what a DRV is supposed to do. And I'd like to be able to do that. And also, you know, I'm excited in some ways to help the DRV work with the new set of standards that the Planning Commission's been working so hard. A lot of good clarifications in that. And that's, you know, to the extent of zoning by-law and subdivision regulations can be clear. That makes it good for the community and good for the landowner and good for the DRV to work with. So I'd like that opportunity. You're well aware of the time commitment? Yes, I am. Both my kids are in college now. So I'm just twiddling my thumbs at home. I wonder if your partner feels the same way. Are there other questions that anyone has for Dan? Oh, Megan and then Matt. Dan, I was curious what you brought to your work with the DRV kind of questions that they look at that they consider in, you know, what wasn't DRV kind of work, but more the planner kind of work. What kinds of questions come to your mind when you're reviewing applications? I guess, you know, the questions really come to mind is, I mean, the basic questions are they meeting the standards in there? But there are, as a staff person, you know, there's still language and there probably is still language in the regulations being worked on where, you know, the English language can be read different ways. So that's when at the staff level, I would ask say, well, this is what we think is going on, but the DRV really needs to make a determination. Things like the proposal shall provide adequate screening to neighboring properties. Well, does that mean five trees or 10 trees or 20 trees is five feet tall? So there's, you know, I think that's the kind of questions. And I think the key thing is to establish those consistencies with how a DRV operates and be mindful of what precedents exist and also to be careful not to potentially establish precedents that aren't necessarily in a concert with what the bylaw actually says because it's a small community around here and I, you know, people, engineers can see things and if they see inconsistencies, they might say, well, this other property that you addressed four months ago, you allowed some flexibility in the driveway layout or the fire pond, yes or no, or those kinds of things. So I think it's important that a DRV keep good track of those things and all, and it's the job of, you know, staff to put forward those things. But I think the DRV is just, it's gotta be consistent. I think that's the key thing that the community knows. Then the community can identify problems if there are in the bylaws too as well, you know? Could I ask a follow-up question, Helen? Yes, yeah. In addition to consistency, you bring, you know, from the planner's eye, you bring, you know, your perspective as a resident, you raise that, you know, in your remarks that you just gave and what kinds of, you know, kind of more, I wanna say, you know, just the average residential kind of questions would come to your mind. Well, neighbor, someone who would be walking in front of a structure or someone who knows an area and... Yeah, and that's always a hard one because in the gut level of a lot of people is that, especially if there was an empty lot there, people aren't used to change, you know? So they see something and they might be at the almost that visceral thing of like, oh, what is this? This is due when I don't like it. But at the same time, if the standards in the bylaw or the land development regulations and the subdivision aren't clear enough, that to some extent, if an applicant is meeting what the standards say, then that's what the DRB's job is to make that determination. And so sometimes it might be explaining to a neighboring landowner, well, the regulation says this, there's no restriction on the color of the house or the style or things like that, or it is consistent. And then ultimately, it would be the job of the DRB to try to explain the decision to the public. And it can work both ways too, because some people can come in and go, why can't I do this with my property? And you'd have to say, well, because you live in this zoning district, then the standards say this. So, and then we would say, take it up with the planning commission. So. All right. Okay, are you, thank you for now, Megan. Okay, Matt. Dan, just reviewing your resume, you have a master's in natural resources planning from the University of Vermont, correct? Yes, that's right. And you've been with the original county planning commission since 2003. Have you lived in South Burlington for all this time? I've lived in South, but first I lived in Shelburne in 2001, and then I moved to South Burlington in 2006. And I know you've been attending planning commission meetings. Have you attended, and forgive me, because I was on that commission for five and a half years, DRB, but have you attended DRB meetings in the past? Just on a staff level when I was helping out there a little bit, so. Okay. Thank you, Dan. Okay, any other questions? Tim. So that was the lead into the next question. So you haven't attended any DRB meetings in the last, you know, three or four months at all, or you have or haven't? I've not. I've never had the perpetual that I, you know, felt, you know, I mean, I can't see the agendas, and I look at them sometimes. Yeah. I go to, you know, things. Is that your, any question, Tim? Yeah, I was just curious. Thanks. Okay. I just have one question, and I have no idea what your answer would be. Do you think there would ever be conflicts of interest in terms of your work for CCRPC and your role as making a determination on the DRB? Not, I can't think of any right now. I mean, I'm mostly managing, you know, water quality projects, brownfields projects. I don't really, it's mostly, you know, Taylor and Regina who do any kind of the zoning by-law updates and they've been working on. I mean, I did help out Paul in the fall of 2019 when you guys first adopted River Corridor. A little bit on that, but yeah, I'm not really, I don't really do any projects. The I-89 project I'm involved with, it's mostly just managing the consultants working on the, you know, a lot of water quality and storm water work these days. So, and then as far as my neighborhood goes, I live over on Proctor. It's all fully developed and old neighborhood built out. So I don't really see any conflicts there, you know, so. Okay. Alrighty. Tom, do you have any questions, Chinden? I interviewed Dan before. Dan, I'm glad to see you're still interested. I think you're eminently qualified and thank you for putting your hat in the ring. Okay. And they are all reminding to me, they're two seats, the rest of Matt's, right? And how much is left on that? Or are you done? You would have been up for renewal, Matt. No, well, I'm sorry, Helen. It might, correct me if I'm wrong, but we've already filled John Wilking's seat left before his term was up, which would have expired on July one, but he left early. My term would have expired on July one of 2022. So this would be, this open seat is my old seat. So it would be good for a year, a year and three months or two months or whatever. Okay. So we just have one open seat. I thought we had two, but we filled the other one? We filled that, yeah. Okay. Stephanie Wyman is the new DRB member. Right, okay. Yeah. Okay. So Dan, it's a one year, and then I guess if you like it, and we like the job you do, you could apply again and continue if you're chosen. The same for Gary. Okay. Any other parting comments, Dan, or? No, thank you for letting me put my name forward. Well, I appreciate your interest in serving the community. So thank you. Okay. So our next candidate is Gary Cusharole. Is that pronounced correctly? Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Okay. And so you've lived in South Burlington for five years interested in the DRB, and you noted some... I've actually lived in South Burlington for probably close to 30, oh, it's five years. Okay. Because you grew up here, is that right? No, I... I'm not a 35 year resident, I'm sorry. Oh, you're five years at that address, excuse me, at suburban square, I'm sorry. Right, so you've lived here, probably most of your life. All right, so tell us a little bit about yourself and why you're interested. Well, I recently retired. Oh, we're losing your voice. Oh, I recently retired from practicing law and I thought that this would be a productive way. I haven't, this would give me an opportunity to work with the DRB, it can be to maybe a community. I'm not exactly sure if that comes up at the board. It would give me an opportunity to learn more about local government and participate in local government. You would also get back to the DRB as Matt knows, over the past three years, I've had certain, that sort of piqued my interest in serving the community. And I just think that doing some volunteer service would just help me invest in the city that I live in. Okay. Are you curious? Oh, I'm sorry. Blanket, blanking out. Is everyone else having the same audio issue? Yeah. Is this better? Yeah, so far so good. Yeah, what piqued your interest? I didn't get to hear what piqued your interest Gary. That's all start over. I recently retired from the practice of law and I just thought that this might be a good opportunity for me to put my skills to use in a productive way to serve the community. I thought that this working in the DRB would maybe give me the opportunity in the community development policies. Or maybe that's more of a development, the zoning. Planning commission. Planning commission, I don't really know, which also brings me, would give me the opportunity to learn more about local government in the community that I live in. And I think it would also give me an opportunity to give something back to the DRB in terms of resources. I've had some recent dealings with DRB and it sort of piqued my interest to get more involved in the community. Okay. I don't have the background of previous DRB experience or anything like that. I'm just a concerned citizen who's had some dealings with the DRB over the past three years. It's piqued my interest in providing more community input for me. Okay. Thank you. Matt, Kota. Gary, what is the, you said in your resume or your application, your transactional attorney. So what is the transactional attorney? What is that? I'm not an attorney, so I'm not familiar. It means that I deal pretty much exclusively with contracts, contract related, I actually come from the pharmaceutical industry. So I deal with the complex regulations of from the FDA regarding drug development and medical device development. So I have skill in reading and understanding regulations, but as far as transactions are concerned. I'm sorry, the end of your answer got blocked out for faded out. What I said was that I come from the pharmaceutical industry. So I have experience in understandings and as far as being a transactional attorney, it means that I deal pretty much exclusively with the contract. Contract, I got that part. Okay. Yeah. Gary, you had mentioned, you had mentioned same question I had for Dan, which is, have you attended a DRB meeting? I infer from your illusion, from your reference to something going on, but I forgive me, I forget what is that feature interest. You have attended DRB meetings and what was it that was of interest to you? The only DRB meetings that I have attended are the ones that involved an issue concerning my property and an abutting neighbor's property. And I just thought that now that I have the time and retirement, that I could leverage my skills a little bit to give something back to the city. What was the project? What were you referring to? Is that your main? I don't know if this should be part of the, I don't know. I mean, you might have to recuse yourself, Matt. I don't know. What do you think, Helen? I don't care that much, I was just curious. Okay. It's the 30 Myers Court issue. Anymore. Okay, got it. Okay, okay. Yeah, Megan? Yeah, I wanted to ask, you brought in your professional skills and I agree that knowing how to read a contract, you're set in terms of reading LDRs. And I was curious with regard to, your residential perspective, that what kinds of questions you would bring forward as someone who lives in an area or walks past an area and that new development is being proposed. What kinds of questions would come to mind? What kinds of questions would you ask as a DRB member? In addition to, of course, do you fulfill what's in the contract in our LDRs? Well, my first issue would be whether or not the proposed development conforms with whatever the LDRs are. That's what my personal issue has been with the 30 Myers first issue for me would be, is there compliance with the LDR? Maybe the look and feel, which I know is kind of a mushy kind of thing, but whether or not a develop fits into that community. I might ask questions along those lines. Other than that, I'm not really sure. I'd have to think what, I'd have to see what the development proposal is, I guess. Okay, thank you. Tim or Tom, do either of you have any questions? I was just curious, Gary, what sort of skills acquired from the transactional law that you practiced would come in handy for you at the DRB? Are they analytical, negotiation skills? Are they communication skills or are it all of them? Probably all of that, but certainly the ability to read and understand regulations. I don't know if I blanked out then, but I come from the FDA world, working with very complex regulations regarding pharmaceutical and medical device development. So I think being able to analyze regulations, I don't know if negotiation skills would be involved. I don't know how much negotiation goes on between the DRB and applicant. I'm not sure about the whole process is, but certainly analytical, maybe drafting, if there's gonna be any policy reviews. So yeah, all of that. Thanks. So have you worked, and I think part of the negotiation may not be with the applicant, but discussions with other DRB members who I'm assuming Matt and Tim can correct me, everyone might come in with a slightly different understanding of the English language and its application to a particular project. So there, I mean, I've never been to a DRB meeting, but I suspect there's conversations and ways. So how comfortable are you with dealing with the other members to either persuade them that your understanding of the language is clearer than theirs or how do you arrive at a consensus or what's your approach to that and experience with doing that? Well, my entire legal career has been built around negotiation and the application of regulations as it pertains to drug development. So I've always tried to have the perspective to give my opposition a reason to agree with me. But yeah, I negotiation and persuasion has been part of my transactional career for over 30 years. So it's a skill. Okay. Thank you. Matt, did you have an additional question? Yeah, just Gary, I hope you can expand on what you wrote in the application. You said I'm concerned about the development of South Burlington. What did you mean by that? Well, as a resident here, I see a lot of trees being cut down. I see a lot of, you know, new things going on. I'm sorry you cut out again, right at a critical spot. And you say that last sentence again, you've seen, well, we got you've seen a lot of trees cut down. And then the