 So at 504, I will call the board of finance to order. And the first item on the agenda is the agenda. Is there a motion? I would move to read out the agenda. Thank you. Councilor McGee, is there a second? Second. Thank you. Councilor Barlow, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. And the motion carries unanimously. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak at public forum? Once, twice, all right. We will close the public forum and move on to our consent agenda. Do I have a motion on the consent agenda? I move to adopt the consent agenda and take the action. So is there a second? Second. Thank you, Councilor McGee. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion carries unanimously. And that brings us to our first deliberative item, the BED switch and save program sub-grants. And it looks like we have a couple of folks from BED who are going to talk about that. Well, hello. Good afternoon, Councilor. It's Board of Finance, Director Pringer, General Manager with Chris Burns, Director of Energy Services. We have a great news item with the switch and save program. We have the opportunity to have initially 400,000 and potentially up to 500,000 depending on the state-wide spending level. Come to Burlington for this purpose to replace less efficient water heaters and fossil fuel water heaters in income-qualified residences with more efficient heat pump water heaters. So save money, save on carbon. And it was designed in 2022 in the legislature and it actually stemmed from an energy action network working group. I had the chance to be a part of the effort back then and help me design and advance the program along with folks from efficiency Vermont, BNRC, BPURG, a bunch of regional planning organizations and others. So we're really pleased to be able to be a sub grantee of efficiency Vermont for the program. Chris and his team have been working with Champlain Housing Trust and having some conversations as well with other housing organizations on ways that we can deploy the resources quickly as possible. I think it is intended to be used in 2024. So we wanna draw down as much as we can for Burlington residents and then potentially go after additional funding that may be available. So the $500,000 limit is to account for all known available funds and some potential additional funds that we might be able to access. And we're glad to answer any questions the board has. Excellent. Any questions, comments from the board? Yes. Yes, I'm just curious. Like with the $500,000 grant, how many conversions could you do? And would you be able to identify the folks who are eligible and sort of ask them rather than just make the program available? That would be great. Yes, it's a great question. And really 300,000 initially is gonna go to the water heater change jobs. We have another 100,000 that can support electric work that needs to happen because the idea here is to make this no cost or minimal cost. So we were estimating with the 300,000 that we would have between 7,525 residences that we can switch over. And that's really the work that Chris and his team are doing with Champlain Housing Trust. It's possible we may be able to use the resources entirely working with partners and not have to wait on customers to come to us that we can practically work with area housing organizations, identify eligible residences and get the dollars deployed that way. So that's our initial thinking. And if for some reason we were under utilizing those dollars, we would look for additional avenues for outreach. But I think we're hopeful we'll be able to utilize this that way. Any other questions? Yes. I'm happy to make a motion that's right. Is there a second? So. Okay. Looks like we've lost Councilor Cain for a moment. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. And any opposed, please say nay. And the motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Item number two on the deliberative agenda is the Church Street Marketplace, the capital improvement. Some exciting things happening here. Well, Director Onoswari, why don't you give us a quick overview? Sure. So the Church Street Marketplace applied for and received a $1 million and eventually became a grant through then Senator Layton's office. We received the grant in 20, the grant actually hit the account in 2023. We then wrote and posted an RFP and engaged with an engineering firm to reevaluate a street assessment that we had already had done in 2017. Looking at wear and tear, pooling of stormwater, trip hazards, broken bricks, unevenness, frost heaves, et cetera. They gave us a full report and they also helped us or helped me prioritize some of those repairs that needed to be done. We then posted an RFP, posted one RFP that ended at the end of December. Note, do not post RFPs the holidays. Reposted it and we received one bid. It fits into our budget and it leaves us around 60,000 breathing room for any contingencies. It is Don Weston excavating. Don Weston and his team have engaged in previous contracts through DPW and I'm looking to move forward and sign that contract with them so that we can get them on the street as soon as the weather gets a little warmer and start getting some of that work done. We are being mindful of disruptions that that may have on some of the businesses on the street. What we believe it's going to look like is swaths of bricks that will be lifted, the surface be graded, fresh bricks put down. So more section work, not complete block disruption. Excellent. And I know Councillor James has been able to rejoin. Any questions or comments for Kara on this? Yes, Councillor McKay. Okay. Yes. It's exciting. Let's work forward. I was the probably the area is that we should say identified. This is covering all the improvements for. Some of the prioritized. Yeah, some were prioritized. There are some tree pits that might have to go into another batch if I can secure another grant. But really the priority was to make it more accessible. I've also had conversations with the AARP, et cetera, and we know that those trip hazards need to be addressed as well as some of the intersections don't have what is now standard granite lines for the visually impaired that have buffed on them so they know they're approaching an intersection, things of that sort. So those are in the priority list. And the appendix that was attached to the item is. It has like the phone. Yes, exactly. Is that listed in order of priority? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? Were you ready for a motion? So moved. Great. Thank you, Councillor Chen. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Councillor McKay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. I have a look at that work. And now we get to have fun with DPW. Laura and Julia. Thank you. Item number three, authorization to execute the design contract for Cherry Street and that brings the reconnecting downtown project. It was a quick, low-burberry, of course we could never hear too much about this contract. Thank you. So we came to the board of bindings about a month ago to accept the raised reconnecting downtown grant, which is a $22 million grant that supports rebuilding Bank Street, Cherry Street, the two new sections of Prime Street and St. Paul Street up to our Great Street standards. This is also combined with the L.A.B. National Direct Spending Funding that we've rewarded and accepted in fall of 2023. We have been working with VTrans and FHWA to put out a request for qualifications for a design engineer to work the design work for this big project because of the scale and size of the project following the trends for camera policies. We issued a request for qualifications rather than proposals and received several statement of qualifications from three different design firms. It ultimately ended up selecting Stantec. They were involved in the previous version of this project so had a lot of background info which gave them a bit of a leg up in terms of efficiency. They also understood the schedule that we need to be to not jeopardize our federal funding and had all of the technical expertise that we needed to see, to feel confident in awarding this contract to a firm. So they are breaking out their contract to work with our different grant funding sources so that we can do all of our reporting for the various grants and also there's some waterfront tip funding supporting the Cherry Street local match. So we've worked with them to kind of structure how they're going to invoice us so that we can make sure to track everything appropriately. So their total contract amount was $2,217,249 which is a lot but did fit into our preliminary engineering budget that we had planned for. We're also asking to approve 10% contingency for any design contract amendments that may come up with. Sure. Excellent. Any questions from the board? Yes. What's the timeline for the design phase of the project? So the construction funds which means the design has to be complete and project has to be ready to go to construction for Cherry Street has to happen by June of 2026 and for Bank Street and the rest of the project by June of 2027. So we'll be sprinting towards those goals while following all of the right federal processes and the different plan development basis. Any other questions? Are we ready for a motion? Motion is required. Thank you, Councilor Barlow. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Councilor McGee. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Item 4.4, the Champlain Parkway, S-Y-24 project budget amendments and the Sultan contract amendments. Chief Engineer Baldwin and Director Spicer, who would like to kick it off? Perfect. So, Thor Baldwin is the engineer. Joel are aware of the Champlain Parkway that's been underway and actually this is going to be this coming stretch to this third season. For those of you who don't know, the initial phase of the parkway really begins at home avenue north along your side of the parkway crossing the plan out of the stairs lane and continuing on Lakeside Avenue, High Street to Kilburn Street. The final phase is the continuation of that connecting both ends from Kilburn to Main Street and then the home avenue itself to the 189 interchange. So this is our third season. We are going to be restarting project in April 15. We anticipate that this project will be complete. At least the first phase will be complete by the August of this year. So, getting back to the specific request, you should have an packet, a number of communications. One is the base communication that speaks to various technical specific details and then another subsequent memo from Director Spicer that gives more of a kind of a broader view of project and its explanation of where we're at. For this particular request, we're looking to have two things, additional budget authorizations to complete the initial phase and then additional contract authorizations for design, resident engineering and services and project management. When I say that these additional contract authorizations extend beyond, of course, this current phase, it is doing two things in this process. It's these contracts will account for design, document preparation and bid docs for the final phase and also it will include efforts to advance that product to support the product. D&K with project management, WSP with resident engineering services and CHA with construction admin, Construction admin is effectively in simple terms is the process of design engineering when they need to respond or add answer questions that are available to respond to the resident engineer and the contractor still. Those are kind of the fundamental asks. I would note specifically, there is an additional $9,000 ask in bond proceeds for non-participant costs. I think it's important council members understand we know the difference between non-participant costs and local match obligations. So non-participant costs typically in this product are soil development, managing of soils that are developed soils, which means disposal of those soils and transport of those soils, landscaping and various finishes and amenities that the state is not saying it's eligible. So we have, let's see. And also just generally a budget authorizations to account for expenses that we didn't anticipate, but that are offsetted by other revenue sources, as example, Petroleum Cleanup Fund, Water Resource and Upgrading, some of the water lines while we're doing network, those types of things. So I think that in some total explains what we're asking for today, certainly available to answer in question. So I'm noting that the mayor joined us during that explanation, he is on Zoom and I will open it up to any questions from the board. Yes, Councilor McGathey. Thank you