 All right, getting Mike joined in. Yeah, I don't know. Can you hear me now? We can, yeah. I don't know where this three musketeer thing came from. Well, the Zoom updated last week when I shut off. No, I don't know where this three musketeer came from. Do I fix that or can? There you go. I got you covered, Mike. I guess we know what your favorite candy is now holding. My daughters hold on a second, Mike Pollock. I think you need to bring him over as a panelist though. Right, so we are all here. It is 602 on Monday, January 25th. So I'm going to call to order this regular meeting of the Wenuski City Council. If you could please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance led by Deputy Mayor Hal Colston. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. You're welcome. Agenda review, any concerns about the order of the agenda this evening? All right. Next up is public comment. I know there are some folks signed up for public comment specific to items on the agenda. So if you do have a comment about anything on the agenda, please hold for that agenda item. There's anyone who wants to make a comment about an item that is not included on tonight's agenda, so not about town meeting day or ballot items or budget. Now would be the time and you can use the chat or raise hand feature or star nine on your phone to indicate if you wish to speak. So we had Eli from last week. I'm going to bring him over for public comment now. Eli, whenever you're ready. Yeah, I'm here for Act 164. So I can wait per Mayor Lotz instructions. OK, thank you. Thanks, Eli. Suspect, I recognize some of these names from other emails. So I think we are all here for specific items. We will move on to consent agenda. So we have our meeting minutes from last Monday, the 19th, the accounts payable warrant from January 21st and annual VTrans Highway recertification. Are there any questions or concerns about the consent agenda? Any questions from the public on the consent agenda? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve all three items. So moved. Second. Motion by House, seconded by Amy. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Moving to council reports, can I start with Hal? Thank you. But I have no report at this time. All right, Mike. I have nothing real to report, except I got a new desk chair. So if you see me swirling, it's just because I'm not used to it, that's all. All right, Jim. I also have nothing new to report since last week. Thank you. And Amy. I'll report that I attended the downtown Winooski meeting last week. And they are in the process of bringing on new members. They swore in a new president, treasurer, and secretary last week. So Laura Wade is the new president. George Bergen is the new treasurer. And Seth Leonard is the new secretary. And the main piece of the agenda that was discussed is that Winooski, downtown Winooski is in the process of establishing an MOU with the group Winooski from. Excited to hear more about that in the future. Thanks. You're welcome. I will just share that, in our last meeting, we approved a memorandum of understanding between Winooski, Burlington, and South Burlington in support of collaboration on noise mitigation. And pleased to share that the Burlington City Council also approved that agreement last Monday. South Burlington had done so, I think, a week or two prior. So all three cities are on board. And we have set up a formal structure to continue moving forward with noise mitigation efforts. That is it for me. So I will pass it to Jesse for our city updates. Great. Thank you. I do have a couple of updates to share with you tonight. It's typical starting with our COVID update. So we have seen no new cases at Our Lady of Providence. So that outbreak is set to be resolved for VDH language on February 1, assuming no new cases, which is great news. Last week, we had 10 new cases of COVID in Winooski generally. That's down from 20 the week before, and 30s and 40s the week before that. So we definitely continue to go in the right direction. So that's 10 new cases in last week as compared to 20 and four new unique addresses as compared to 14 the week before. So many thanks, again, to our residents for really following the public health guidelines and bringing those numbers down. As I shared last week, we are continuing our daily testing at the O'Brien Community Center. That will continue at a minimum through February and likely beyond. So that's at the OCC. It is daily. We have expanded hours to some evening, some more evening hours to best serve the community. So Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, the hours are 2 to 8 p.m. Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, 2 to 8, and then 9 to 3 all other days, including Saturdays and Sundays. For testing, walk-ups are available at the OCC. You can sign up for an appointment, but you can also just walk up. And all the materials are translated, and we have interpreters on site for each hour of that testing. As you likely know, the state started the first phase of vaccinating the public today for those 75 and older. For vaccinations, you cannot walk up and get vaccinated. You must have an appointment to be vaccinated. So if you have neighbors or loved ones or friends who are 75 and older, I would ask you to encourage them to sign up for a vaccine appointment. There are two what they're calling MassVax Clinics in Chinden County for the next six weeks. One is in Burlington and one is in Winooski at the Armory. The Winooski Vaccine Clinic will be offered on Tuesdays from 9 to 3. And again, you have to register for an appointment. The state's website to do that is healthvermont.gov slash myvaccine, healthvermont.gov slash myvaccine. Or the state's phone number for you to call in and sign up is 855-855-722-7878. All of this information is on our website. Additionally, especially for our 75-plus neighbors, we know that folks may have a hard time using the online system. So through community services, we are offering some support to get people signed up. So if there are folks watching tonight or want to pass on to their neighbors, if you are having trouble signing up and would like assistance from community services, you can call the Senior Center at 655-6425. And somebody can assist you in signing up to be vaccinated. Again, that Senior Center number is 655-6425. And if you want to sign up yourself on a public computer, you can make an appointment to come to the library and use a public computer to sign up. And that information is all on our website. You can also call the library at 655-6424. And then, again, just would remind folks to not spend time with people outside of your immediate households, wear a mask when you're in the presence of others, socially distance, and wash your hands. So that's the COVID update. Moving on from that, today at 5 o'clock was the deadline to submit consent forms to run for office on Town Meeting Day. And I want to share the names that will appear on the ballot here with you tonight. Of course, we'll have the ballots available online as well for folks to see. So bear with me for a minute. So we have one candidate running for mayor. Mayor Lott is up for reelection. We have two open city council seats, so two seats, two people elected to serve. And we have four candidates for those two seats. Jim Duncan, James McCormick, Sam Myers, and Dallas Wheatley. We have three different school board seats each serving. So one three-year seat, one two-year seat, and a one-year seat that's completing a vacancy in a three-year seat. So we have one person running for each of those seats. Stephen Berbeco is running for the three-year term. Alex Ian is running for the two-year term. And Kamal Dahal is running to fill the one-year vacancy. And then Jonathan Stockbridge is running to be our representative on the Champlain Water District. And he is our current representative as well. Those are the candidates for that will appear on the town meeting day ballot. Finally, I want to highlight some fun things for those who are interested in getting out and enjoying the cold weather. We had 85 folks ski with us, Nordic ski with us at Gilbrook last weekend, which is very exciting. We had 40 the week before and now up to 85. So you can join us next Saturday for the same event at Gilbrook. We have equipment available for folks as well. You may also have noticed that Community Services has installed a skating rink in Rotary Park. Shockingly, despite the very cold weather, it is still in the process of freezing. So as soon as it is fully frozen, we will be opening it and we hope to do that later in the week. And then for those of us who are much more excited for warmer weather, we are also racing is also anticipating launching the community gardens and pool pass sales the end of this week. So for those wanting to plan for summer activities, stay tuned. And that's what I have. Thank you. Thank you, Jessie. Moving on to our next item, which is a public hearing about our proposed FY 22 budget. Before opening that hearing to the public, I will pass it back to our city manager for a little overview. Great. Thank you. So for folks perhaps wanting to comment on the proposed FY 22 budget, this is the budget you will consider tonight to put on the town meeting date ballot. I presented the full overview of this on December 7. And then you heard updates from department heads over the last six months. If folks are following along at home and want to look at the full document, it's linked at when you ski vt.gov backslash FY 22. And you can see all of the documents there. At a very high level, this budget as proposed does not include any new bond votes or any new big asks from the community. Really, this is a budget that is trying to continue the level of service we currently have, so not reduce any services, maintain services, and also add the grant funding and the position of equity director and expansion of the community liaisons that we've been working on through our equity and inclusion work. That's the only new position