next, no, we're not hearing you. Yeah, I see a lot of projects. No, Gary, sometimes people have to turn off their video for us to hear them better. You wanna try that? And then maybe the sound would be better. So why don't you answer that question again? We'll see if this works. Okay, can you hear me now? Yes. Is that any better? We'll see. So far, we'll see. You start well and then it fades out. So get talking. Well, what I was saying was I just see a lot of development going on in the South Burlington area. And I'm not really, you know, I'm not for it. I'm not against it. I'm very neutral at this point, but I just would like to be more of a participant in perhaps guiding development issues in the community so that we don't get overbuilt. I don't know, that's about it. All right, thank you. Any other questions? You can turn your face back on while we say goodbye. And we wanna thank you very much for your interest and applying for this. And we will, I think at the end of the meeting, depending on how long it goes, but we'll have a discussion, I think probably off camera, about the two applicants and come up with a decision and we'll let you know as soon as possible. Well, I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you very much for your time. You are very welcome and thank you. Great, good night. Alrighty, so now we're on to really what this meeting was scheduled to do. And that is to move on to sort of our council work discussion with CCRPC about the Interstate 89 interchange. So, Charlie, well, you welcome half your staff, looks like it's here. I guess, Tom Hubbard, if you give Charlie the control, I thought it best that he run this part of the meeting. And Tom, if you wouldn't mind giving that control to David Saladino. Okay, sorry. That's all right. Sorry, no, that was a game plan change on our part. Thank you very much for scheduling this extra meeting and I'm glad you got the opportunity to fit in a little extra business around it. I think, I don't know, you can decide on that later, but we really do appreciate it. I really appreciate all the time that you all and the community members have devoted to this process. And Dave, I don't know, are you able to pull up the presentation yet? It should be coming. There we are. So, just hello again. So, as you know, the last few weeks, we've been collecting a lot of input from your committees and from residents on the 89 study. Dave, you want to flip to the agenda? Here we are. What we're going to do tonight is really kind of review what updates we got out of that input, which include some of the criteria, the methodology, and also the whole format of the scoring matrix. Dave will review those changes with you and then we'll actually go in two segments, we'll review the matrix evaluation. The first segment will be on 12B, 13 hybrid and 13 SBDI. So we'll look at those three interchanges against each other and then we'll look at how that, what kind of results, and all this is draft. We'll look at what kind of results we got out of that and then Dave will go through exit 14, the two options we were looking at there, how they compare to each other and the scoring that came out of the updated mid-term. And then we'll talk about next steps and any outstanding questions. Before I turn it over to Dave, any questions for me about process or what we're doing tonight? And we were calling this a workshop, so if there's some feedback, something we missed, we did our best to kind of congeal all the input we got into something that we could use and that's hopefully useful to you and Dave will kind of review some of it. Not all the input we could use or not all of it we could use right now, but it was all very valuable and appreciated. So if any questions for me before I turn it over to Dave, Dave, you got it. Okay, great, thank you, Charlie. So just to start out, this slide summarizes the changes that we've made to the evaluation matrix since last time we were in front of you. And as the title, the slide title denotes, these are based on input from yourself and the city council, from the all committees meeting and then the public meeting that we had last week. So we consolidated all of those. There was a consolidated set of meeting notes as well from all three of those meetings that I would be shocked if anyone read through them all, but there's some really good content in there. It's really good feedback. I think it was good. Oh, good, good. That's good to know the people are reading those. So first off, just to note, we added seven new metrics. So out of the feedback that we received, some really good comments. First two related to accessibility. First one is accessibility to city center. Second one is accessibility to the airport. So those are new. We added a metric that looked at the implications or impacts to traffic volumes at exit 12 from any of the additional interchanges. We looked at a series of arterial, so major roadways to look at how the volume changed on that road with and without the particular interchanges in place. We looked at changing impervious area or kind of paved area with the interchanges. We did a qualitative kind of high-level assessment of noise impacts or implications related to the interchanges. And then we dug in a bit deeper into the employment numbers. Previously we had looked at just count of new jobs coming in approximate to the interchanges. Here we factored in average wage rates and we'll get into some more detail when we get into that metric. So those seven are new metrics that have been added. In terms of the overall formatting of the metrics, two structural changes. The first was, if you can recall, we had two tables. One had the metric values in them and then the other one was kind of a duplicate but it had the zero to four scores, the kind of blue shading. And so you constantly kind of had to look back and forth between the two tables to see the metric value and then the scoring. So what we did, we took this opportunity to combine those. And so you can see in this little snip here as just an example, exit 12B scored as 0.1 acres of wetland impacts and the resulting score is a one, one point. So it just combines them into one, easier to see kind of in one location. And then set, yes, yep. Is that okay if I break in? Please, yeah. Just ask questions as we go along. I attended the last public meeting and I don't see and maybe you can clarify if you did mean to put it in here in one of these categories, but the impact on traffic volume on Dorset Street, on Kennedy Drive, that was something that I think is really important. Yeah, yep, that is definitely in here. That's this bullet here. Volume changes. Yep, this little snip here is just to show kind of how the table looks. We'll get into all the metrics. Oh, I got it, okay. Yeah, yeah, this is just kind of for a lesser of the purposes, really. That's why I'm glad you're there to answer my question. Well, yeah, that's a good question because I'm sure others had a similar question. So this is really to point out the fact that we combined the metric score, the metric value and then the score itself into one table. And then as Charlie alluded to, we broke out. So we now have one complete table that just looks at 12, be in 13 because there's one decision to be made across those three options. And then a separate table that looks at the two 14 alternatives just to make it clear that we're looking at two different decisions for those two sets of alternatives. And then lastly, the last update from a scoring perspective, if you recall, the last matrix that we've been looking at scored everything on a zero to four basis and basically just spread all four data points, all five data points. We have, at that time, we were looking at all five alternatives together. So 12 be the two 13s and two 14s. And we just took those five data points and spread them out evenly and said basically the lowest one got zero, the highest one got four, and not much math happening in between. We've now updated that. So for the 12 be in 13 alternatives, we're scoring them instead of zero to four since we only have three alternatives here. We scored them on a zero to two basis. And we used a standard deviation to kind of better reflect the proximity of the scores. And I'm happy to go into detail on this. If is anyone interested in how we use standard deviation or what we essentially did, we took, so for each metric, so for example, wetland impacts, we have three numbers. We have 0.1 acre, 1.4 acres, and 0.5 acres. We looked at the mean of these three as the first step. So whatever the average of these three values that establishes kind of the middle point. And then we calculate the standard deviation of these three. So how disparate are those three numbers? Which gets us this kind of spread. And so anything below half a standard deviation below that mean gets zero points. Anything that's half a standard deviation above that mean gets two points. And everything kind of between one standard deviation around the mean gets one point. So this, you know, from a kind of statistical standpoint, this I think this reflects the scoring much better because if the three data points are widely spread, it will reflect that and how we attribute the scoring. Whereas if they're very close together, it also kind of scales appropriately. So anyway, not to believe at that point, but that was a slight shift in how we assigned the zero to two scores for the 12B and 13 alternatives. Can I again ask a question? Please, yes. All right, so the river corridors there for exit 13, does that include removing, at least in one of the designs, you were removing that, you know, southward bound, you know, the one that connected to 89 southward bound, the one that, you know, heads east. Does that include the removal? Or is it in addition to? For that metric in the river corridors, we're only looking at new impacts. We didn't kind of credit any reduction in impacts. Is that what you're asking? Yeah, yeah, because if it's a wash, right, if you're just moving the, and you probably, I call it like a leg, right? If you're removing a leg, but adding it, you know, just a little bit further north, it just, it seems like it should be washed, to my mind anyway. We're, you know, in this response, I guess it applies to several metrics that in that, we're kind of straddling this place where we're still at a kind of a high level, kind of conceptual design for these interchanges. And things like kind of river corridors or wetland impacts, or really any natural resource impacts really benefits from having more detailed engineering plans so we know, you know, how much of this river corridor can be restored and, you know, reclaimed. We're not at that level of design that comes later, you know, years later when, you know, one of these projects moves forward. So it was a little bit difficult to enumerate exactly how many acres, you know, could be restored, in this case, or along the river corridor. So we opted to just go for what new, what currently unimpacted river corridors would be impacted by the interchange. But we have that finer detail in April when we meet. Is that too soon? That's too soon too. This level of the overall study itself, where we're all, you know, we won't ever really get that refined with the designs. Those designs, that level of design really starts once, you know, we move into the next phase, which is in this case would be likely an EIA, an environmental impact statement. So it's not really until that point that that level of detail, you know, where we do, you know, you would do a survey, a full-topographic survey of the river designed down to the inch. Thank you. Thank you, David, I got it. That makes sense because of the cost, I'm sure. But I just, I think it's important for people to understand that it would be removing that one ramp, right? And actually that whole line of 189 that heads east, and then, you know, you can either get off at Kennedy, you can head north to I-89 north, or you can head south on 189 south, right? That that would be just a whole, you know, two lanes of traffic with the exits, the ramps moving north. And that does get reflected, it's not here on this slide, but this impervious area when we get to the slide that shows the, oh no, I'm sorry, it does, it does. So the SBDI here does reflect the removal of that whole barrel of 189, but we're also, that alternative also rebuilds that eastbound barrel of 189 further north. So adjacent to the westbound barrel, I can bring up that. Just take where it's barrel. Yeah, the two lanes of. Like the barrel is a gun, like a gun. Yeah, the two lanes of eastbound 189 today would go away in the SBDI alternative, so we did count that as removed in pervious area in this 1.4 number. So it does get reflected, it just didn't get reflected in this river corridor metric. Thank you. Thank you. And then just lastly here, so the standard deviation was used to score the 12, be a 13, because we have three alternatives. For exit 14, since we only have two alternatives, we kept it very straightforward and just said, whichever of the two values was higher got one point, whichever was lower got zero points and didn't try to over complicate that. And then the last thing, just to note on the next couple of slides, as we get into the matrix, you'll see these little kind of red squares. Those are just indicative of the new metrics, the seven new metrics. So as we go through those slides, I'll focus on the new metrics, but you'll see the red just so you see which ones have been added since last time you've seen these. And so before we get into the matrix, just one thing here, won't go into detail here, but this is a summary of all of the 27 metrics that were identified through one of those meetings. So either discussions with you, with the city council, the committees or the public. So lots of really good thought and it was great to see how much thought people put into these metrics. You can see here, this middle column indicates if we included them or added them to the matrix. So the seven that were on the previous slide that I showed are the ones shown in green here. So those have all been added to the matrix and we've developed the metrics for those and scored them of the remainder, nine of them were identified as better suited for the bundle evaluation. So when we get into the next steps, so once we've identified the alternative, the interchanges, we then start to look at bundles for the entire corridor. And so nine of these we will be considering as we get into the next matrix, which is looking at the bundles. And then the remaining 11 of these were difficult, either difficult to score objectively, they were a little bit too squishy to kind of force into a numeric value or they were duplicative of metrics that we already have in the matrix. So that's just kind of summarizes the kind of the input that we've received in the last couple of weeks. So then moving on, these should look familiar kind of in terms of the layout and the blue shading. Again, this is the 12B and 13 alternative. So you can see we've got, in this case, there's two columns that go with each alternative. So 12B have the metric value and then the, oops, sorry, and then the score that goes along with that here and similarly for this alternative and then this alternative. And then these are the metrics that we're