all for your questions. I don't appreciate the additional information involved by the supplement on this. I do certainly recognize the treatment position of Steve from the partners, one of the department at Exhibitiously and realizing that we're going to have a project on this, so fit into the timeline that we had at home in particular. And so I'm prepared to support this tonight, recognizing that and recognizing that decades in the making are not here to understand the way of that in place. And I look forward to supporting efforts to actually change what was the state to join us in being committed to the water project project. Is equally important and should be prioritized by complete, especially as we consider some of the information district adding more traffic was envisioned from the first to the final. So I'm curious to find a way to get to a question. If you all have done modeling with Southern Innovation District, being comfortable with this. Yes, so the parkway as we understand it under activity that predates these types of developments had some, at least in my belief, conservative estimates in terms of traffic growth within the general community did not contemplate specific site-specific development projects like this. And so we are working very closely with the development team to understand what the consequences of their project is and whether or not it needs to be future improvements that kind of attend to that challenge. But we're working very diligently with them to understand not only just in long-term, but also more of how to make money sequence to their construction and development, how will that fit within the context of this project in general with the street network itself. So there's a lot of work to be done still. Just set up a meeting with them today to do the next round of traffic review from the master planning perspective. Before we see a development proposal, let's make sure we understand the assumptions and is there a path that a first phase or two could proceed with minor traffic adjustments while we were to finish the parkway while the RED is developed and try to bring some logic to how this all fits together understanding the constraints of the traffic itself. Lynn, yes, Councilor Barlow. I also appreciate an additional memo and I spoke with the director's sponsor today. My specific concerns were when we saw street capital, there's not street capital for this. I would love to see the director's sponsor. Let me know if there's this contingency that you may want to add to this. And also I'd asked about the 900,000 capital bond of our students and I understand the balance of it. This is money that was allocated for local match, correct? Generally, yes, not project specific, but generally. And so it's consistent with the way the bond proceeds were envisioned. So those are my concerns and I just wanted to try to get them out there for anybody who haven't listened to also understand. So I have received a couple of questions. So thank you for that. I don't have any additional questions but I appreciate you giving me that time today. I thank you for that. And I think one of the pieces that maybe we should give light to in the sense of things we've discussed that I think are important for the public to understand is that this funding today is for completing the initial construction contract. And that is I put in the supplemental memos that we'll be looking for over $2 million of additional capital dollars to complete the final construction contract. And that is work that we'll need to do with FY 25 and 26 coordination with Ash with partners on the phone so that when we bring the final construction contract for your review that we can demonstrate how that local match is going to be paid. So I also think it's important to understand that when we're packaging this final design anticipate final design will be potentially done either this month or next month, ready for bid. So you could potentially see more in May, June but this year itself are tempted for this May, June. Any other questions? We ready for a motion? Yeah, I have a quick question. Next. And it is included to the final construction contract and it seems Chappan just mentioned a $2 million and are those $2 million so much to the federal government or what are those? Yes, those are the math fun to be able to draw down the state and federal dollars. The second phase is going to be around $37 million and the city overall is only having contribute around 8% of the total project expenses which is quite a good deal compared to most normal state federal projects. And I know thank you and I think also another question as to why the federal government did not accept basically clearing up the road and we understand that there was some, the soil was contaminated, right? And there are some firms that you as part of your memos that I could not understand a lot as to why the federal government could not take care of those as well. Like, such as... I think I can pause for a second. They're part that they have decided that the states decided they are not assuming a soil liability in the future. So that's kind of where we landed on that. It's consistent across various projects that we have worked with the state and federal government on similarly the roundabout even though that was a safety project where 100% of the construction was covered by state and federal partners. The non-participating expenses were still soil management that the city was on the hook to cover. For better or worse, Vermont has more stringent regulations than most states in the country. And I think part of the Fed's concern is that they don't want to have to pay the extra premium of all the regulation in the state of Vermont. So for better or worse, it is typical for municipalities to cover this cost. I mean, I think we will not be here, but really congratulations and thank you for everything that you have done for this collective. For, yeah, it will be a great thing for the city. Thank you. Thanks, Miro. Yeah. Yes, I have a comment on it. It's, there's no other discussion we'll make about. I would recommend that we, or I would move to take the action on the next step, I recommend that we move to the next step. Excellent. Is there a second? If you can come up. Second. Is there any further conversation? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, DPW. Thank you. Now to continue with DPW about move to water. Let's discuss accepting some combined sewer outflow abatement, ARPA grant funds. That's a lot of words. Director Hoyer, could you please give us a quick overview? Sure. While I certainly have maintained that not enough ARPA funds are coming towards water resources, these two items are examples of benefiting state ARPA dollars. And so as I describe in my menu, in memo, we did a long-term control plan as part of that long-term control plan. We identified a number of additional combined sewer outflow mitigation things that we need to do in the next coming decades. Unfortunately, the state did have some money that they allocated across all of the CSO communities. We were able to secure almost $3.3 million that will go towards our combined sewer outflow projects right now, our highest priority project that we are working to advance is a substantially sized tank underneath Callaghan Park, which would provide a storage area for the combined sewer outflows that currently go to the Pine Barge Canal and to the lake, which is sort of our highest priority, both from a frequency standpoint, a volume standpoint, and also that it's going directly to the lake. Not that the other ones don't count. They do go to the river and the river goes to the lake, but they are much further away. They are much more infrequent in the lower volume. This money is flexible if, for some reason, things stall with the tank. It is becoming difficult to try to figure out exactly what sized tank with some of the other moving parts that are happening in the sewer shed and with some of the hydraulic challenges that are in the pipe network on Pine Street. We do have other options. We have other things we can build. But right now, we're keeping our fingers crossed that this money could be married with some of the remaining 2018 Clean Water Resiliency Bond money to perform the project. Or possibly, if we need a little extra money, we are considering a November 2024 bond and try to augment those funds. Great. Questions from the board? Thank you, Megan. Yes. I don't have a question, but just simply that these are on the deliberative agenda for this evening. And the reason they are crazy because they're large amounts of money, I can't imagine that too many people are overly concerned about accepting money. That tends to be a pretty good crowd, please. Sorry, I'm going to go around here. If there are counselors who feel in the majority field, I think it's something that's going to change. But in the meantime, I would make a motion as recommended. So is there a second? Good question. Any discussion or questions? Yes. My own discussion. I know it's unusual to have me weigh in on discussion. It's just to say thank you for that, President Paul. I will be staying for the item immediately before it. I have made sure staff will not be in attendance so they can deal with other matters. So I am happy to stay on for the five or 10 minutes after the parkway. If there's any interest in discussing this session. If there is nothing else, we have a first and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. He opposed. Anyone who doesn't want money? OK. And item passed unanimously. Excellent. Thank you very much. And let's talk about ARPA grant phones number two, please. So as some of you may know, we are a MS4 community, a separate storm sewer system permit. We give us a whole bunch of extra things that we have to do compared to a lot of other Vermont communities. And one of those things, as you all are familiar, the lake is compared due to phosphorus. We, through our integrated water quality plan, our plan is to tackle Burlington's full obligation through the implementation of tertiary treatment and additional level of treatment at wastewater treatment plant. However, there is additional money out there to get more phosphorus. And why would we want to do that, particularly in watersheds that drain directly to public beaches? And so the high priority project that we've identified for this funding would be the retrofit of an old dilapidated storm water pond in the Southland neighborhood, and ideally turning that into a gravel wetland. Gravel wetlands have the highest phosphorus removal performance of any stormwater treatment practice because that is directly feeding planchers or oakland beach. That's our highest priority. As with the other grant, we have a number of other backup projects. This money is flexible enough because of the less of a nexus, but there is a nexus with doing buy and store overflow projects and phosphorus reduction. So we have other things we can also do with this money showed that Southland project. A, not spending all of the money. We have some cost estimates in the memo, but we all know the world of cost estimates is all over the place. So it's possible we might draw down more of it than I did to fight it. But should we do that, we have some other projects that we can tackle as funds. So thank you, State, for thinking of water resources when handing out these funding packets. Excellent. Thank you. Any questions from the board? We're meeting the match. Yeah, there is a 20% match, but this is a unique opportunity in which we're able to leverage money that we have pulled down, that we're leveraging from private entities. So the project that you all approved, which was a P3, a public-private partnership with Palmer Lowe's, HT, to build a gravel well end, yeah, gravel well ends, at the Christopper shopping mall. That money and all of the money that the private folks are spending on that counts as our leverage for this project, that we don't even have to put in additional city dollars, which is even really awesome. Love it. Are we ready for a motion or any questions? Yes, Councilor Gage. Very happy to make a motion. Excellent. Is there a second? Second. Second from President Paul. Last call. Chapin, anything to add? A few words, then. Excellent. All those in favor, please say aye. He opposed. And the motion classes unanimously. And that brings us to adjournment. And seeing no further business, we will adjourn at 5.38, leaving us with a few minutes before City Council. In a rare move, we have until 6.15. But don't be late. But we'll see you upstairs in time, Toys. And if you are on Zoom, you can just stay here. Thank you. Because I'll get you through. Thank you. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.