in this budget. It also includes moving the Thrive and Recreation funds fully over to the general fund. So in summary, it's an $8.2 million general fund budget. It includes a tax rate increase of 1.83%. And the impact of that for the taxpayers is on a quarterly for a home that's assessed at $2225,000. The quarterly impact is $11.81, and the annual impact is $47.25. And I'm happy to answer any additional questions now or on the next agenda item as well. Thank you, Jessie. I saw a chat about the budget link. I think I just put it in there, but Paul, if that's the wrong one, please correct. You got it. Thanks. Awesome. All right, so as is protocol, we have warned a public meeting for this FY22 budget and capital plan. So at this time, I will open the public hearing to public comment to see if folks have questions or comments about the budget. Again, you can use chats or the raise hand feature to indicate you want to speak. Star 9 on your phone. And any questions are welcome. I could imagine not everyone has followed every meeting up to this point where we've been talking about this. I will also give a pause here, too. Folks might be looking at that link and gathering some information. I see a good question from Bryn. If this proposed budget accounts for, there's a couple of requests to the board of civil authority for tax abatement. And if this budget reflects that, Angela or Jessie, if you can speak to that. Angela, do you want to play in there? So because we have already made the adjustments to the proposed abatements in the current fiscal year, it is already taken into account. Oh, great. Thank you. Other questions or comments? All right. I'm seeing no additional comments. I will close the public hearing. We will move on to our regular items. That being item A, this would be our final discussion and approval vote for the FY22 budget and capital plan. We have been discussing this for quite a few weeks. Last week was kind of our final chance to offer any, I don't know, concerns or changes or considerations. So now is the last chance for council to have any other comments before we move to a vote. I think we have been on track for moving this forward for some time. So it seems like hearing no other comment now might be the time for someone to make a motion to approve the FY22 general fund budget and capital plan. I'll move. Second. Motion by Mike. Second by Hal. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Item B, this is on for discussion or approval, potential approval, regulation of commercial cannabis per Act 164, the decision on whether or not this should be a ballot item for town meeting day. Jesse, will you be introducing? Sure. So this, you have discussed this at a past count, received a request to consider this in October and discussed it at your January 11th, I believe, council meeting. You have three memos from staff in front of you. One is from the planning and zoning manager with updated information on ballot language and zoning implications. You have a memo from the chief of police and a memo from the fire chief on considering retail, cannabis sales, or manufacturing. We've provided you several different options for ballot language. If you so choose to move those forward, one enables solely retail sales in the city, and one allows both retail sales and integrated licenses. We've also included language in that ballot item around subject to any ordinances or regulations the city council may approve in the future. So that's what is before you and your professionals are here to answer any questions you may have. Thanks, Jesse. Yeah, so council, let's take this time to ask any questions that we have of our staff. I know we have folks here from public to make comment on this item too. So I will move over to them after we've had a chance to ask any staff questions. Jim. So one question, I just want to clarify. The only thing we're considering with these ballot questions is permitting retail sales. The permission of a retail or an integrated license is for retail. The integrated license is for the presence of retail. This doesn't impact any attempt of a grower, cultivator, manufacturer to come into the city because that's not something that local municipalities can regulate. So I guess I just want to make sure that it's clear in my mind that there's two questions because there's two license types, but the net effect is we're putting to voters that there's going to be retail sales by one of these two license types with this question. Is that correct? Correct. For presentation. Correct. So I would add to that. My understanding has been that the integrated license specifically is available to medical folks that already have a medical license. And so the difference being retail would allow anyone to obtain a license and sell retail here. If we also included integrated, that would allow those established medical dispensaries to have earlier access to the market versus just a retail one. Amy? Thanks. I would say that I'm generally supportive of the retail licensing, but my hesitancy is around the fact that the rules haven't been established yet. Do we have any sense of what other cities who have passed something like this, like what those rules or regulations could look like? I have seen that, I believe Burlington and Middlebury have moved this forward to their balance. I know Montpelier was talking about it. I haven't personally seen what regulations they've had under discussion. I don't know if any of our staff have looked into that at all. So my understanding is Middlebury, Burlington, Brata Burrow, and Montpelier are all putting it on the ballot on town meeting day. There may be other communities as well, but those are the ones I know of. No rules have been promulgated yet because it hasn't gone to the voters. And the Commercial Cannabis Commission or board has not stood up yet and promulgated the statewide regulations. So I think over the next couple of years is that board is established and establishes what is permissible statewide. And then what options municipalities may want to entertain to further, Eli is answering lots of questions down here in the chat as well. Municipalities may have options to further things, but we don't know what the state's going to do yet. So we can't respond to that. So I don't think locally in Vermont there have been specific rules promulgated yet. Certainly, again, though, if you choose to move it forward, a yes vote of the public doesn't mean that you can't pass future ordinances as long as they're statutorily allowed by the state. Eric, if you could jump in. Oh, sorry. Eric, did you want to add? No, I was going to say that's all. That's my understanding as well as Jesse just outlined it. One other thing I would just add is that there is also some legislation that was introduced in this session. I've only seen one version of it. And it's the as introduced piece that would require municipalities to put this question on their ballots by town meeting day of 2022. So it would force the question to be asked anyway by that date. So that's just something to keep in mind as well. I don't know where that legislation is going. Like I said, that was just introduced in this session a couple of weeks back. So that is something that could force the question regardless. Thank you. Mike. As I was reading this, the Winnowski City Council would either would establish rules and regulations anyway, just like we do for the liquor board control. So I think the city council would have a say of what can go on and not go on. And I had another point. I just lost my train. I thought I'll come back. Sure, no problem. I do want to, for folks maybe attending or watching that, have not reviewed all of the meeting documents. If our chiefs could please correct me if I'm wrong, but reading your memos, it sounds like you generally feel comfortable with our ability to provide public safety around retail. You have a lot more questions around if we were to allow, say, manufacturing or lab work. Yeah, that's correct from the fireside. Absolutely. I mean, the state's going to make its rules and regulations. And then locally, we can pass ordinances that are more restrictive than the state if we need to. And I'm comfortable with that. Thank you for drafting those, Jesse. And Chief Heber, it's not with us tonight, but his memos and your packet, he has reviewed public safety findings from other states where their retail has been allowed and provides some comment to those looking to start up a retail location when you see with some guidance about what he would like to see from a security perspective, but assuming that those establishments move forward under the regulations established by the cannabis control board. And locally, he doesn't have any additional concerns about retail. Thank you for summarizing that. Mike, I see your hand again. Yes, I regain my train of thought. Eli did mention up that this is kind of putting the cart before the horse. And the reason being, and correct me from wrong, Eli, is to go for retail licensing, it's a long process. And I think the supporters of this bill or ballot item want to get ahead of the curve, especially if they're going to start building new retail spaces here, because it does take time for permitting, not just for the cannabis sales, but for the building codes and the building infrastructure permits. And I did read Chief Heber's memo. And I think he did some research, which I think the city council, we all read it. And I think he brought up some good points and I think some standard of what we'd want to see anyway on some of these spaces. Thanks, Mike. I think since you have called out one of our public commenters who did sign up in advance, Paul, could you bring Eli back into the panel? Eli, whenever you're ready. Thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to speak. And I did in reviewing the memo. It looked like the petition that we had circulated was not within the deadline, which I went back and looked at and it looked like it was end of business day versus