looking at. And so nothing new added here, other than just the kind of the reformatting, but no new metrics, these scores or these values are all as you've seen them before. The scores have changed since we're not looking at a zero to four scale anymore, the zero to two. But the metrics essentially say the same under this, this, which is the safety goal. So then moving on to the second goal, which is livable, sustainable and healthy communities. You can see here we did add this one, so accessibility to South Burlington City Center. Essentially what we looked at is the travel time change to access city center from either points North on 89, South on 89 or West on 189. And what we found is that all three interchange options did make it a little bit shorter to travel from those points to city center. X to 12B had the greatest decrease, so 4% decrease in travel time. It's right there, yeah. And you can see the values that went in there. So we were estimating about 18.8 minutes combined from those three locations and that drops down to 18 minutes with 12B and then so forth across the board. So that was how that one shook out for the livable, sustainable and healthy communities goal. The next goal is around mobility and efficiency. A couple of new metrics here. The first one is daily trips using exit 12. This is kind of a mirror of this one above, which you had seen last time. This one looked at changes to traffic at exit 14. So this one looks at changes to traffic at exit 12 and we can see here the exit 12B, which is the closest proximity-wise to exit 12 has the biggest impact. So if you build 12B, we've estimated about a 14% decrease in traffic at exit 12, much smaller decreases, but still decreases with the 213 options at exit 12. And then down here, the new metrics that were added are the change in daily traffic volumes at these locations. So Wilson Road, just east of exit 14, Dorset Street at the U-Mall and then south of 89, Hinesburg Road north and south of I-89 and then I-189, west of 89. So at those points, how does traffic change when you build one of these interchanges? We color coded them here just so you can see kind of where traffic went down with that interchange and where it went up. A couple of interesting things came out of this. We see exit 12B has the biggest impact, positive impact on traffic on Wilson Road. So about a 15% decrease on Wilson Road traffic from 12B, significantly smaller for the 213 options. That's reversed a bit for the Dorset Street, kind of a northern section Dorset Street. Those go down in the 15 to 17% with the two exit 13 alternatives and only 9% with the exit 12B. And then we look on the flip side. So Dorset Street south of 89 goes up across the board with each of these alternatives. A moderate increase with 12B. And then we see with the two 13 options, fairly significant increases. And what we're seeing here, the dynamic that's going on here is that once 13 becomes full service energy, people coming up from this house, from queer street. Is everyone able to hear me? David, I'm getting your voice twice. Yeah, somebody has their microphone on and they should turn it off so that we don't get any interference or echo. Yeah, so I will turn it off. Okay, again. Okay, we'll see how that goes. This one is interesting. So Dorset Street south of 89. This is really indicative of 13 becoming more attractive for trips, particularly south of the interstate. So people today who live south on Dorset Street or south on Spear Street would travel north and then turn left on Swift Street and come out by the Denny's on Shelburne Road and make that quick right and then a right turn onto 189 to get onto 89. So that's a pretty common route today using Swift Street to get onto 189. As soon as you make 13 accessible from Dorset Street, those trips no longer have to use Swift Street to cut over to Shelburne Road and can stay on Dorset Street all the way up to Kennedy Drive and then hop on the interstate. So we do see fairly significant increases there from exit 13. And again, similarly, a significant increase on Heinsberg Road south of 89 as a result of 12B, probably not surprisingly, you drop a new interchange on Heinsberg Road. You would imagine you'd see increased traffic. Here we see about 40% south of 89. It is interesting to note though, just north of 89, traffic actually goes down with exit 12B. And that's indicative of people from Heinsberg, Southeast Quadrant, places south who are coming up Dorset Street today. I'm sorry, come up Heinsberg Road. Today they would likely stay on Heinsberg Road all the way to Williston Road and then turn left to go to work in Burlington, for example. With exit 12B, they'll still come up Heinsberg Road but they'll get on the interstate at 12B and no longer continue north on Heinsberg Road. So even though there's an increase on Heinsberg Road south of 89, decrease north of 89. And then one last thing just to point out that these increases on Dorset Street south of 89 as a result of exit 13, the benefit of that is seen here in this last row. So 189 west of 89, the volumes go down with the two exit 13 alternatives because you no longer have those people routing kind of over on Swift Street, Shelburne Road on 189. So that was a lot of content there but basically you can see kind of how each of those volumes change with the interchanges and then the resulting scores that came out of those. And Dave, I'll just add one thing. We looked at a lot of other roadways in this. This is the top, what is that? Top six in terms of their impact. So this was pretty much anything that had a 10% or higher change. We do have the statistics if you're interested in looking at other roads and the changes in volumes on those other roads but just know that they are in the single digits in terms of changes, plus or minus. Thank you, Charlie. Helen, can I ask a follow-up question? Okay, I'm gonna assume yes. Did you include Shelburne Road, Route 7 in that list? No, we have now looked at Shelburne Road. So there is, we did develop some mapping that shows this, not at this level of detail. And when we looked at the map, Shelburne Road didn't show up as any significant changes in volume. So we did not look at it. It's a fairly easy thing to look at but we have not looked at it so far. At this level, we haven't. Yeah, even with that 23% increase or 33% increase, that's interesting. Okay, the other question, it was the previous slide and I'm sorry, I had to do with environmental, I think equity, environmental justice underserved populations. I didn't hear you say something about that. Was there something that we should note? Yeah, and I'm happy to go into detail in any of these metrics. I was really just focusing on the new metrics just to save or not bore you with going through each metric. I'm happy, please do ask if you want the details. So I did skip over these first three. But yeah, the environmental justice metric stays the same as it was last time when we presented it. So this looks at the change in travel time for kind of sensitive populations, underserved populations and compares them to the rest of the population. So if we build 12B or 13, are trips getting longer for those underserved communities at a higher rate than the rest of the county? Is it disproportionate benefit or impact those communities? And essentially the answer was no. We saw very, very minimal, these are minutes here. So 0.019 more minutes of travel for those underserved communities. So less than a second of additional time. And so we basically just scored these all as ones. And I didn't point out, you can see this asterisk here that does reference down here. So not enough difference between the raw values. So in this case, we did force these all to be the same since even though there's a little bit of spread, they're all such low numbers, we scored them all as ones. Okay, okay, so all of, you know, Kennedy Drive tends to have, you know, some maybe underserved populations towards it. So we didn't see an impact on them. And does Kennedy Drive appear in the list of roads when you were looking at the bottom of traffic that would be impacted? Just to clarify one piece on the first part of what you were asking, I don't believe any census tracks in South Burlington came up. You know, we used EPA's guidelines for identifying these underserved communities. And that's really based on percentage of minority population and income. And if I recall, I don't have the map readily accessible in my head, but I don't know that there was any in South Burlington. You know, there's several blocks in Manuski, couple of them in I think St. George, maybe a couple in South Burlington, in Shelburne, if I recall right. So that's just so you know, so we were using kind of census data and EPA guidelines to select those underserved communities. And then to your second question was, you're asking if we looked at Dorset Street, is that? It was Kennedy, because yeah, I was thinking about it. We did look at Kennedy Drive and those were less than 10% fairly minimal changes. So those are not represented here in this, on this view. It is in the master spreadsheet, but we didn't choose to score that since the volume changes were relatively low. Charlie, I would love to see that spreadsheet with all the fine detail, if you are willing to send it. Okay, so moving forward, the next goal is environmental stewardship. In this case, the two new metrics. First one we touched on on the previous slide. So this is impervious area. So the change in impervious area at the interchanges. And you can see here the exit 12B adds the most impervious. These are all in acres. So about three acres of new impervious, two acres with the hybrid and 1.4 with the SPDI. And then the other new metric here, we did look at noise impacts. Doing a rigorous noise evaluation was not, there wasn't the time to be able to complete kind of a full noise evaluation in the time we had. So we consulted with our internal noise expert and basically just got a good level of assessment of the noise impacts that he would deem would be resulting from these new interchanges. And we kept it at a fairly high level of rating. So basically low, medium, or high noise impacts. And so we see 12B and 13 both with relatively high impacts. And particularly these are related to distance to the nearest receptor, in this case, the nearest residential home from the proposed interchange. So 12B, there are some homes fairly close in the Northwest quadrant. And then exit 13 does have some home apartments in the Southeast quadrant of the interchange. So those are both fairly close. The SBDI is also fairly close, but it is pulling in some of the ramps. And actually some of the off ramps will be elevated. And so they'll actually serve as a noise buffer or a noise barrier between the interstate itself and those apartments in the Southeast quadrant by building that new off ramp for the SBDI. So we felt that it's slightly less noise impacts from the SBDI alternative. I'm sorry, David. Yep, yep. Yeah, I just, you're here and I wanna. Yeah, please, yeah, yeah. The percent change network trip robustness, the NTR. Yes, yes. That one is probably the least intuitive of all these metrics. It's a good metric, but it's hard to describe it. What it looks at is the kind of the grittedness of the network, how robust is the network to handle a catastrophic event. So if a truck tractor trailer turns over, how does the network respond in that situation? And so in this case, a higher number is better. And so when we ran the numbers, this is kind of a tried and true model. We found that the SBDI results in the most of the three, the most robust network. And then the hybrid is the middle and 12B what we found is actually it's slightly reduction to the overall network robustness. Thank you very much. Mm-hmm, yep. Hey, David, this is Tim. How come the gas consumption at 12B goes up so much? Yeah, it is, and thank you for pointing this out. I forgot to mention this. There was a subtle change here from the last, the last time you saw this, this was a daily number. We were looking at daily gallons of fuel consumed. The small chains were basically just multiplied everything by 365 just to show annual numbers. So that's just a kind of a bookkeeping change. But to answer your question, Tim, this is primarily driven by the additional, the secondary growth that's projected to happen around 12B. So we've got additional growth that's not factored into the kind of trip making in exit 13 since the Delphi panel that we convened did not determine much significant secondary growth happening around exit 13. But if you would build, if 12B were there as the Delphi panel assumed there'd be extra growth, that extra growth adds trips and that those trips consume gas. And so that's really why this number is higher than these other two. And that's within a certain circumference or radius of the, if I understood correctly from the beginning. This is actually across the entire county. So this is what this is saying in, if everything plays out exactly as we've expected in 2050, the Chittenden County will consume about 15 million gallons of fuel. So that's a countywide number. So up to 33,153 number. This is just the difference between these two. So if we don't build any new interchanges, we would assume the county would consume 14.87 million gallons of fuel. And so it's 33,000 more is what 12B would generate. So the question I guess I have is I see this minus here and does it have nothing to do with the biking and all of the other infrastructure that was intended to reduce, what is it? What was the magic word that Charlie used? The amount of traffic, though. Yeah, that's a good question and that can be confusing. This 2050 base scenario already has those kind of transportation, demand management, the transit, the bicycle pedestrian infrastructure that Charlie has talked about that's in the metropolitan transportation plan. All of those benefits are already factored into this 14.871. We could in theory have another column that just says 2050 kind of no-build. Like if all those things that are built into the long-range plan, if those weren't enacted, the shift to change in modes, more transit use, more bikes and peds, this would probably be a much higher number as a baseline, but we're already starting from a lower number. We're assuming that those things are already in place. So what this is saying, this negative 2077 is purely due to shorter trips made with exit 13 in place. So does that, have you already factored in the emergence of more and more electric cars or not? Or is that a whole nother thing? I mean, if this isn't built for 10 or 20 years, it's hard to imagine what all the vehicle fleet really will be. Yeah, we piggybacked on the CCRPC's MTP assumptions that 90% of the fleet would be electric by 2050. And so that's also baked into this number here. Okay, thank you. So you did say that there would be shorter trips. Could you explain that? Is that because there would be less pressure to develop around 12B, and so that growth would occur more slowly? Or is it because of another reason? There's probably the main reason for these decreases is that dynamic I was explaining on the previous slide where those people coming up from the South, who today, if you're coming up Dorset or Spear Street, you've got a turn left to go Swift over to Shelburne Road and then 189, that's like an extra mile of distance where if you could just stay on Dorset Street all the way up to Kennedy Drive and then hop on the interstate, you save a mile on that trip. And then when you multiply that by all the trips that are happening over the course of the day, that starts to add up. So it's that kind of shortening of a trip where people don't have to detour around to get on or take a long trip to get onto the interstate once you build 13, it's more easily accessible for those people, particularly from the South. You're saying that people might travel from Dorset Street or Spear Street all the way to exit 12B? Is that a potential conclusion or deduction that one could make? We didn't really see that happening all that much. It was more the shift from Dorset Street to use exit 13 if exit 13 gets built without a good kind of East West connector as you're all very well aware, between Dorset and Hinesburg Road, that connection is a little bit harder to make. But because Swift Street is a quick connection from Dorset Street and Spear Street over to Shelburne Road, a lot of people are using that. They would no longer need to do that once if 13 were built. Thanks very much. Thank you. I have one more question. If the growth around 12B were to happen natively anyway, because there is developable land there and there's demand for it. And if the development of 12B didn't really produce, I mean, if it wasn't responsible for the growth in traffic and the development was gonna happen anyway, would that number actually be negative rather than positive because there would be greater access to the interstate and less driving around trying to get to an entrance on the interstate? Likely, yes, yeah, yeah. Okay. Purely adding, if you take out that secondary growth dynamic, those that extra growth that we're adding on top of the demographic projections, if that wasn't a factor, I would guess that this would be a negative number as well, because for the exact point you raised him, it does shorten trips because it's just easier to get onto the interstate. Yeah, okay, thanks. Helen, just a quick, hi, David, thank you for this. Just a quick question. What is, you're saying that your inputs for 2050 are that only 10% of the vehicles on the roadways are internal combustion engines, is that correct? That's correct, yep. And then the follow-up is regarding 12B and development. You mentioned the other model, I forget what it was called. What type of growth are you projecting in that area of 12B should the interchange be built? Yeah, so the other source was actually a group of six people. So this was the Delphi panel that we pulled together and Paul Conner was part of that group. We had three kind of public sector folks and then three private sector developers and brought them together for a multi-hour session to really kind of use them as an expert panel to say, okay, if we were to add a new interchange here or here or here, what would you, what order of magnitude would you estimate as the kind of secondary growth that would be triggered? So not necessarily a model, a kind of statistical model, but more an expert panel that weighed in on this. And so they were the ones that developed kind of the estimate of growth, both in at 12B, it was both employment and new housing. So they did come up with estimates for the number of new jobs and number of new housing units around there. And then the further conclusion from that panel was of the new housing units and new jobs that would locate in this case around 12B, some portion of those would come from outside of the county or maybe even outside of the state, but then another portion of those would come from kind of other places within Chittenden County, maybe more further field. So in some cases, some portion of those jobs and houses moved from, you know, the more rural areas of Chittenden County and another portion of those came in are brand new to the county or new to the state. So is that, is that, I'm sorry if you've already done that, is that something you can share with us, the summary of that? Yes, yes, we, I'm pretty sure it's been sent out at one point, but we'll definitely be sent, there's a kind of summary memo that describes how all of those numbers were generated, but we'll certainly be sure to do that. Yep, okay. So moving on, economic access, here we have two new metrics. The first one looked at employment opportunities and I think it was Helen who mentioned before, kind of thinking that we're looking within a certain radius of an interchange and these are the metrics that we're looking at, at that kind of one mile circle around the interchanges. So in this case, we looked at the number of new jobs that were projected to fall within a mile of the interchange in 2050. And so this row here, these are the number of new jobs added between 2020 and 2050. So over those 30 years, the second row here are the total number of jobs that counts the jobs that are there today plus those new ones that are added between 2020 and 2050. So that's this set of numbers here. We then went one additional step and looked at the wages that those potential jobs would generate at those different locations. And those are based on kind of a combination of two things. One was the demographic forecasts that have been developed and adopted by the CCRPC make assumptions within each traffic analysis zone what percentage of those jobs would be manufacturing, industrial, retail, service. And so we have a sense of kind of within each zone, traffic zone, what percentage of those new jobs will be what classification. And then we went and pulled the average wages for each of those types of those job classifications. And so project managers and executives get paid higher than retail jobs. And so when we went and factored in the number of new jobs, which are these numbers, oops, sorry, these numbers, but then multiply those by the average wage that each of those jobs would be getting around those interchanges. That's where we generated these numbers. And so what this is saying, and it's a bit of a stretch to kind of get your head fully around the metric, but what it's essentially saying is that these are in millions of dollars. So if you were to build Exit 12B, you would get another 3,000 new jobs and that they would have the opportunity to generate approximately $175 million in new ages. And that's in comparison to Exit 13. So the 2,400, 2,500 jobs around Exit 13 would only generate, in this case, $123 million of new wages. This row right above it is just kind of informational, but it does show that this Exit 12B has been identified as a kind of a higher wage zone than the area around Exit 13. So we have a kind of combination. We have slightly more jobs going into 12B and a higher average wage, the salary for those jobs. So that's why this- Within a mile of radius though, right? You say within a mile radius of that interchange. Correct, yep. So that it doesn't necessarily mean that there wouldn't be managers and executives that would be who would be living in new homes built off of, you know, Hinesburg Road. It would just mean it's not within a mile radius of Exit 13. Well, and importantly, this is looking at the job themselves, not necessarily where those people live. That's not being factored here. It's the jobs themselves. Job itself. Thank you. So what this says, you know, it's based on these numbers that you're more likely to get slightly higher paying jobs around 12B than 13. That's kind of the bottom line, what the number shows. Dave, just so if I can interject, I put in the chat a link to the technical memo that talks about the secondary growth issues. And also I added just a real quick summary of the number of new housing units from within and outside the county that would come to the 12B area as well as the 450 new jobs. Just if you wanna check the chat real quick, you can see some of those numbers. Great, thank you, Charlie. And then so this last metric on this screen, this is airport access. So in a previous goal, we looked at access to city center. This one looks at accessibility to the airport. It's a similar approach. We looked at the travel time changes from points north, south and west of the airport and how long it takes with and without the interchanges. So what we found, about 27 minutes from those three areas combined to get to the airport. If you build these interchanges, we see the biggest decrease from 12B, so about 11% decrease in travel time. So about three minutes less on average to get to the airport from 12B. Only marginal decreases from 13, accessing the airport. All right, and then this is all. How do you get to see it? Go back to that, the decrease from 12B, airport access. Yeah, it's kind of counterintuitive to me too, I have to agree. I mean, you get a direct shot from 12B to the airport. You can't get any closer to the airport that you can't. Are you mean 13? Are you mean 13? All right, so it's smaller. Okay, all right, so it goes down. Okay, good, thank you. Yes, it definitely goes down, yeah. Say that again, because 13, if the 13 SPDI is a straight shot onto Kennedy Drive, which dumps into the airport. I mean, that's why it was built. Yeah, but why does that take longer than getting off on Heinzburg Road, driving down Heinzburg, and then having to turn right onto Kennedy? Well, what this one, if you think about that, if you think of a trip that's, let's say at exit 11 in Richmond and they're going to the airport, if exit 13, if the SBDI were built, they would still likely get off at exit 12 because that would be, that's still the shortest path rather than driving all the way to 13 and then coming back on Kennedy Drive. So that's why there's not much of a benefit for 13. And a similar case coming from the North, it's still shortest path to get off at exit 14. There are, there is some slight savings on, if you're coming across on 189, that you can continue straight across, but you can do that today. So there's not really much benefit in terms of airport accessibility. But that same trip from Richmond, if there was a 12B, they would pass exit 12 and go to 12B because that then becomes the shortest path. Does that make sense? Yes, when you think of people coming that far south and that, yeah. Okay. It just depends on traffic lights, I guess, but you factor that in. Yeah. And then this is the last goal, no new metrics here. This does look at the costs kind of in three different ways. So construction costs to build the interchanges is this first row. The second one is the cost to maintain all of the other assets. So bridges and culverts at those three interchanges. And then this last row is the combined total to maintain all of the assets plus build that interchange. And you can see some differentiation here. The hybrid is the lowest cost to build and also the lowest cost overall once you factor in the asset maintenance cost. Interestingly, the SBDI is the most expensive to build at 61 million, but not the most expensive overall because the 61 million ends up replacing or removing a lot of the aging culverts and bridges so you don't have to replace or repair those. And so the kind of asset maintenance cost goes down significantly. So when you add these two together, we're at about 109 million. In this case, 12B is the most expensive overall when you factor in the asset maintenance cost at 117 million. And so that brings us through all of the metrics and gets us to the bottom line. And I'll pass it back to Charlie to kind of walk through the slide. We can you go back for a second? Just I'm sorry. I just wanted to ask another question too. Go ahead, Tim. Yeah, well, so if you don't add exit 12B, you still have maintenance costs, right, on 13. That's this 94 million. So if you don't build any of these interchanges, it's gonna be 94 million to maintain all those bridges and culverts at those three interchanges. Right, right. So, okay, so you, but 12B is gonna be 117 million. One way to think of it, you know, if you build 12B, it's 29 million in kind of new construction. And then you could say 94 million of all of the asset maintenance costs, except for the fact that when you build 12B, you're removing the Heinsberg Road Bridge, which is about $6 million. So you no longer have to maintain that bridge. And so that decreases this cost because you took an aging piece of equipment out of it. That's one piece of infrastructure you have to, you get to replace. Right, okay. And then when you think about the SBDI, for example, we're taking out that entire roadway with all the culverts underneath it, the bridge over Spear Street, we're picking out a lot of kind of aging assets, which is why this number is so much lower. Okay, thank you. And then are those dollars, $20, $21, if we were to do this tomorrow, these are the costs and the savings or is it, you know, some made up dollars in 2050? These are all present dollars. We didn't try to estimate inflation or future costs. Okay, thank you. Okay. Yeah, so this slide is, you haven't seen this slide before. This is kind of the summary of the scoring that you just saw just for 12B and 13 options, right? In the first set there, this is 35, 36, 42, that's just taking the numbers that you saw up above and just summing them up. So essentially all the criteria or the each metric is just scored equally. However, what we've done in the second part that says normalized is we said, well, you know, maybe there's only one metric for system preservation, but there's seven metrics for the environment. How do we equalize the goals? And so some of those that had a low number of metrics, we had to multiply that number to normalize it so that each of the goals are equal. So I think about this as like, each metric is equal in the top part, each of the goals is equal in the bottom part. Yeah, the numbers don't change dramatically in terms of their ranking, you know, one, two, three, but that's how it comes out. So I think some question for you on this that we'd like any feedback of, you know, and the bottom scores there, what it says normalized, this is making each of the goals equal to each other. Is that the right thing to do? Should we, you know, do you feel like we should be waiting one of those goals more than another, less than the others? I know there was some discussion, you know, when we had the committee meetings a week or two ago about this in at least one of the groups, but any feedback, thoughts, you know, and this is really the policy layer, right? You know, values matter here. This is not necessarily objective. I'm sorry, Tom. So I just wanna say system preservation, can you explain to me why that would be weighted so heavily at 4.33? Refresh my memory as to what system preservation means to you in this scoring. Yeah, that's that cost factor and that's because there's only one metric there. So to equalize it with other, oh, I'm sorry, it has three metrics. Okay. The number of metrics shows up over here. So you can see, you know, how many metrics each goal had. So like mobility efficiency at 13 versus three for system preservation, which is why that was such a high adjustment. Well, in the council breakout group, and then when I did read all the other minutes, I think maybe bike and pet and another one suggested that safety should be weighted more heavily. So I just put it out there. I still