like 3 PM. So I would love. I don't know if there's a way to at least formally acknowledge that we did with only a few days time and just spending a few hours on the ground and talking to people, get over 85 signatures in support of this, including people who are business owners, a lot of folks from inside the circle, who I spoke with personally last Saturday, just walking around and putting up flyers and whatnot. So I just would like to acknowledge those folks who did sign up. I just checked there's over 100 signatures on it now. So I know we didn't make it into the official record, but I appreciated that. So I also just wanted to thank the police and fire chiefs. I think it's a precedent setting that we're treating this like regular retail with some extra caution. But it's a big deal that I think law enforcement and public safety in general are looking at this and are willing to be part of the conversation. So that's great. I think the only, the question for all of, I think to Mike's point is, it's gotta be something that the voters at least supported in principle, before we get into really the fun details. And I certainly believe that they do, but I would request and respectfully ask that we put this to the voters on the town meeting day ballot item and that when we do, it's a question of independent retailers because those are the folks who are here asking. And I think that it does start us off at a much more equitable starting ground with independent folks. So like I said, appreciate the time to speak, can answer specific questions after or during this, but I'm sure you have other folks and appreciate all the time and effort you folks have put into this already. Thanks, Eli. Were there any more, did council have any more questions for Eli? Sorry, my biggest question is, we're folks trying to get ahead of the curve are just looking at different locations. So, there's a good opportunity to work with, work with the economic development office and reached out to the downtown Winooski organization. So, it's really good opportunity to get those, all those other folks and stakeholders involved really early, even before maybe people have purchased property or started to think about that. So really just a great opportunity to be on the ground floor, even foundation level floor with everybody. So appreciate it. Thank you. Paul, is there anyone else that advanced signed up for this item or should we move to, I see a raised hand in the attendee list. Let's move to Bob Ackland. Thanks, Eli. Bob, whenever you're ready. Thank you. I just wonder, this is being put on the ballot without having the 5% requirement met for petitions. So Bob, that is what we're discussing right now is if we are gonna vote to move this forward. This item actually was not a resident petition that initiated, it initiated via staff and city council. Okay, I just thank you for clarifying that. It sounds like there was, were not many, there wasn't a requirement to get a lot of names on the petition. Right, so what I'm saying is this item is something that came via staff and city council. It's not a resident petition generated item. So we were already discussing it at council when a member of the public decided to also start a petition, but you are correct. They elected, I think he just said 85 names or something. Great, thank you. You're welcome. I think I see another hand. Dylan, whenever you're ready. For hopping in, I just wanted to reiterate everything that he just said, couldn't have said it better myself, but I just wanted to ask one thing. If we, if you guys vote not to put this on the ballot, would we have another opportunity to get those 5% signatures and get it on, would it be the next ballot or how would that, I just not sure how that would work. So good question. Yeah, Jesse, do you wanna jump in? Sure. So the next time right now, the next scheduled time to petition a ballot item to the voters would be next town meeting day. Got it. Okay. I should make it clear that the electronic signature collection is something that we instated specifically for town meeting day 2021. Unless we do that again, then a future petition would go through the regular signature collection on paper process. Okay. All right. Appreciate it. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak? All right, Mike, I see your hand is raised. Yes. I wanna go back to the comment. I think Eli made about the ballot. It's gonna be, is it a requirement or is it gonna be something for the ballot of 22? Did you say that they're gonna allow municipalities to put this on the ballot in 22 without? Signatures. So there's legislation that was just introduced in this session. So it was introduced about two weeks ago that would that if it is enacted would require municipalities to put the question on the ballot by March 1st of 2022, which is the March, which is the 2022 town meeting day. So that hasn't moved forward yet, but that's something that has been proposed. Okay. Thank you. Can we, I see Kay Nugent raised her hand in attendees. Can we bring her over please? Kay, go for it. Hi. Sorry, I put my camera on, but I don't think I can. No, I just wanted to say thanks to everybody for thinking about the health and safety aspects of this as well. And even though we would encourage communities to develop the rules and look at all the considerations before putting on the ballot, even if you do decide to do that, would love to be involved in that process. And I guess there's just a concern in our part that given how long it can take to update rules that there would be licensees being put in place before anything was changed. And this is, it's not like it's selling hats or something anticipating there'll be use outside of retail locations or upon purchase. And I think there's a lot of ignorance in terms of the impact on driving. And I don't see the state being able to do a campaign about that to educate people about not using and driving. And we were already seeing increases in drug driving, overshadowing drunk driving. So those are some concerns. And then also, we know that use, the more they see it, the more they see it promoted and the more they are aware of people using it, the more they're likely to use it before they're 21. And so really hoping to prevent addiction and dependence if possible, by using the tools that we have now that we didn't have when tobacco first became commercialized and alcohol as well. So I would just thank you for thinking of all these things and hope to be helping with those with those considerations, whatever you decided to do tonight. We absolutely would love to have the partnership for prevention involved in whatever regulations or supports and things are happening. So that is a mandate for staff. When and if this moves forward. So thank you, Kate. And thank you for sharing those concerns. I thank you very much. Hal, I see your hand raised. Sure, thank you, Mayor. I just wanna, well, there's one point of clarification I just wanna make. The timeline for rolling this out by the Act 164 would have closed the hiring process for the cannabis control board November 1st. But for whatever reason, the administration extended it another two months. So we're kind of behind schedule. So maybe anyways, I just wanted to make sure that was understood. And I also just wanna reiterate why we're doing this, why the state has gone down this path, why we spent over three years working on this. Plus there were commissions that were set up to go out and study this. But first and foremost, we wanted to have a safe recreational market, which is unlike the illicit market. You don't know what you're buying. You're taking a risk. But in this case, we'll have labs, we'll be testing. It'll be controlled and regulated in so many ways. But I think first and foremost, we wanna make sure that this model will generate the resources needed to do proactive education and prevention for young people. So when we were debating this in the house, we were looking at the Icelandic model, all the kinds of ways that we could be proactive in keeping our kids engaged and healthy experiences and not hanging out between four and six and getting in trouble. And also the equity issue was a big deal in this legislation. So we wanted to make sure those who have been harmed by the illicit cannabis market prior have an opportunity to participate in this new effort. But underlying all of this, I think is safety. You know, we've been limiting the amount of THC that can be sold and the amounts and so forth. It's, we put a lot of thought into how to do it as best as we can and make sure everyone is safe in the process. Thank you. Thanks, Hal. Jim? So I just, after listening to kind of whatever's, what has been shared, I appreciate Councillor Colston's representative Colston's kind of bigger picture on this because I think we do really have, you know, our job before us is really consideration of the local impact and how to manage that as best we can. And so I do think that we have, we're lucky to have some resources to draw on here. I generally don't like agreeing to things before you know what you're agreeing to. I agree that I think people should read what they sign. And I think that's, you know, a challenging thing in this case because we are also balancing the need to signal that this will be a community that can host these businesses. So I do get that competing priority. And I feel that this community and our staff and our council is up to the challenge of making sure that when, if and when retail arrives in Winooski that we're ready for it. And I don't know that waiting on this question for six months or a year will change that in my mind. So I do think that there's a risk but I think it's a risk worth taking in order to allow our small businesses, independent retailers to start thinking about businesses in Winooski. I want that to be an option. I feel less compelled to put the integrated licenses on the ballot. So looking at the available options, I would very much be in favor of splitting the question or just keeping