think that it ought to be weighted a little more heavily. One thing just to point out quickly, the green shading here indicates which of the three alternatives scored the best for that goal. So just look at the maximum value. But you know, so safety, the SBDI scored the most. It had one point more than the other two. So if we were to weight this double, what it would do is essentially increase the spread. It would give the SBDI even more points. You know, so you'd still end up with the SBDI coming in first. And I'm not saying safety shouldn't be weighted differently, but just you can kind of use these green things to kind of intuit what would happen if you were to adjust the weighting, if that makes sense. So as I look at these numbers, and it's the first time I've seen this. So I apologize if you provided this in advance. I'm most taken aback by the environmental stewardship because that's really swinging this. That's what's creating this major difference in both the weighting and the difference in scoring. So when I go back to that slide, I can't help but keep going up the questions that Tim was raising about the fuel calculations. And I just don't see how that increase in the fuel and then is really not capturing the fact that we want development to be closer to Burlington and not further out far away, thus creating more fuel emissions. And also the other efficiencies that could come with parking rides and so on. So I guess that's where I'm seeing the actual final results of one, two, and three swinging the most from this slide right here with that nine to a three and then the weighting score. So I guess my question is on the fuel consumption. That seems to be a large factor on this. I want to understand how natural habitats would be so negatively affected, but that's where I guess I need to educate myself more on this topic. Was there any consideration for like engineering sort of intangibles, like the engineering difficulty of affecting the 13 SDI or the 13 hybrid versus the 12V? I mean, you can engineer anything if you want, but every piece of land is shaped differently and has its own challenges, apart from drainage and things like that, just the attempt to reshape the flow of traffic in a certain way where it hasn't done that before. It presents sort of a challenge. And I'm just curious, I mean, you don't have it in here included as a scored item, but if you had like a construction engineer look at these things, I mean, would they have an opinion that you thought would be valuable at all? Or is it just lumped into the fact that it's part of the cost? It's a good question. It is certainly factored into the cost. And so the cost estimation, I think one could interpret difficulty to engineer as just meaning it's going to cost more to engineer it. It doesn't take any more effort to click in AutoCAD if it's a complex design, right? It just means it's going to take more time to design it. And so we did factor in the complexity in terms of the overall cost. And then we looked at things like traffic management or traffic control during construction. Some of these ones that are more complicated, like 12B, for example, can largely be built off interstate, but exit 13, the two, particularly that's BDI, that, I mean, you've got some significant implications to I-89. So that one, we factored in a very significant traffic control cost, knowing that there's going to be big impacts to the motor and public. So we did factor in some of those complexities into the cost around kind of traffic management and then the design costs are certainly factored in. The design itself is just a percentage of the total cost. And so as the construction costs gets more expensive, the design is just a 10% multiplier of that total cost. So that factors in kind of those complexities in the design. Okay. Thanks. Going back to safety, I don't know if this was an issue that was part of the safety consideration, but I'm looking at 12B and the off ramp runs into Tilly Drive and all along Tilly Drive, with the exception of a new little deli mark, is medical offices, many of which heal or work with the elderly population. And I walk along Tilly Drive a lot and I see the cars and the people creeping out of their parking lots. And it just seems like they'd be a whole lot more traffic. Brandon, do you have a light which helps if people look at the light? But it just seems like there might be a different kind of safety impact there that we haven't thought about. That's a good point. We didn't get down to that level of detail in the safety analysis. One thing that I think is likely to happen, and you all probably have a better sense of this, but the new roadway that we'll go through from Tilly Drive north through the Itzgalli properties and then through the O'Brien farm, I imagine that would be built before an exit 12B would be built and so that if people are getting off the interstate here, they would have the option, they could turn left on Tilly Drive to get out to Hinesburg Road, but my hunch is that there's gonna be quite a few people continuing straight to go up to Kimball Ave or maybe even turning left to go on the new connector into Tech Park and then head from there. So I don't know that necessarily everyone getting off at that future date would all be making the left to drive down Tilly Drive, but certainly some would. And I think your point is a valid one about the population who's out there. The other side of that point is that the new bridge that would replace the one that's there now at 12B would be safer for cyclists, right? Because there's hardly any room on that as there is today. Yep, and the design does factor in a new shared use path on one side and a sidewalk on the other side of the bridge over the interstate. So much improved facilities. If I could jump in here, I've been watching the chat. Sandy has been asking questions to Charlie and I direct everyone's attention there. Charlie to follow up on the data that you provide regarding the 350 or 80 homes, I close the chat. I can't recall. Is that because there are more jobs that are created and therefore the people that would be moving here for the jobs, that's the driver for that housing and people moving here? Or is it something else? I'll ask Dave to try that last. Dave, I'm sorry. No, no, no, no, we were both in the conversations. He just may remember that a little bit better. But I think when the Delphi panel was talking about that, they were just saying it was going to be an attractive place for housing. And so it would attract additional housing and jobs. It wasn't, certainly Chittenden County has its own attraction, but that new level of access would make that specific area more attractive to new residents. Dave, do you remember any more detail about Delphi's discussion? Yeah, that was generally my recollection. I think there might have been some comment to the effect that with all of these new jobs locating there, there'd probably be a stronger desire to live closer to those jobs. But I think generally you're right. I think they just felt that that area was conducive to more housing if there was an interchange there. And the other question. Don't worry, I'm just to add some more color to this. I think on one of the other presentations, you noted that there would be fewer houses in Colchester as a result of some of these interchanges. And so I'm assuming what might have been built in Colchester would your anticipating would be built in South Burlington? I hope I didn't pick on Colchester so exclusively. I hope I just mentioned that town as an example. But if you look at the chat, you'll see the conversation that we had with the Delphi panel and the analysis that followed that conversation split the housing growth into two parts. One, as you mentioned, Helen, attracting some growth that would happen in other towns in Chittenden County to this area. And then another chunk of housing that would come from outside the county would be likely to come to this area. Again, people that are part of the greater Burlington labor market, but maybe don't live in Chittenden County yet might have the opportunity to be closer in. Well, I remember a map or something and it just showed a reduction in, it was probably Colchester and the north end of Burlington. And that was linked to my question, is this a zero sum game? Would we be taking attraction away from one area and putting it into South Burlington? Would we be the magnet for businesses that might decide to leave a place or not settle in another place because of this interchange? We have that kind of. So this is all grounded in the demographic forecasting that we did with all the towns, right? So there's a certain amount of growth and Dave may remember these numbers better than I can. But, sorry, I know I started off this presentation a month ago with these numbers, right? We have like 35,000 jobs and 25,000, 24,000 housing units. Does that sound right, Dave? Yeah, I think so. Yeah, and so those are across the whole county, right? Between like 2015 to 2020 and 2050. So that's 30, 35 years worth of growth. And I think those numbers are right. If someone remembers better, please update me. But so what we're talking about is out of that 24,000 housing units, 300, and I'm sorry. Now I've got to go back to the chat myself to see what I typed. 155 would probably relocate from within the county. So that is that a little bit of your zero to some point, Reagan, I guess so. There'd be 155 that might locate in this area and then 186 added on top of coming from outside the county. So it's pretty small percentage compared to the total amount of growth. But to Councilor Emery's point, this really is factoring on these corporate office space that right next to these tech parks which would be higher paid jobs as you illustrated on one of your slides. So as much as there might be a relocation of current employers, the spaces they're coming from will be backfilled with other jobs. And to the point you made earlier, these would be higher paid jobs. We could attract the companies that want to grow here in Silicon Forest, as I've heard John Dinklage call it before by fostering the growth in these two tech parks right next to 12V. While I still have the floor really quick, the 4.33, if you could explain the waiting for the system preservation, because if you tweak that and you view it increased mobility and efficiency, it's all in these waiting. So could you go over that where you came up with these numbers and why system preservation is so high? Yeah, this cell is just the number of metrics in that goal. So three divided by the maximum number. So it's three over 13, I'm sorry, flip the other way, 13 over three gets the 4.33. 13 over five gets you the 2.6, 13 over seven gets you 1.6. And then 13 over 13 gets you the 1.0. So it's just that straight map. Okay, well then that's where we really need to have a discussion, which is I think what you said when you framed the slide is this is the policy discussion if those weights seem arbitrary and that doesn't actually apply a weight to each of the sub metrics. So instead you're asking the council as well as other stakeholders to really think about these weightings, to see how much they align with our priority goals for the region, the city and the state. Yeah. And we should also talk about the place itself, what's around exit 13, what's around exit 12. I've been following, I've put out there maybe you've seen it, but I think that the style of any kind of growth or development or redevelopment should respect the place. And so I really think that we have to take that into consideration. And it's, we need to look at the natural area, we need to look at the human component and determine what is appropriate there. I think that is a smart decision, it's a sustainable kind of mindset and methodology. And the article I put out there is the Pritzker Prize that two architects in France won because of this respecting of the place, respecting of the natural environment, respecting of the human environment and just redeveloping as opposed to building and tearing down and rebuilding and tearing down and rebuilding just really using what's there and enhancing what's there. And if I could go back to Senator Chittin's point about the weighting, the factors there, the scoring really, what that does is it equally weights each of the goals. Right, so it gets them all on a 13 point scale essentially, 4.3, three times three for system preservation, it makes that work 13 points. So that's what being normalized means that all those goals in those final set of scores, the goals, those seven goals are equally weighted. So if you want to change more weight on a different goal, this is great feedback. I'd love this in the spreadsheet just so I could play with some numbers, but I think it's important for the council, I don't know what the next steps are on this, but if the council is one very important stakeholder wants to think about those weightings, I think it's important for us to reflect how important safety is relative to living sustainable and healthy communities versus each of the others and not just this arbitrary calculation based on how many sub metrics there are. Nothing against what you presented today. I can see where you're coming from and I hope that wasn't taken as a slight. All I'm saying is this weighting is where all the magic is happening. And I think it's useful, as you said, as the policy discussion for us to engage in. The top part doesn't have it weighted. And the numbers are essentially the same. Well, it's a lot closer. It doesn't change. Right, but then you're saying safety is exactly equal to living sustainable and healthy communities, which is exactly equal to mobility. So my only point is I wanna echo what Charlie said, which is a useful policy discussion to discuss these weightings. Well, then that's the discussion, what are most important and not whether you normalize it to get a different number that reflects equal. Okay. A quick question for Charlie. In the modeling for the growth along Hinesburg Road, they obviously took into account like a full buildout of the Meadowland Industrial Park, right? And they probably took into account probably some buildout scenario for Hill Farm, the finishing of the Rye property. And, but did they look at like the Chittenden solar facility, which has a 25 year lifespan of which I think seven, eight, or eight years have passed already. So by the time this happens, that may end up being developed because they can just pull those panels and just build houses if they wanted to, depending upon what the LDR is there, not to mention all the land that's south of Butler Farms, right? Which has yet to be developed as well. So were those in part of the model for housing developments? Not to mention Cider Mill 2, which apparently is starting up now, right? So I'm gonna give you a very generic answer, which is that the demographic forecast are not built on a site by site buildup. It's more of a top down what's happening in the market. So, you know, how much is Vermont growing? Okay, that's good to know. How much share of that growth does Chittenden County get? Which may be the reverse, right? May not be growing at all or maybe losing population and Chittenden County is actually growing in population, which is, I think, more of a truthful statement. And then