integrated licenses off entirely because I think those companies that already will hold integrated licenses don't need the same lead time and level of planning and support to develop a retail business in Winooski that are independent retailers will need for smaller scale retailers. So I, with reservations about the general principle of agreeing to do something or ask a question before we know all the details, I think that in this case, the discussion has happened for a long time. I'm okay with moving forward on a ballot question related to retail licenses. And I would urge fellow counselors to consider not doing integrated licenses at this time. Thanks, Jim. I did see, I think it was Dager, it doesn't matter where. Anyhow, an article about the Burlington City Council also moving forward retail and not integrated and that there was some discussion there about to your point, the integrated license allowing folks who are already established early access to a retail market and that becoming an equity issue for independent retailers and new folks trying to get in. So I could appreciate that as well. How are others feeling? I think I would be supportive of the retail as well and not integrated. I see a question in the chat about the integrated license. So I will do my best to describe this and someone correct me if I'm wrong. An integrated license. So retail license just gives a person the license to sell retail. An integrated license would give an established medical dispensary, somebody who already has a medical dispensary and a license. The ability to do retail with that same license as well as access other aspects like lab and manufacturing and such. But it's specifically for existing licensed dispensaries and would mean they already have their systems and infrastructure in place so they could more easily and quickly get into a retail market than somebody knew. Hal. That was a great summation, Mayor. And just to let folks know that the closest integrated licensee is in Milton. Just up the road. I was curious about that. Thank you. I think also however, if I may, Mayor. Sure. The Act 164 does allow for new integrated licensees to make application through this new process. But it's any of the existing medical licensees will automatically get an integrated license. Yes, thank you. It's an opportunity for somebody who wanted to do retail and manufacturing or cultivation could still apply to the state in this new process to get an integrated license. Thanks, Eric. Hal. Yes. And the purpose of that was to jumpstart the market and have players who have been doing it for years and have figured it out. So some folks think that's unfair, maybe it is. But the whole point is how do we get the market up and running from scratch? Gotcha. I feel like somebody wants to make a motion on this from what I have heard so far. Jim. Well, just as a point of process, our next item is actually approving ballot language which we would, do we need to approve this separately and then approve the ballot language or can we just approve the right combination? Or not our next item. Sorry, the item after item. I think now would be a decision about, A, do we want to move this forward and B, if yes, which language would we be moving? Okay. Well, since I got my hand up and my mic unmuted, I'll make a motion that we move the question. Sorry, I don't have the text in front of me but move the question for retail licenses forward as described in the memo for only retail licenses and not integrated licenses. Second. So motion by Jim to move forward to retail license language, second by Hal. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, the motion carries. Thank you very much everyone for a good discussion. We will then move on to item C which is discussion also potential approval of ballot item about an F-35 resolution. Jesse, did you want to introduce? Sure. So per year December 14th resolution about electronic signatures during COVID, we did receive a petition for an F-35 ballot item with a language as reflected in the cover sheet in italics. Unfortunately, they did not have enough signatures but because it has been a topic at council before we did want to bring it back to you. The council always has the right to just put an item on the ballot that is relevant to a community. Thanks, Steve. Yeah, so a group of folks actually reach out to us as a council via email wanting to put this on the town meeting day ballot. No counselor was interested in doing so at that time. So we did create this electronic alternative to signature collection in alignment with the normal process of residents being able to force an item if they receive signatures from 5% of Wynuski voters. So as Jesse shared, the qualification was not met at the time. I understand that folks have been doing some more signature collection outside of that process and are here to speak. I don't know if council has any questions or I can just move it to the folks who are supporting this petition item. All right, so let's move it to public comment and hear from the folks supporting this petition item. I know we had some folks sign up in advance of this meeting. We're gonna go ahead and start with Cara. Hi, Cara. Thanks for hearing me out. Yes, so thanks for listening to our concerns. I am part of this group who brought the measure forward and are still hoping to get it on the ballot in March. And I'm here to advocate for those of us in Wynuski who have ongoing concerns about the UP35s and how they're affecting our lives. I know we didn't meet the signature deadline in a way that would make this easy for you. We thought we'd be able to use a combination of electronic signatures and in-person signatures, but it turns out that COVID really was an issue for us in meeting the deadline. Between team members dealing with quarantining, contracting the virus themselves and just simply handling the stress of living through the pandemic and social isolation, COVID really limited our organizing outreach and we were not able to gather in-person signatures. But we came close with the electronic signatures and I believe that folks in Wynuski should still be able to have their voices heard when it comes to the UP35s. And I request that you still move to place it as a measure on the town meeting day ballot so that we the citizens can advocate for our own health safety and climate. And then I just wanted to read a few comments that we got from people who signed the petition just so it's not just me putting my voice up here. Peter Horger wrote, we the people are pets and our surrounding wildlife should simply not have to be put under such conditions. So frequently my house shakes and I lose phone service every time an F35 passes overhead which I remind you is all too often. Hannah Mooney said, myself and my daughter have PTSD and or anxiety that is triggered in a huge way by the piercing sound of the jets. My daughter begs me to move somewhere else to go for drives where we won't hear them and is scared to go home some days because she hates it so much. Johnny Chagnan said, my partner and I are breaking our lease on Winooski and moving to Georgia Vermont because our animals are severely distressed. And since I started working nights as an essential worker I've not had a solid day of sleep in the last year. The jets lurched me away can disrupt my partner's meetings. Brian Eckert wrote, I'm a business owner in Winooski and the F35s have a negative impact on my business operations. Anne Goreng said, I'm a primary care doctor in Winooski and I'm concerned about the intellectual development of the children of our town as well as the mental and cardiovascular health of the other citizens. These planes are known public health matter. And Channa Cotta said, I live just outside of the high impact zone as in it stops just before our house. So we will get no help to make our house more soundproof. I'm so tired of the plans making my child up our only option is to move and I can't wait for that day to come. And the last thing I wanted to say was that I understand that some of you have been working to ensure sound mitigation funding for Winooski and while I appreciate those efforts my concern is that it's not going to have enough of a real impact on the majority of people who live here. It will take over a decade to complete and that it will do nothing for those of us who spend time outside, which I sincerely hope is all of us. I have concerns that announcements about securing sound mitigation funding does not include information about who will and will not be able to apply for the funding or which housing stock qualifies. It is not all of Winooski and I worry that leaving out that information will leave folks with a false sense of security. I'm also concerned that there has not been an accompanying announcement that as is my understanding that the funding for home purchase protection plans which was originally announced as a part of this whole sound mitigation package that that plan has been dropped but I haven't heard anything about it from the city just from like notes from the airport commission meeting board. And finally I know that the Winooski city council has supported actions in the past that allowed citizens to voice their concerns against the basing of the F-35s and I hope that you will continue to allow us to do that and thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Kara. Thanks for sharing some of the stories from other folks who did sign on. Are there other members of the public who wish to speak as well? So we have Matthew and Anas joining us by phone. Matt, whenever you're ready, star six to unmute. Can you hear me? Yes, welcome Matthew. Thank you. My internet just crashed 10 minutes ago so I had to scramble and call my son and get the number to call in but here I am. So I'm talking to you on the phone. So thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about this issue. I'm asking you to please put the F-35 question on the ballot for the March Town meeting election. The first thing I wanna talk about is some logistics around gathering signatures through an online forum and which you granted to us in mid December and I just assumed that we would get enough signatures because I thought it would be an easy thing but it's people from all over the country were signing in and then also there was a lot going on in the country politically and in the world and with COVID going on and I think people are, and there was Christmas and I think it was like major overwhelm. So we didn't get as many signatures as we wanted at first and then my intention was to get helping with this after Christmas, after New Year's really and then I got sick in a few days after Christmas and I tested positive for COVID beginning in January and I was really flat out for three weeks like I just couldn't do anything. And then last Tuesday I woke up and I'm like, oh, I wonder when the petition's due and I called the town office, found out it was due later that day. So I started working on it and I've been working on it ever since and I know we're late with some signatures but I actually sent you a list today, all of you and there's 80 more signatures on there. Many of them were already there. There's many people that signed up that are residents that live in Winooski and are registered to vote in Winooski and their place of residence came up somewhere else and this is because it's an online forum and it holds their previous information. So I know personally many of those people so I put them in the list and then many people signed up since last week and I came up with 80 names and there's more there if I could have had more time to get through the list but we have more than enough signatures now and I know it's late but I think you should take into consideration there's a pandemic going on and a lot of people care about this. And I think because of the overwhelm it's not like people don't care they just can't get to everything. So I just wanted to talk about that and if you need any backup I can prove everything that I just did in terms of those names of people that live in Winooski but they showed up somewhere else so they were spelling errors I could go and prove everything with the city clerk if need be but I'm hoping you'll waive that and just put this on the ballot. I think I'm wondering sometimes if politicians feel like it's too much trouble and there's gonna be political repercussions and I feel like it's up to the people to stand up and ask for a change and I'm here representing people in the community families with the young kids who are overwhelmed and especially with the COVID thing and they're being impacted a lot of them really care about this and the refugees and the immigrants in this city not many of them can vote and a lot of them will come from traumatic situations and they don't enjoy these planes flying over here and as for the planes themselves I feel like there is a noise factor which is considerable but they're also not a well-tested plane and the project has had issues. Back in 2016, John McCain said the F-35 program's record of performance has been both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to costs, schedule and performance and there have been six or seven crashes of F-35s in the last three years and I worry that we are, I don't wish this to happen but it's a danger for us to have them here in the most populated part of Vermont. Now, I know there are people that support this and I don't mean in disrespect to the people that support this project and the military unequivocally. I respect them as people but I disagree on the policy. I think we spend way too much on the military and I don't think these planes ever should have come here but they are here and I don't accept the fact that they're gonna stay here and I'm gonna fight to get them removed from here and I don't think sound mitigation is, I mean I applaud you for the effort but that's not gonna really make the difference but it's gonna make the difference is not having these planes here and to people who support the military, I just wanna say that I support veterans, I appreciate people's service and I think they should be supported more. Let's see. I mention all this because there's a divide in the community around this issue, like there is around the country and because I believe in reduced military spending does not mean that I am not patriotic in my own way. I want a more sane country and world and changing the way we think about the military is not a bad thing in my opinion and redirecting money to other things that matter more and people could have jobs that way. So please allow this issue to be on the ballot in March. It's only fair given the pandemic and its effect that you waive the fact that we were late with the signatures at the deadline of last Tuesday and to therefore be disqualified. I don't believe that should be the case. In any case, the issue is important enough right now to allow the citizens of Winooski to weigh in again on this issue. Thank you so much for letting me speak. Thank you, Matthew. I see some more hands raised and someone in the chat as well. Annalie, you are up next whenever you're ready. Annalie, can you hear us? We don't hear you yet. Can you hear me? Yes, yes, now I can. Okay, hi, I've been a resident of Winooski for about a year and a half. I currently just rent and I'm calling to voice support for putting the F35 question on the ballot. I'm not a part of the group that's whose members have already spoken but I did sign the petition and I think as the previous speaker noted I wasn't aware that there were some problems with people's addresses and just wanna add to that I've noticed on several petitions that I've signed recently that it's defaulted to my previous address in a different city. So that might be happening to other folks. When the F35s, I think we're being voted on, I think it was in Burlington, I was living in Burlington at the time and I remember people voicing opposition to them because of the noise for one and I thought to myself, it can't really be that bad. Then the pandemic happened and initially, I didn't often notice it too much last year as I don't work in Winooski but since I've been working home, I've noticed it. I can't avoid it. I'm a mental health professional, I licensed clinical social worker and I work with families of young children in Winooski and... Emily, we've lost you. We've lost your audio. Can you hear me now? Yes, your back. Okay, I was saying I am a mental health professional. I work with families and children, many of whom have PTSD or other trauma related disorders and I frequently have to end my sessions or pause them and then run into my bathroom just to avoid the noise. So it's really concerning to me that I have to stop my work and also how that's impacting my clients. The sound mitigation, it's really insufficient. I mean, it doesn't matter if you're outside. What I realized is going for a morning walk like I like to do in the pandemic, it just became unenjoyable because the jets would fly over and I'd have to plug my ears for a solid five minutes because they take so long to go over and I initially thought that I could see myself buying a home in Winooski. I really like the community here. I like a lot of things about Winooski. I absolutely will not buy a home here if the F-35 stay. It's that disruptive. I can't imagine having children and having them run to take cover when the jets go over because it's too loud for their ears. I cannot walk outside without plugging my ears if they're going by or what if I had a baby and I wanted to take my baby for a walk. What would I do? Cover the baby's ears and then leave my ears exposed. It's a terrible situation. And speaking of children, how is this fair to kids at JFK Elementary? And I mean, this is an issue I think of racial equity. The children in the most diverse community, racially diverse and ethnically diverse community in Vermont and they're the ones bearing the brunt of this noise pollution. And finally, I'll just say, as the previous speaker mentioned, some people feeling this is anti-military. For me, this is not anti-military. It's simply a matter of being pro-quality of life for Winooski residents. So thank you for hearing me. Thank you, Annalie. I think we have another hand raised. Do whatever you're ready. I would like to just say that I wish that there was a recording of Annalie, what you just said, because it was pretty striking as far as the impact that this has. It's so much more than noise. I grew up in a community that was filled with the military and I was a big proponent of the military and used to look up at the sky and see these planes flying overhead and think, hoorah! And you know what? Then Vietnam happened when I was a kid. And so when I see these F-35s, it doesn't mean hoorah anymore from me. I don't think that F-35s should be any place. I don't think the Saudis should have them. So that's just where I'm coming from, just to let you know. I think this should be on the ballot so that people in Winooski have a place where they can voice their opinion. And we have seen a lot of opinions in a lot of places and I just think this should be on the ballot. Half of the building that I live in is in the zone and half isn't. Oh, I'm in the half that isn't in the high-impact zone. It's ludicrous. Please put this on the ballot so that the people of Winooski can either voice their concern or say, or voice a different opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Ackland. Are there any other folks that wish to speak? I see Fiona. Hi, I just wanted to say that I'm here and I also want this on the ballot. I know we've been working on this for a long time and the chances of anything changing might be slim but I just want to add my voice to the mix so that our leaders in our city know that we're all still here. A lot of us don't want the planes. It's all the things everyone has said. So just adding my voice in the mix. Thank you, Fiona. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? So before digging into council discussion on this topic I should share that I did reach out to the wing commander at the guard to ask about this question and was advised by him and his legal advisor at the guard that the governor and the state of Vermont do not have the authority to halt the F-35 training flights. I believe what he shared was that because of their joint state and federal mission even if the state said no more mission like we're not on board there's still a federal mission that they're obligated to and that outrinks it. I sympathize with everything I've heard. I certainly believe that not everyone but that the majority of residents don't want these jets flying over every day. I've been working from home in Winooski for six years now dealing with this. It's disruptive and unpleasant for me as well. I also am not included in the noise mitigation area but I have a hard time putting this question on the ballot knowing that it's going to give voters the impression that a thing can happen that cannot happen. I do get the desire to put the statement out there let folks voice their opinion but I think it's the wrong question to present to voters who want to do that. I can see some activity in the chat. Dr. Acklin the governor may be in charge of the state mission but I have confirmed with the air guard that the federal mission over supersedes that. We also know that Burlington city council put this resolution out last year and the governor already made a statement that he was not interested in complying. So I would, I mean, you all are very committed. I would like to see you come back in the future with a different question or a different strategy for how to help our residents have their voices heard on this matter in a way that would be, I think more effective and I'll stop there and see if other counselors have questions or comments. Amy. Yes, thank you mayor. I completely agree with most of what you said. I think that essentially the city council just doesn't have the authority to make this call and we have done so much in the past as a city to try to oppose the F 35s and all of those measures have failed. We have passed at least six resolutions relating to the F 35s that made no significant change. In town meeting day 2015, we put a ballot, a measure on the ballot posing the basing and that didn't stop them from coming. We also signed on to a lawsuit and spent $12,000 in that lawsuit and that didn't stop them from coming. I think for me, the thing that is most concerning about putting a measure like this on the ballot is it's going to give our residents false hope. People are going to see this and think if I vote yes on this, then in a couple of weeks or a month, the F 35s aren't going to fly over my house anymore and everything's going to return to normal. And that's just not how this process is going to work. And I think it's really dangerous of us to consider putting something on the ballot that would give residents such a false hope in this way. So for those reasons, I'm not in support of moving forward. Thanks, Amy. I see Kara's hand is raised again. Thanks. I guess my concern is that I feel like we, you know, the group of us who have this concern in Winooski have repeatedly kind of reached out to our elective representatives to, to think creatively and help us with this issue and sort of find ways to protect our public health and they haven't been able to do it. And yeah, so we're continuing to try and find ways to keep the public voice voiced. And, you know, if we have your sympathies and I think we do, we would love, I would love to hear your input. You know, if you guys are willing to write up a ballot measure for like Act 164 to get cannabis retail coming to Winooski, like we would love, I would love, I don't speak for the whole group to hear, you know, if you have other sort of thoughts about how to keep the voice of the people who live here active and heard. Well, I would suggest that the petition and signatures and the comments that you've collected to date that you send those directly to the governor's office and to our congressional delegation who have more authority in this matter as well as guard leadership. Again, I, I don't know what the question, the right question is here. It is something that I will do some thinking about, but I, you know, like I said, I think this is the wrong thing to ask because it presumes a result that is not possible and gives voters, I think misleading information versus, you know, I think misleading information versus being able to just voice the opinion that they don't want the jets here. I see Dr. Acklin's hand is raised again. I'm just concerned about the phrase misleading information and the other phrase of false hope. All this is, is a question that would be put on the ballot. You'll have people who are very pro military who will, who will vote against the ballot measure based on just, you know, an attitude that anything it's military is good and patriotic. And you'll have a lot of people who are running into the bathroom while they're trying to counsel people with PTSD who will have a chance to do that. So I don't understand why the council would think that it's not a good idea to just put this measure on the ballot. Dr. Acklin, because it implies to voters that the state has the authority to halt the F-35 training flights when I have confirmed that they do not have, the state does not have that authority. Concerned about the language of this specific question. I'm not so sure that that's accurate. And I, I think that, that giving the, giving the message to the governor to let, let the governor know that, that, that the residents of, of this particular, highly populated area are concerned is, is still worth putting out there. You know, there were six resolutions as, as one of the council members said, you know, and it's, it's, it's frustrating. It took a hundred years to get suffrage for women. You know, maybe this is, maybe this is a moot point. Maybe if this does pass as a ballot resolution, maybe people will say, oh, well, we don't have the power to stop the F-35s because it's a federal issue. Still, we need to pursue this is what I'm saying. Please just put this on the ballot. That's all I'm asking. Thank you, Dr. Acklin. I see George Cross's hand is raised. We have not heard from him yet. I think I'm unmuted. Hi, George. I can hear you. Welcome. I just want to say a couple of things quickly. First of all, no one knows exactly what the state's training mission is and what the federal training mission is. That's never been adjudicated anywhere. And so I think that if you were to ask the guard prior to any of the other decisions made by the council, they would have given the same answer that they gave you today. So that's the question is somewhat new. Secondly, if you don't like the question as it's worded, then the council, which has just agreed to put on the ballot, a question about cannabis, which was not petitioned. So the council can put on a different question. They don't have to use the question that's been brought forward. The question and the people who voted in 2016 are not necessarily the same voters today. In fact, I was quite surprised to read the voter list. Because when I ran for office, I probably knew most of the people in Winooski. Today I know very few of the people in Winooski. And so there's a whole different group between 2016 and 2021. I would urge you to put some question on the ballot, which gives the people of Winooski one more chance. Saying that they either support the F 35 or they don't support the F 35. Thank you very much. Thank you, George. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Council George does raise a valid point that we can make up any language we want and put it on the ballot. I think Matthew's hand is raised again. Starts to unmute Matthew. Hello. Hey, we can hear you, Matthew. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. So in terms of the opinion by the guard that it's only a federal decision. I think the issue. Differs on that opinion. And so you're just taking the guard's word for it. And they're. And you're saying that's the truth. And there might be a different truth. So that's one thing I wanted to say. The second thing is that the planes are here because of Patrick Leahy. It's his doing. The Air Force did not want to put the planes here. And he twisted arms for that to happen. And so I think it's important that people have to fall in line with Patrick Leahy. And I don't like what I'm seeing. And I don't like the attitude I'm seeing on the council about this because this is a crisis we're having in this city right now. And just to put it off is the wrong way to go. This needs to be addressed now. And in 2016, when Winooski had a vote, it was about joining a lawsuit. That's what the vote was about. Winooski had a vote in 2018. It was about objecting to the F-35 basing. And now it's asking for the planes to be removed. And I feel like you're just accepting that they're here. And they're going to stay here. And I will not accept that. And others of us will not accept that. We're going to keep fighting to get these planes out. And that's what should be just, that's what's just. And I feel like you should support us and not just, you know, rip us down on technicalities and not liking the wording, the language of what's there. We have no, this is a statement. I have no illusions that this is actually going to be the answer, but it's a statement that's important to make. So I beg you to change your attitude about it and put it on the ballot. Thank you, Matthew. Thank you. Jim. So I've been listening and trying to absorb kind of the options ahead of us. And I do want to kind of honor that point that this is a technicality that's allowing us to have this discernment. As a council, we made a decision to. Create an electronic signature gathering process that mirrors our in-person paper signature process and said that if that was done, we would then essentially use our authority to place any item on the ballot without