within Chittenden County, we try to take that amount of county-wide growth and do some allocation. I will express some level of less than 100% confidence that those numbers are exactly right. As a matter of fact, I will express 100% confidence that they are wrong, but we just have to reject so exactly by how much. And so, and I'm really trying to get a long way to your question of does it incorporate all of the growth planned at every single one of those office parks or industrial parks or residential sites? I'm gonna say no, over the 20 or 30 year horizon that we were looking at, 30 year horizon to 2050, it does not include full build out of every single one of those parcels. As a matter of fact, our forecasts are lower than they were 20 years ago. You know, I think in 2000, we forecasted a population of 200,000 people in Chittenden County by 2020. We're not close there, right? We're like, maybe I'm gonna guess 160-ish, maybe 165,000. And so we lowered the growth rate in Chittenden County actually decreased from previous projections. So it's not a full build out. And thank you, Jason, for posting the actual numbers, which are 21,800 more people, 14% increase, 15 and a half thousand more households, a 20% increase and 47,000 more jobs, which is a 35% increase, which kind of tells you at least as we had the economists look at it, we're still definitely the job center and still building more houses or a faster increase in housing than people. So things are still growing but they've slowed down some. So sorry, long answer to your question, Tim. Are you gonna move on to exit 14 tonight? If that's your pleasure, I'm ready to do it. Yeah, let's, maybe that can go a little faster because we're just comparing two alternatives. Yes. Okay. I mean, that was your intention, right? Is to- Yeah. Okay, so maybe if there's, we should find out if there's any more questions or thoughts at this moment about exit 12B and the 213s, we still have time for input, but, and then if there aren't any, we can move on to 14. Megan, did you wanna say something? You have a funny little symbol next to your picture. I do? I'm not even seeing anybody. Oh, I have like the three right answers, like you're sitting. You're often thinking. I'm definitely, all right, thanks just to let us know. Okay, so if there aren't any more questions at this moment in time, then why don't we move on to the 214? Okay. See how far we can go. We have a, yeah. Yeah, this should go quicker. It's the same layout, same new metrics. And the only difference here in terms of scoring, as I mentioned before, it's just zero and one. And so, whichever had the better score got one point, whichever had the worst score got zero points. So no standard deviations here. So safety, nothing changed here. Again, we're looking at the two exit 14. So we have the enhanced clover leaf alternative and then the diverging diamond interchange alternative. So that's safety. And then under livable, sustainable and healthy communities. Again, looking at accessibility to South Burlington city center. Very minimal changes here. Basically a 10th or two tenths of a minute difference. Slightly better improvement for the DDI. So it does get the one point, but not a huge differentiation in accessibility to the city center compared to what we saw for exit 12B. Under mobility and efficiency, we looked again at exit 12, the impacts to traffic at exit 12. We're looking at new interchanges at 14. So we're so far removed, we didn't see much of a difference, less than a percentage up or down either direction. And then here looking at changes in daily traffic volumes, these are some of the same and a couple of different roads that we looked at. Then when we looked at the 12B and 13 alternatives. So here for 14, we looked at Wilson Road at Wind Jammer again. Minimal and fairly minor changes to the traffic on Wilson Road. Dorset Street at the U mall, we saw the DDI had a slightly better benefits to Dorset Street on kind of Northern segment Dorset Street. Importantly though, these are two new ones that we didn't look at previously. So Winooski Main Street bridge over the Winooski River. So that's just south of the circulator. And then Lion Kiln Road bridge over the Winooski River just south of St. Mike's. The reason we looked at those is because one of the dynamics we saw, if you recall at the last meeting, we were talking about how the diverging diamond interchange and to a lesser extent, the enhanced cloverleaf reduces capacity a little bit at the interchange. So today we have a full cloverleaf at exit 14. It's in process a lot of traffic. May not be the most safe way to process traffic and may not be the easiest to get by on foot, but it's great for moving cars through a cloverleaf. And so as soon as you do anything to reduce the radiuses as we did in the enhanced cloverleaf or add signals as the DDI does, we do kind of reduce the radius of the pipe that the water's flowing through. So we reduce the capacity. And so what we saw kind of an unintended consequence of that is that by shrinking the capacity of exit 14, we're pushing traffic onto alternative routes. And in this case, people are taking the, more people are taking the Winooski Main Street bridge or Lion Kiln Road to avoid getting, taking 89 and getting off at exit 14. It's not a huge number in the single digits of percentage, but it is I think an important consideration that we see with the DDI that we don't see with the enhanced cloverleaf. And Dave, are those as Lion Kiln Bridge? I mean, at five o'clock on an afternoon when I'm trying to get my daughter to ballet, it can be pretty backed up on Lion Kiln. Is this where we want to put more traffic? I personally would say no. And similarly, Winooski Main Street bridge also doesn't look great at 4.30 in the afternoon. And so, both of these are pretty congested segments of roadway. So I would argue no, you wouldn't want to put more traffic over there, which is why this got zero points and the smaller reduction got the one point. Okay, moving on to environmental stewardship. We saw a big swing in impervious area. So the enhanced cloverleaf, we're adding in, if you recall from the plans, we're adding in new connector, collector distributor roads along the interstate to allow for the kind of weaving movements to happen. That's essentially one new lane for almost a mile and a half in each direction. So that adds up pretty quickly. So that's what drives this impervious area for enhanced cloverleaf. The DDI does shrink things. We remove some of the ramps so we actually have less impervious with the DDI. And then from a noise impact perspective, we saw the enhanced cloverleaf is gonna be moderate or medium impacts, not really much change at the sensitive properties. The DDI does get rid of or does move some of the ramps in closer to the center of the interchange. So we're pulling some of those external, those further out ramps away from the residences and the hotels at the kind of the four quadrants. So we do see a slightly less opportunity for noise impacts with the DDI. Under economic access, this one's kind of not nearly as juicy as the previous time. In this case, that one mile radius around exit 14 is the same for both the enhanced cloverleaf and the DDI. So we get the same results. Similarly, these are all the same because that one mile radius is the same in both cases. So the economic access doesn't show a lot of change when we look at new jobs. There is a difference in the airport access though. We did see the DDI being a slightly better option for reducing travel times to the airport than the enhanced cloverleaf was. And lastly here, system preservation. The enhanced cloverleaf is slightly more expensive. So 44 million versus 37 million. But then when you factor in those asset maintenance costs, we see the DDI ends up with the most expensive price tag because it doesn't quite affect as many of the assets as the enhanced cloverleaf does. So while the enhanced cloverleaf is more expensive as a standalone project overall, it's the less expensive of the two options when you factor in the asset maintenance costs. And that gets us to the total scores. And these are comparable. We could compare these to exit 12B and the 213s. Not necessarily. We did score some of the metrics slightly differently. And as you saw the one that looked at the change in volume, we looked at some different roadways in the two alternatives. So we intentionally broke these out into separate tables. Ultimately we'll be looking for a decision on two separate decisions. One between 12B and 13 and then one between these two. So they're not exactly apples and apples. You can't really compare the scoring. Not to mention the fact that these are scored on a zero to one basis. The other one was scored in a zero to two. Is this really an either or question or is it just about when? And which one's the priority now based on what we know? And then the other one might happen 10 years after that, 20 years after that. Charlie, do you want to take a stab at that? How are you referring to the 14 options? The previous discussions too, just like all of these. I mean, is it really, I can see with the 13 options and the 14 options it's neither or. I'm not, without looking at the weights more and understanding more, I just want to confirm that we're just talking about prioritization as to what's occurring when first or what are we discussing here? Yeah, I think it's really either or, like which looks like the best future. And then when we get into the next phase, I think we'll be able to dig down a little bit deeper into thinking about what makes sense in terms of staging or phasing and sequencing conversations. But at this point, we're just really kind of talking about the 2050 outcome year, what would look best at that point in time. I'm sorry to keep talking, but nobody else is talking. So what are we doing? Go ahead. Well, so does that mean that at some point, 14 will be worked on as well as either 12B or one of the 13s? Or is it Chittenden County gets one of them? We're asking you these two sets of questions, right? Which 14 option do you like? Which 12B or 13 option do you like? So that we can, in the next stage, look at them in bundles and also look at how do they interact? So if you pick 12B and 14, we haven't really looked at them in combination, right? So we'll look at them in combination and start to get a little bit more sense and also add other ideas in. Park and ride locks and transit service and all the other things we haven't talked about that we need to talk about added into the mix so we can see how this all works together. But we were gonna layer the next conversation. So what does it look like to do everything we can before we do an interchange? Then what does it look like to add one interchange on and then what does it look like to add two interchanges on? Okay, that's the bundling aspect. Okay, and that you want completed by, what is it, November 22? Is that your timeline? No, no, no, we should be doing that this fall and be back to you this fall. Yeah, I'm sorry, there seems to be some confusion somewhere, we updated a timeline to say we were gonna finish by November 21 to winter 22. Somehow that got conflated and people added a whole year when we were just trying to add a few months. Oh, okay, okay. Oh, thank you. Charlie, what specific direction are you looking from us and when do you need it? I think any direction on the policy perspective, I think Tom was hitting on this about waiting of these goals would be very helpful for any other things. If there's other issues that you think are not really captured in this quantitative exercise and you want us to kind of create some room, we would like to get back in front of you in a few weeks on the 19th and see if we can get to a closure to get you to a vote which interchanges to move forward with the next stage. Would be great. And then we will look at having some broader public meetings and including the advisory committee later in May to kind of get the broader community on board with this as well. So I'm sorry, Matt, I don't know if that answered your question, but we'd like to get to a vote. No, it doesn't. It is April 19th, if we can. We're certainly, you know, and I think I should say something important about that because it feels very monumental and I feel like we're putting a lot of pressure on you. You know, I think realize that this is a planning study and these are very big investments and that, you know, following this work, this gets handed off to VTRANS and there would be, if we are going to do an interchange, there's going to be an EIS and the final decision ultimately will rest with VTRANS and the legislature. So there's multiple layers to this and, you know, your decision, you know, this timeframe is not permanent, permanent. You know, if we learn something six months from now that have you kind of go, geez, we really should have gone with option B instead of option A, you know, that is probably something we can probably deal with and figure out. So, and David's shaking his head, oh my God, or I'm not sure if he said, oh my God, that was complicated or that's a lot more billable hours. I'm not sure which that was. Sorry, sorry, that was cynical. Yeah, any questions on the process after this? And we are trying to wrap this up, you know, by next winter, so. Okay, so that should say winter 2021, right? I guess, well, the winter goes into, January and February, sure. Okay, 2022. March 21st, something like that. Okay. Any more questions from the council? Thank you very much for your patience with us and your questions and your thoughts. And do get in contact if there's anything we can do to prepare for the next meeting, it would be helpful for you. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you all. Thank you very much for answering all our questions. That's enough. Okay. So moving on to item six, this is council discussion and possible recommendations on requests for community projects for federal funding. So I don't know who's gonna lead that. Kevin, are you or is Alana? Yeah, I'm discussion Tom, Alana and Jess, I think are on the call as well. Okay, okay. So we've had, as you know, we received a letter from Congressman Welch's office along with all the other communities in the state, the air notion that we used to know of the earmarks back 10 years ago and Congress is back available again, seemingly. Each member of the house has been authorized to submit 10 projects, up to 10 projects for their district. In our case, the district is the entire state. But the time is short. We have to fill out the survey and have it in on the 31st. So that's just two days from now. I gathered the relevant staff together, Justin, Paul and Alana to begin a dialogue around what we thought we should recommend to the council for a submittal to Congress. Helen and I discussed this matter last week besides the role of the council on this, which is appropriate. We analyzed about a dozen projects, which I can go through if you wish and settled on one project to submit as a community, which would be the bike and pedestrian connection between city center park and strength. There were many factors that came into this, but the important ones from the standpoint of eligibility were probably something in the $400 to $700,000 range, which are the amounts that are being suggested by the Appropriations Committee. Something that could be constructed by the end of the next fiscal year, federal fiscal year would be September of 2022. So something that's reasonably well along the project right now, and something that we thought Congressman Welch would view as a valuable contribution not only the community, but to the state. Those were pretty much the factors. I can go through the master list we had, I-89 bridge, the rec center, White Street intersection, little utilities on Williston Road, regional consolidation consultant. Certainly the Kimball Avenue, Marshall Avenue, Carver slash bridge. Hold on, Kevin, you said consultant, can you flesh that out a little bit? Yeah, on Wednesday, Megan, there will be a county-wide discussion that Charlie is hosting to talk about the next steps toward consolidating services. And during that meeting, we hope to identify some services that could move forward. The likelihood will be that we're gonna ask various communities to contribute to hiring a consultant who could take a deep or dive into those identified priority consolidation issues. So it's a small number, but we feel that the communities will probably be able to support that on their own. Question I have is, would we be able to fund consultants in other areas with these funds? Certainly for design elements, yeah. I think for design purposes, like design of a recreation center, design of the bridge across the interstate. The other projects we looked at are pump station upgrades that will be required for the Bartlett Bay treatment plant. The Wilson Road streetscape project. And we also looked at consolidated dispatch. And frankly, Charlie is gonna lead that as a regional project from CCRPC. And then lastly, we looked at a crisis 24-7 crisis center, a mental health and addiction crisis center. So that was the list we went through. For various reasons, we pulled some projects out and narrowed it down to three. And then, yeah, Justin reminds me that the Kimball Avenue culvert project. You mentioned that. Yeah, we narrowed it down to three. And we came up with this particular project that connects City Center Park with Market Street. It's probably in the range of 700,000 plus. It is likely to be able to be constructed in a year and a half. It does, I think, appeal to Congressman Welch as he presented to you the other night. He's very impressed with the whole planning and implementation of City Center. And I think that this might get into that range of projects that he would find favorable. Remember, he can only advance 10. We didn't wanna get too greedy here and talk about three or four. But if we were able to get this and consolidated dispatch, the community would benefit from two projects. So our recommendation to the council for your endorsement or for debate is that project. And I would turn it over. I would go to Tom, Paul, Alana, or Justin if I missed anything. Thanks. Questions or thoughts? Matt? Can someone describe the project more in depth to me? I'm about to get into the path. There's the South Burlington City Center LLC property, which is where the development is going on right now and also encompasses Garden Street and Market Street. Invisions, the city envisioned a connection between Market Street and City Center Park. The park is already constructed, but there is a wetland between it and the developer areas on the Market Street side. So in order to make the connection, we're gonna have to build a path and mostly a bridge to that wetland area in order to make the connection. And it's already mapped out in the environmental assessment that that connection would be made. So parts of it probably Matt will look like the connection there between Tilly Drive and Community Drive, going over a wet area and parts of it won't need them. You mean the Lou Brzee Bridge? The Brzee Bridge, yes. Yeah. Matt, when we were laying out the whole vision for City Center, this was one of those pieces that was going to connect the park and it had a really beautiful little bridge as Kevin said, and you could walk over the wetlands and it was sort of utilizing an area that just couldn't be developed but allow it to kind of enhance the natural state real close to City Center. So it was part of the grand plan. Alana on the message board. Do you wanna show a picture? Straight at a link to the visual. It also importantly connects all of those neighborhoods through the south of City Center. A lot of density there has direct foot and bike access to City Center that would otherwise had to go around either Dorset Street or Hinesburg Road. Well, on a straighter shot to the elementary school or the kids in that neighborhood. Yeah. You know, cause it connects the park and goes over the wetlands to Market Street. Or Garden Street. It looks like Alana or Paul have pulled this up, the graphic. Alana, can you run your cursor along and show moments here? So Alana, do you wanna just take us through this? Do you get audio? Yeah. Kevin, this is actually Paul drawing this. Hey, Paul. So at the bottom of the picture, at the bottom of the picture, you can see City Center Park. Then the connection where Paul is now, there'll be a small connector over from the park. And then that arc, the plan is to have this arcing bridge that connects over to the stormwater pond on the East. And then more directly over to Market Street on the, what would be the North? All right. That would be great to use those funds for that. I would very much like to get our City Center. If we didn't have enough money with the federal dollars, we could use TIF dollars to complete this if we got bonding authority from this community, correct? We could likely use TIF dollars. We might be able to use bike and ped dollars or a pen for path dollars. We might be able to use impact fees. And also as you point out, Helen, we might go back to the voters for the remainder. Justin feels that this is probably an excess of $700,000, but not a significant amount above that. And of course we could be looking for a developer contribution as well. Kevin, what are you asking for in the grant, Kevin? Remind us again, what you said. I think we're probably, did he ask? I think the ask would probably be for 700,000, man. The things that Alana got from congressman's office was they're looking generally at $400 to $700,000 project. This is totally separate from the money that congressman Walsh told us about when he spoke to us, right? Correct, that's COVID response money. These are more of the style earmarks that are unrelated to COVID as far as we know. Right, is that a separate discussion that we need to have about that kind of money and what we could do with it? Yeah, Helen and I had a good discussion about that last week. We're waiting for the rules or federal guidance on how that money can be spent. There will be eligibility issues with the COVID money. We just don't know what they are yet, but once we learn that, we will get back with the council that'll ultimately be your decision as to what you wanna do with that money. And hopefully that'll come soon. As congressman Walsh said, the first half of the money coming to South Burlington is to arrive in 90 days, the second half within a year. So we'll be working with Jesse Baker as well and bring her into this conversation that will be one of those important transition conversations and decision-making. We, Tom and I briefed Jesse in on this discussion this afternoon and so she's fully aware of what our recommendation to you is tonight. Kevin, when do you need to make a decision? Tonight? What do we need to make a decision? We need to have you decide tonight. Unfortunately, we have to submit the paperwork on Wednesday. But there was the possibility of drinking that earmark money towards the Kimball Avenue Bridge, right? There was, Tim, and we discussed that at length today. And the feeling was that Williston has already gotten authority from their voters to fund their part of the project. And we have identified funding that we have ourselves for the project and it's ready to go. The concern about waiting to get this appropriation all the way through congress, which is not likely to be until next year, if then. But also, and I would encourage Justin to weigh in. It's almost like that project is almost too shovel-ready. It's ready to go, Justin, weigh in. Hello, good evening. We anticipate bidding within a month and we don't yet know what strings may be attached. And oftentimes when we're using grant money, we have to inform the contractor of what those grant provisions are. So in addition to the reasons Kevin mentioned, we would most likely have to wait if we were to apply this to the Kimball Bridge because again, that project is imminent. And just in the interest of getting that project done, it's been going on four and a half years now. We decided that we need elsewhere that don't have identified funding sources and are frankly probably have a higher Q rating in terms of the public's view of them versus the utility project. And what about the Spear Street bike path? So these projects for this specific pot of money have to be completed by September of 2022. And we just receive the TAP grant from the state for the design work. And just knowing how long it will take us to get through the state's design process, we would not be in the position to meet that requirement of completion by September, 2022. I agree, Tim, that Kimball Bridge is more attractive and more priority, but I feel like the way this was presented that having something that Peter Welch's office is gonna get more excited about might also help you make it to the top 10. And I see this bridge and city center park is fitting all those, checking all those boxes. So what it's worth, I'm supportive of this is the priority project as well. Matt, thank you, Tom. Matt, we can't hear you. Kevin, you mentioned briefly a rec center. The rec center is a possibility. Is that, would that fall into the same sort of a concerns regarding timeline? Whereas this, the project you recommended is ready to go versus a rec center? We could possibly use the money for design work for the rec center. But again, it may bring, once we've tapped into federal dollars for that project, it may bring other obligations, federal obligations that may not be as attractive to us for what would amount to less than 5% of the cost, the potential cost of a rec center. We also have some other ideas about funding for the rec center that we would wanna share with you in the future. And so for at this time for that project, we decided to skip over. But that means that that's not a priority. It's just that we don't think this is the particular funding source through Congressman Welch's office that we could really go for. I think the total dollar figure impacts our decision as well. I mean, if the maximum that you can ask for and expect is $700,000, you know, the rec centers, I don't know, 13 million or something. That's a larger earmark than anyone's thinking about. If it was that big, then that might be a feasible recommendation. Yes. If only that would. Yeah, exactly. Any other thoughts or comments? Are you supportive? Are we interested in taking a vote to include this bridge and make that motion as the design? Okay. Second. Do I have a second? Okay. Is everyone ready for that vote? I'm probably ought to do a roll call. Tim? Hi. Tom? Hi. Megan? Hi. Pat? Hi. And the chair votes, aye. So we will support that, Kevin, five, zero. Thank you very much. We will get that moving forward immediately. Okay, thank you very much. Well, that's exciting because that's sort of another little finishing piece to the city center that will really make it nice, I think. Okay, item seven, and this was, is just a conversation. I sent an email out to all of you to sort of frame what I was thinking about in terms of this conversation, understanding that we don't have any drafts of anything and we are planning to meet with the Planning Commission April 6th, but I just wanted to get a sense from you all in terms of how you are thinking it might make sense to go about completing IZ and what are the projects and just what are you thinking? No decision tonight, but just maybe some pros and cons. In the email, I sent out some questions because there's a process that's going on now in terms of what the Planning Commission has completed or is close to being completed. And the first portion was the environmental protection standards. So I guess my question is in general, I'm not gonna take a vote, but just kind of tell me sort of where you are. Are you comfortable with adopting the EPSs before all the PUDs are developed or would you rather wait and have everything in final draft form from the Planning Commission? And then, so what do you feel about that? Are you ready to just say let's get out of IZ quick and let's just do the EPSs or what's the sense out there? Don't wanna talk at once, okay? Megan? I'll go first. I've talked to several people again since our last meeting when I expressed, again, just an eagerness to see this be done, but I understand that there are people representing all kinds of different interests who are eager to see that this be done in 10, that we don't close it too soon before we complete the necessary work to get the LDRs done on the new PUDs. Now with regard, so I'm walking back from my initial position, which wasn't set in stone, which was open to change. I'm already saying I have been swayed, but I think that I've also here, I've also heard commissioners say that we need to put a pin in something so we can move on. And so that's something that I believe, I don't know if I said it to a commissioner if I said it in one of our meetings, but I'll say it again, that I think that it could be useful to just say, okay, this is done, step one, let's get on to step two without IZ coming to an end, but just so everybody knows, that's done, that's off everybody's plate, now we can focus on this. And I've heard that as a comment from commissioners, so I just offered that. Okay. If it helps them, it's good for the process. Okay, Matt. If it helps them that IZ is extended, I should clarify that, Council Member. Well, both that IZ is extended, but also to put a pin in those environmental standards that we can just focus on the PUDs with an extended IZ. Okay. And when you say, just to clarify the pin, because that's sort of the other piece, are you suggesting that we can have the environmental protection standards sort of sign sealed and delivered and then work on the PUDs all within IZ or do you wanna just, is the pin, these are the final recommendations by the Planning Commission, maybe they go through their public hearings on just those, but then we wait to act on them until we also go through that whole process with the PUDs. Either way. Either way. Okay, you don't care. Matt, did you have a follow-up or was that your only question? Here, we can hear you. Sorry, go to Thomas first and I'll follow up on that. I was gonna ask a question on what you just said, Helen, and I'd love to thank you for calling this work session so we can discuss this. Let's say we passed the environmental Article 12, the ones that you're describing. We end interim zoning. Do we run any greater risk that we're out of interim zoning to then do the PUDs later? The PUDs will still happen, yes. I mean, we have no reason