further. Additorializing or addition or change. And so that was the kind of process that we outlined. And I think we've heard why this group could not get to that number. But it is just a number. And it's an arbitrary number from state statute and we could have said 3%, we could have said 10%. And I, you know, looking at the rate of, or the number of voters or the number of names that were submitted over email, if those really are new names or names that were not in the original list as checked and they had the same error rate, they would have had enough signatures. And at that point, if that had happened, we wouldn't in theory have had any of this discussion because we would have put it on the ballot because we promised we would have. And I think more importantly, I think this signals that there are members of our community that want to make a statement on this question at this time. And I recognize it is a different time that the F-35s, the full training compliments is here. We have new people living in the city who want to have a say on this issue. I, from a pragmatic and practical perspective, I agree. I do not think that this single, I agree with other members of council. I don't think that this single action will have an effect. I don't know that it is actually the right request to make. But I think the spirit and the intent of the request is clear. And I think it is a question that is different and hasn't been asked of this community before. We are on the record consistently opposing the space scene as a community. But I guess while I may disagree with the strategy or I may disagree with the exact content awarding, I guess I do want to just call out that we're using a technical benchmark and process to disqualify having to do something on this when we have seen pretty significant support for this effort vis-a-vis other issues. I'm almost done my rant. But I think the one thing I would say is I do not see this as being an analogous situation with the cannabis or ballot questions. So I don't think that that's a fair comparison. I think there are very different reasons by these two things are being considered. But I do think that as a council, it behooves us to consider whether or not we agree that this is misleading. That's up to voters and to the advocates of the ballot measure. If this were a normal year, they probably could have gotten the signatures. But if it were electronic gathering, not over a holiday during a pandemic, they might have been able to get the numbers. And I guess the question is, does it matter to us whether it was 20 signatures shy or 10 signatures shy or 60 signatures shy of a benchmark that we ourselves set? I'm not feeling like that's a great reason to say no to putting this on the ballot. I'll be honest. Thanks, Jim. I will say that the signature requirement is meant. As an indicator of public interest. And you're right, there is a lot of public interest here. It is unfortunate that the second list of names was sent. This evening and we haven't. There's not been a chance for our clerk's office to vet that list. Are those when you ski voters? Are they new names? I see Fiona's hand is raised. Yeah, thank you. I am just having a hard time with the language that. This is going to be misleading to voters and that, and the idea that voters would. See this ballot question and think that. It was going to act, you know, have the power to magically get these planes. I think it's going to work out. I think it's going to work out of when you ski. I think our. Our citizens are informed and educated and smart and savvy. And have been. I'd say most of them have been paying attention to this for. Is it a decade now? And if not, they've moved in here and they've been working at the same time. And I think it's up to the citizens to be informed. And it's, I don't think it's our city counselors. Obligation to. Gate keep in that way. I may have a misunderstanding of your role, but I think along the lines of what Jim said, it's, it's your role to honor what, what the constituents are asking you to put forth. I don't see anything in this statement, you know. That indicates that this action is necessarily going to happen, but more that it's a statement of our wish that it would happen. And I think there is. Potentially the opportunity for a moment to be reignited here with again, with people working at home. I think people are. Are newly understanding us and people spoke how disruptive these planes are. And maybe there is an opportunity to get some traction. Thank you. Thanks Fiona. Further commentary or discussion by counselors. If someone wants to move this forward, you could make a motion. Jim. I'll propose something modified from what has been said. I'll move that we. Put the following language on the town meeting day 2021 ballot. Shall the city of when you ski urge the state to halt F 35 training flights in a densely populated area such as when you ski. And we can let the state decide how that urging looks. Thanks Jim. And Jesse, I can put that in the chat if you'd like. Paul second. Motion by Jim second by how all those in favor, please say I. I. Those opposed. All right then. I, I'll pass it. Thank you for the additional language, Jim. We pause for just a second so I can write this down. Yep. Actually, Christine, can we take a three minute recess so I can. I think to be clean if we're going to consider since new language has been passed altogether, I think we're going to have to do a five minute recess. I think we're going to have to do a five minute recess. I'd like to give you a warning with the right language on it. So I need to put that together. So can we take a, maybe a five minute recess? Yeah, let's do a five minute recess. We'll reconvene at seven 36. Thank you. All right. It is seven 36. Let's reconvene our meeting. We are moving on to item D. Approval of the town meeting day warning, which. Maybe updated in the. Is it updated in the LinkedIn agenda already? Okay. Absolutely not. It is in your inboxes in your email inboxes and it's the language. It is number four. So if people are online. It's the warning number four that's linked off of this agenda warning with that updated language. I think that you just approved with councilor Duncan's motion. But this kind of on the fly editing is not my favorite. It's not my favorite. It's not my favorite. So I'm going to take a look at that wording and make sure I have captured it. To your intent. I believe that is the language that Jim put forth. That looks right to me as well. Great. So we're going to call that for updated. For the motion. If that is what you want to approve. All right. So this is the warning that reflects all of the votes we just took. Are there any. Questions from council. Any questions or concerns from the public. All right. If this reflects accurately what we wish to see, then I would. Like someone to make a motion to approve the town meeting day warning as is written. So moved. Second. Motion by how second by Jim all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Item E. And the next several items are sort of formalities as part of the budget that we have just approved. So we have the. FY 22 budgets and capital plans. Water wastewater parking community services programs and rental registry. Anything to add to that? Jesse. I do want to call out that I am not asking you tonight to approve the TIF budget or the community development fund budget. It is our intention to bring those back to you in March. But we will be bringing those back to you in March. The requirement is that the council approve them by the end of the. Before the new fiscal year starts by the end of this fiscal year. So technically you have until June, but we will be bringing those back to you in March. The rest are as presented as part of the budget process. Thank you, Mike. Yes, question. We are going to be the next couple items. The water rate and the wastewater rate. We are going to be the next couple items. We are going to be the next couple items. We are going to be the next couple items. Not passed by the voters. Since we passed the wastewater in the water rate, does that go back? Do we, do we start the drawing board? Or those rates stuck in since we voted on them. So the fund budgets that you're voting on right now, don't go to the voters. The council approved those. Alone. Only the general fund budget goes to the council. If the general fund budget were to be. That would change the water and wastewater budgets. But we could bring those back to you for your approval at that time. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Any questions on the fund budgets and capital plans. Questions from members of the public. Right. With someone like to move to approve the FY 22 fund budgets and capital plans. So moved. I can. Motion by Mike's second by Amy. All those in favor, please say, hi. Hi. Motion carries. Thank you. Item F. Resolution on our FY 22 water rates. John. Yes. So before you is the resolution. For the water rate, which is based on the, the budget that you all seen and just. Move forward. So for the water. Water rate for FY 22 is $42.09 per 1000 cubic feet. So. So. As mentioned in the. Presentations as a 36% rate increase. From. Last year's. This year's. Thanks, John. Any questions from council. Any questions from members of the public. All right. With someone like to move to approve the FY 22 water rates. So moved. Second. Motion by Mike's second by how all those in favor, motion carries item G FY 22 wastewater rates. Yep. So similar. So for the sewer rate, which includes sanitary and storm water. The proposed FY 22 rate is $54.88 per 1000 cubic feet. That's a 5.5% increase from FY 21. Questions for council. Questions from the public. All right. With someone like to move to approve the FY 22 wastewater rates. So I'll move. Second. Motion by Mike's second by how all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Thanks, John. All right. That wraps up our. Budget and ballot. We'll move to item H, which is on for discussion. A request for a city-wide reappraisal, et cetera. That Jesse will introduce to us. Sure. And thank you very much for that series of votes. I know the budget process is long and there's a lot of information you are reviewing and holding for the public. And we really appreciate it. So this next item review of the request for proposals for city wide reappraisal. This no action is needed on this tonight. Per our purchasing policies. You do not approve RFPs. However, given the city-wide nature of this work. And the fact that we will have many future council conversations about the reappraisal. We did want to bring it back to you just for your feedback before it is issued. Hopefully by the end of this week. So the draft RFP is before you. Just a couple of reminders. So we are under a reappraisal order from the state given our common level of appraisal. Being below 85%. In this RFP, we are asking vendors to propose to us three different tasks. One, modernizing our land records, bringing our property cards or assess assessment values. Online. So they are accessible to all. And then we're going to move on to the next item. We're going to move on to the next item. We're going to move on to the next item. We're going to move on to the next item. We're going to move on to the property cards or assess assessment values online. So they are accessible to all. Two, doing a city-wide reappraisal. And three, serving as our municipal assessor for the period of that reappraisal and at least one year following the reappraisal to go through all of the. To go through a whole cycle of questions and potential questions. So we have about $200,000 set aside in reserves for this work, as well as the annual operating costs of our current contracted assessor, about $22,000. Many of the details of how the reappraisal will work will be left to the contract. We ultimately enter with whoever the. Winning proposer is. So there are a lot of details here that are not answered. So I just wanted to bring it forward to you because it will have. Such a significant impact on our community for a while. So I'll leave it there, but I'm happy to hear any feedback you have on the RFP or and hence maybe answer questions on how this will work. Thanks, Jesse. I'll just add for anyone watching from home, that's as you mentioned, the state has ordered us to do a reappraisal because property values and when you ski have been climbing for several years and have now become. Significantly in the states I significantly higher than what they are currently appraised for. And I wanted to. Applaud the effort to roll into this process. Moving of records online and asking this vendor. I'm doing so with the land records to have a system where we could also move other records online in the future. It's good forward thinking to help modernize us. I personally don't have a ton of questions on this as reappraisal is a new process for me. Jim. Thank you. And I would second that mayor lot about the bringing more of our government records and services online. Thank you for making that into this to you and staff, Jesse. The only kind of comment I had, and I don't know if there is a need to actually change anything, but I appreciated that one of the criteria kind of listed it as qualities you're looking for our experience working with non English speakers. But then notice the evaluation criteria is more general and looking just for inclusive or companies with experience working in inclusive communities. And I guess I'm just curious if there's some benefit to be more explicit on the English, non English speaking community as a requirement or criteria for selection, or if you think that would be too restrictive. So just so I'm under saying so essentially take number five and make that reflective more of the scope criteria. So we're right to basically credit scope criteria five is just a non English or explicitly identify as non English speakers and then evaluation criteria five is just for inclusiveness. And there may be good reasons to keep them that way. So it's more just an observation. Yep. Thank you, Jim. Always an eye for detail, Jim. And I should also say just so this RFP was developed using a non English speaker. And one of our partner communities, RFPs that they recently issued and then reviewed by obviously myself, Angela, the finance director, the community economic development officer, the planning and zoning manager, the fire chief. We end the city clerk's office has had a chance to weigh in as well. We purposely did not give it to our current assessor because we believe they are a contracted assessor and they may be able to identify us internally, but not with our assessor reviewing. That makes sense. Thanks for, thanks for sharing that. Perfectively. Any questions from members on the public? Maybe reappraisal is a new item for you today. Is there any other like specific feedback that would be helpful to you or just kind of process here? Yeah, I really just wanted to start the conversation. We have a recommended contractor for you to award a contract to. And at that point, we will likely have more details about timeline and process and what residents can expect that we will really rely on the contractor to outline for us. No more, nothing else needed at this point. All right. Last call for questions or comments. All right. So this is a discussion item. So we can move on to item I, which is up for approval. Our city manager annual review process. So it's that time of year again to review. Our wonderful city manager. And on the agenda tonight, I have a memo about the process and the tools. This is exactly the same thing we did last year. The exact same tools, process and timing. So are there any questions from council about this effort? Amy. I just want to call out that. I, you know, I'm sure it is the same process that we used last year. It is less than a week that you all would have to complete those evaluations and send them back to me. So I, you know, for me, I feel like February 1st feels so far away. It's next Monday. And I would be sending these out to you tomorrow. So I just want to check with you all to make sure that that timeline about six days is going to work for you. I know that everyone has a lot going on. And I just wanted to kind of plant that seed in your brain. You know, to, if you do have concerns to say something, but if not to just point out that you have about six days to do it. Jim. Well, thank you for pointing that out, Amy. I would, if possible, it would be great to have a little bit more time. I know I'm looking at three meetings, three evening meetings this week for council on top of everything else. If there is flexibility to extend it by a week, I would, or I guess would have to be three weeks. I would welcome that, but I certainly can do that in the time period available. If everyone else feels good about it. I think we do actually have some room in the schedule. I base it on council meetings for some reason. I don't think that actually is required. Mike, I saw your hand was up, but it's down. Maybe you don't. Yeah, I kind of agree with Jim. Yeah. I have another meeting on Wednesday to go to and. I don't know. I don't know. It just seems like everything's crashing down right now. Yeah. And it's such a hard thing to do for our city manager. I will say this is sort of. I would say something different. I agree with the current timeline. That gives us more time to sit with the information. I think I am hearing. And I might agree with. We actually need more time to, to write and submit than to. Read and evaluate. So. What if we push. Instead of February first. Why don't we make that one? What if we move that deadline to the fourth? Hold on. I'm like. Actively thinking out loud right here. That was my next question to make sure Amy had enough time to. Yeah. Be conscious of her time. What if we do the third? So we have to have a responses in by next Wednesday. And Amy, you could have until Tuesday, the ninth. And then we would all have five days before that meeting. To review the responses. It would be fine for me. I'm not super concerned about compiling because people tend to email me their responses at different times. So I last year just kind of put them in as I got them. Instead of waiting until the end and doing it all. So that's fine with me to get them on the ninth. Yeah. So we would be updating February 1st to the third and February 4th to the. I'll give you all a moment to sit with them. No, thank you. Is that sounding good? Okay. And thank you, Amy, for volunteering once again to help facilitate this process. Thank you, Amy. I mean, to be hearing from Amy. Any other questions or comments? I do just want to. For what it's worth share that. The organization I work for actually. Sort of abandoned the review process for us this year. And did more of a like. General progress check in. And took the time to do that. And did more of a like. General progress check in. And took out the performance piece because of the, you know, extenuating circumstances, everybody's been working with. I'm not proposing we do that here. But I just wanted to call that out. I don't know if other folks are experiencing that in their workplaces. But I think, you know, I'll definitely be going into this. Doing this review process with that in mind of like. I think Jesse's job has been very different this year than in years past. As have many of ours. So if we are good with this process. With the updated schedule of February 3rd and nine instead of first and four. Would someone like to move to approve the process? So I'll move. Motion by Mike, second by Jim, all those in favor, please say, I. Hi, hi. Motion carries. Thank you. I look forward to receiving the documents tomorrow. This brings us to the end of our agenda. Would someone like to make a motion to adjourn? So I'll move. Second. Motion by Mike, second by Amy, all those in favor, please say, I. Hi. Right. Motion carries meeting adjourned. Thank you all for deep discussion this evening. Thank you. Good night everybody. Thanks everyone. Take care.