to believe that we're not gonna pass the PUDs. So what are the downfalls? Why wouldn't we just, if we're comfortable, ending interim zoning with the environmental standards passed and then getting PUDs later on? I really don't know. I'm trying to work through what is the trade-off? What have we been making here on the timing of these two big project pieces and when is the end? Well, from my perspective, I think a trade-off might be in what has been shared with me is if we just do one, there's kind of two groups that have perhaps differing views around development and one is very focused on the environmental protections as being really most important. And then another is looking, I think for more of the LDRs that guide development through plan unit development, the PUDs. And so there's some concern that if we just take the first one, check it off and do it, that we never really will get to or they won't complete the PUDs. So one group will win and one group might lose. So if you package them together, maybe we make everybody unhappy, but that usually is a good decision. It's a reasonable outcome. I don't know. And that's just what was shared with me. I don't know how real that is, but it seemed somewhat logical. Tim? So our three choices are, we could end interim zoning as soon as possible. We could wait for something from the planning commission and then end it. But in either case, we have to be done by November, right? Right. So it's March, so it's eight months away. So we're talking about an eighth month span of time. So what can the planning commission accomplish between now and eight months? It's actually less than eight months, right? It's seven months now. Well, yeah. So I mean, the question is, does it really matter whether we just wait till November and then just finish IZ and see what comes out of the committee? That's the question. That's I guess the ultimate question. And hopefully with that timeframe, they will get it all done because they've certainly done considerable work on the PUDs. It's not like they're starting from scratch. It's just that we had said, get something done. Do one thing, don't keep going back and forth and talking all over the place. And so I think that was helpful. I think when we meet with them, Jessica will clarify that she believes they can have it done by November. But, Matt? I agree with Council Member's point about putting a pen in some of the work that they've done. And it's been incredible work. I've watched it from afar, from Zoom. And if extending interim zoning is the trade-off with getting it as a package, I don't have an objection to that. Because I think getting it as a package is important. Okay. All right. I sort of feel that way as well. Okay. Well, that seems like that is hopeful information and I think it will be helpful to the Planning Commission and helpful. I mean, we can always change our mind when we meet with them. I just wanted us to start to think about maybe what some of the options are. And so when we meet with them, our questions can be relative to those kinds of concepts or suggestions. Okay. Well, good. If there's any other comments or thoughts? I'm looking forward to it. Yeah, no, I am too. Yeah. Okay, moving on to other business. I identified one option or one thought and that was to, I mean, just clarify. There was, I mean, I've got a number, I got some emails and there was some stuff on Frontparch Forum about Green Up Day and whether South Burlington was going to do it and it was on the state list that weren't. So my understanding now is that, and I think I may have forwarded the email from Michael Mitak. So I think we all understand that the Rotary is going to work with the South Burlington Land Trust. And I guess our question or my question to Paul Connor, because he's, I think the point person for this city is, I would hope that we can get the dump trucks and the structures in place so that people can bring the stuff they pick up. We won't have prizes and, you know, funniest found article or whatever, but this year, but we will potentially have a cleaner community. So Paul, is that? Hi Helen, I've got a couple of quick updates from today and Friday of working on these things. So yes, we will be able to have the dump trucks over there. We'll coordinate at the staff end to have the dumps to roll offs available and a method for people to pick up bags beforehand and then hand that over to the Rotary and the South Burlington Land Trust for day of and we'll have a DPW staff person as we've had in prior years available on day of to help, you know, load things into the big truck and stuff like that. So it's the modified, but it's a go. Okay, yes, I understand that, but at least it's a go. So I'm very pleased. And Tom, tell your uncle Leo that Ted wants to work with him again. He has the truck and Ted has some of the muscle, I guess. Okay, are there any other items for, yeah, I have their links too, but they're linked. Part A, I sat in on the virtual town hall that the guard, the adjutant general and the commanders in both the army and the air guard held, I believe this is past Friday. And there is going to be some noise testing this fall or winter. And I forwarded to the council as well as to Tom and Kevin who was here, there he is, and to Jesse Baker. The notice about a documentary on April 15th, I believe at 7 p.m. I'm hoping we can put it out on Front Porch Forum. It's our neighbors talking about the impact of the F-35 on their lives. And I can just put it up on my own Front Porch Forum, but I think it's appropriate of me to ask the council if you would agree that this is important documentary that has to do with information gathering regarding the quality of life of our residents and that we invite our city to watch this video which is online. The premier is an online event. So you would like us to issue a formal invitation or post it on the city website? I see it as an informational event just like going to hear the CCRPC to discuss these interchanges and hearing the public. This is hearing from the public in a way that we can't do otherwise. Okay. Just warning it as a council attended event is what you're asking? Yeah, and for people to sit into that they could learn from it, you know? Well, we could have it posted on the newsletter and on our website as this is the time, this is the link, this is the topic and encourage people to join in that respect. Would that work? That would be great too. Yes, that would be great too. From house members. One rather than the other. Is there a reason not to put it on front porch forum? Oh no, I think it should be on front porch forum as well. I just think that makes it, it's on our website and we're seeing it as informational. It would be, you know, a great, a lot of people go to the website to join meetings and hear all sorts of things. To describe for folks here in the audience and for the press, these are phone calls, phone call recordings, people who have called the filmmakers to describe their experiences under the flight path and living in proximity to, you know, the F-35 flights. That's what it is. It's really an oral history according to what I've seen in, you know, that one minute trailer that there is. I don't have any objections to how you're presenting it this way. I just, you know, the F-35 topic and the strong opinions of both sides of it. I just don't want the city to endorse it as accurate documentary. I don't know enough about where it came from. I have no objection to listing it if that's what you're looking for and to make the community aware about this opportunity. We do that with a variety of events, but I just, I'm hesitant, I'm hopeful that the language doesn't say that the city wants and encourages and supports and endorses all of the commentary and opinion pieces or stance of this documentary without having seen it. So if you're looking for the council, the imprimatur of endorsing this, I'm not there, but if you just want to listen to that as making the community aware of the showing, I don't have a concern with that. I wouldn't mind with that. Yeah, me too, me too. You know, and if people are more comfortable, that could maybe be sent out by the South Burlington Library, Public Library. I mean, it is, that's the role of the library too, is to inform. Okay. But I see no issue with it, you know, being, I mean, I can see how it's on a line. It's on a line, definitely, yeah. Okay, so can we put it on a notice on, oh, Rosanne, did you want to speak? Yeah, so I've been part of this, I mean, I was, I had been in a coordinating with the filmmakers. So to answer Tom's concern, this has nothing to do with facts and figures or anything substantive. It doesn't take a position on anything. All it is are people's one minute comment on what they are feeling and experiencing with the F-35 noise. Some are positive, some are negative, but it's not a propaganda thing. It's not trying to push anything. It's just hearing what residents think and feel when they hear the noise. That's all it is. Okay. If that helps. Thank you. So Kevin, can we just post the announcement? I guess Megan can get you the link and the explanation of what it is and put it on events or something. Yep, we can post it. We can post it that way on our website. Megan, when is it? When is it airing? April 15th. I just sent it to you. Okay. April 15th at 7 p.m. And Sandy, I don't know, maybe that's it. Sandy asks if it includes residents of several towns. I believe Wanooski, but Roseanne would know better. I've only watched the one minute trailer. That's all. It's anonymous. So some people say where they live, some do not. But I just sent it to Megan and Helen, the link. Oh, okay. Okay. I sent it to Kevin. If you just search an email for me, Kevin, you'll find it. Yeah. Nothing to Kevin. Kevin, too. Okay. We will have a city news edition that will come out before then as well. So it'll be timely for that. Okay. Okay, thank you. All right, any other business? All right, what we have left is an executive session to discuss the committee appointment to the DRB. Is that of interest to do that tonight? I think they would like to have a full come forward. All right, so, and we will come back into our meeting to announce, possibly announce that appointment and then adjourn. Roseanne? Just a small point. But in last week's the other paper, it listed all of the open seats and it listed, there were two DRB seats and it said the deadline to apply was like April something. So I'm sort of, I mean, I'm not making an issue of this, but it was sort of surprising you're making a selection tonight. I'm just telling you what the paper said. So some residents may not yet have applied thinking they have until April, whenever. Okay, thank you. Matt, did you want to comment? Yeah, I think Roseanne, I think that might be because there's some terms that are up on July. I think that was a vague recollection of Marla saying that to me as I left because there's terms up coming up that there's a whole bunch of seats. Now, some people may have to be reappointed that are already on the DRB, but others may naturally just step off when their terms up. Okay, this is to fill an open slot that has been open due to Matt's election. Okay, maybe I misread it. I'm not applying for anything, but it seemed to me people had time to, I know you want to fill them rather quickly than I agree, but that's how it came across to me in the other paper. Okay, so do we have a motion to go into executive session? So moved. For the purpose of making a committee appointment. Everyone's, and we invite every, the council and Kevin, I guess. He's usually in those conversations. Are you, Kevin or not? I am. Yeah, it doesn't, you know, excuse me. Okay, and a second, and all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. We will ask other people to leave the meeting. And while they're in the special session of the South Brownton City Council of Monday, March 29th, 2021, for our final piece of business, the possible appointment of an applicant to the DRB. I would entertain a motion. I would make a motion that we appoint Dan Albrecht to the South Brownton Developer Review Board. Okay, for the remaining portion of your term, which is one year and several months, three months, I guess, until July, okay. And a second? Second. Okay, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstain? Okay. So, we have appointed Don Albrecht, and I will, Dan? I'll call him and share that news with him and discuss his role. Okay. And will somebody make sure that Gary's informed as well that he- And Gary has to be informed as well. Thank you. Okay. Motion to adjourn. We were 10 minutes ahead of time, gang. I'll move on. Okay, a motion to adjourn. Thank you very much, and we'll see you, is it next week? Yeah, two nights, the fifth and the sixth. The sixth is the big one with the Planning Commission. Is that at 6.30, Kevin, or seven? I think that one's at seven. It is, and I think it's just, you know, possibly two hours, but maybe not that long. Tom, you look panicked. Am I missing these emails? Like this meeting, and I don't remember that. I don't have it on my calendar, but I will- You're a busy man, Tom. You need an appetite. I think you just confirmed, wasn't it, Helen? Pardon me? I think it was just recently confirmed that I haven't even sent anything out on it yet, Tom. Oh, okay. All right. I'm looking generally with Jessica when she came to the council to sort of give us an update, and we thought it would be the first week in April, but you're right, we didn't have a date. But it's our regular, it's our regular meeting night, isn't it? No, no, it's the Tuesday. Oh, it's the Tuesday. So we're meeting Monday and Tuesday. She and I both thought that if we just have, and Tom usually says, let's just do one topic and get it done. So seven and nine, hopefully we'll get it done, and it doesn't- Oh, we're meeting. We have meeting to inspire that night, the inquiry event. I have a thing at 8 p.m. that night. This takes priority, so I can skip it, but if six to eight's an option, if that helps with the library thing. Yeah, when's the library thing? It's 7, 8, 30. 7, 8, 30? Well- 5, 7, would that work for you guys? I- It works for me. Check, Tim, how does that work for you? I could probably do it. 5, 30 to 7? I could probably do it, yeah. Okay, well maybe we can make it 5, 30, and just have an hour and a half, where people can be a little late to the other meeting or something. What is the library meeting? It is the Reader's. It's the fundraiser. Fire. Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry, Helen. Tuesday at 5.30 for the meeting with the Planning Commission? Yes. Okay, good. And is Jessica okay with that? I mean, is it the whole Planning Commission or just Jessica and Paul? Yes, now it's the whole Planning Commission and it's all of us. And they're gonna be fine with 5.30 too? Or- They're fine with 5.30 too. And they're fine with 5.30 too. I mean, I- Yeah, I'll have to run that by, I'll have to give her a call and find out if we can meet a little bit early. I just didn't know whether to put it in pencil or pen on my calendar. Pencil. Okay. Okay, so we're adjourned. Thank you very much. I think we've got a fair amount accomplished tonight. It was a good meeting with Charlie. Yep, good night. Yes, it was. It was very helpful. So good night all. Have a good week.