 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. All righty, instructions on exiting the building and review of technology options. Great, thank you. So for those in the room, there are doors on either side of the back of the auditorium, and you can turn right or left to find a way out of the building in case of an emergency. Thank you to those who are participating remotely. If you would like to make a comment during those sections of the agenda, please feel free to turn your camera on and we'll call on you, or you can message me in the chat indicating that you would like to speak and we will call on you when we get to that portion. We are not monitoring the chat for content, so if you would like to ask a question or make a comment, please do so with your voice. Thanks very much. Okay, thank you. Item three, agenda review. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items? Megan? No? We all set? Okay. Yeah, I'll set. Good enough. Then we'll move on to item four, comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. And I have a sense that there's a couple of people who want to speak. So who would like to go first? And Betty, just make sure the light is turned on, the little green light. Don't you have them on? Oh, those are sunglasses. Thank you. And should I just reserve one here for Megan? Megan, do you want one of these handouts reserved for you? We can put it in your mailbox. That would be great. Okay. I'll set here. All right. Betty, Militia, and I chair the common area for dogs committee. Thank you. And you can imagine what I'm here to talk about. We're very happy to see that the dog park is going in and just here to share some of our concerns around that and hopefully be part of the solution with you, help you. You can see I'm, this is a rough, this is a somewhat rough map of the dog park area, but it has measurements. And I've got committed community members who've spent a lot of time with me up there, either walking the boundaries on the outside of the perimeter of the fence or helping me measure things. And I think you've got a pretty good colored rendition or depiction of what we've got up there. And as I said, we've been waiting for it for a long time and we want to get it right. And the number one thing we wanted to see was to have the park large enough to accommodate quite a number of dogs because it's going to be an area that is highly visible by probably thousands of people who are going to say, gee, let's go home and get our dog and bring them back. So sizes probably the, there's a couple of critical pieces of this. And the first one that we're concerned about right now is the size of the dog park. And it started out as something that when the first application went into the DRB it was 2.52 acres, I think, 2.53. And then when the DRB directed us to address the wetlands that are in the northeast corner of the park, it reduced the size to 2.19 acres. And as you can see right now, the current space is, I don't know visually, to me it looks like it's probably a third, if that of the space that we originally had in mind. So I think it's actually about an acre. So, and there are a variety of reasons. I can imagine what the staff who were involved in overseeing this project, there are a number of challenges to that site. This rectangle is actually not a good or accurate way to look at that particular piece of land, the elevation changes quite a bit from the north to the south, it goes up quite a bit. And there are some features to the property that or to the site that are challenging for them to install fencing on and around for safety reasons and for practical reasons. However, there's a lot of this that I think the whole green area that you can see up at the top, that's all that was left out of the dog park. That's the remaining part that was within the boundaries of the DRP approved site plan. And we have now got that orange area in the middle, basically the orange area in the middle. The rest of it has been basically removed for either being a wetland on the northeast corner. And then on the southwest, I mean the northwest corner, there's a ledge there that had to be avoided. It's about a 10, 12 foot ledge that's pretty steep that had to be avoided and cut out of the park. So just doing those two things would bring it down to approximately two acres if that. And I think we really need to look at how do we add back in as much of that green area that you see going straight across the top. How do we look at the site? And practically speaking, add that, that's part of the DRP approved site plan. Over on the southeast, we're all looking at it as if that was north and south, but on the southeast corner, there's a great large area of vegetation, sumac and everything and- Is that where the question mark is? Yeah, we can't, we can tell, we know how far it goes south. We know the difference between where the current place is, the current fences and where it's supposed to be, the border is or the boundary. But what we don't know is we couldn't measure from the orange corner there of a current park over to the east that we don't know, but it's supposed to be part of the park. And there's quite a bit, there's a large sumac, I don't know if you call them bushes or whatever there. And I think staff may have thought that they need to either get rid of it or avoid it with the fence. And some of us feel that it should have been included in the space for the dogs because this is a wonderful site for dogs. It really will be a wonderful site when these things are addressed. So there are things I think that may have been avoided, some of which needed to be avoided, and other things that may have been avoided that people made assumptions around whether or not they were safe for dogs and whether or not maintenance was gonna be an issue. And I think the committee should be involved in whatever discussions go on around how we remedy this as far as the size goes. Can I ask you a quick question? Sure. To your knowledge is the ledge only where you have the, like the greeny blue stripes, both east and west? That's where there's a steep ledge. Okay, that's where there is, literally you could step on it. On the east side, yeah. Yes, then in the, where? Oh, no, no, it's no, the west side. Sorry. Along the top, along the south of the current space, that orange line on the south side, the long one, there's a knoll that is stone, you know, glacial stone or whatever, there's a, there's a, there is, that is there, there's what I call it a knoll, but it is there is stone there, but rather than avoiding it and going around it to the south, which would keep the dog park larger, they went around, it was put in, the fence was installed around the north side of it. But you can imagine right now we lost 84 feet. And it's the ledge, I mean that knoll is definitely not 84 feet wide. So, and I've walked up there numerous times with various people and it certainly, these things that take some finesse and some creativity, but I think we can work, if we can work together, communication is key, listening is a key. And I think the committee can really be helpful on mitigating, you know, what's happened here. But you can see that green area, we've lost probably 40% of the park since we started this process, you know. And the top of that that's closest to the Wheeler house, that is not ledge. That is not ledge. Okay, I was thinking that's where the ledge was. Yeah, no, no, it's between there, but it's closer to the orange line of the park, okay. The other thing that you're gonna have to address, and I think it's a smaller issue for somebody else than it is for us and for this, the change of the perimeter is that there's a post with an electrical box on it. And that's inside by 49 feet. Oh, is that where that red dot is? Yeah, okay. That's the post and it's 35 feet north of the fence. So that eats up an enormous part of the park too, by staff having gone put that southern boundary of the park straight across because they assumed we needed to avoid that stone and we needed to avoid that post and to go straight across to comply with the DRB application. That's how it ended up being straight across the top. And again, where our feeling is or our opinion is, I will say opinion, because we've got people on this committee who have lots of experience and knowledge. And I would say it's a shame that we aren't consulted on these things. So anyway, here is where we're at. And I don't know where things are going and what the process is gonna be for addressing this, but I guess the committee, we feel that this park, if it can be addressed sometime soon, we should not open the park because you can see how small that park is. And if people start using that park, I think we could end up with this becoming a back burner item to address in the future. And it's not right, it should be fixed. This should be fixed. It should be corrected. We've been waiting three years. This is what we were told we were gonna get. The community wanted a three acre park and we knew we couldn't fit a three acre park on there. But so we agreed to two and a half and we were told we could do two and a half. We could get it in there. And then we were told two. And now this is showing us probably one acre if we're lucky. And that's just not acceptable as far as the committee's concerned. And I think as far as most of the community because one of the reasons we're doing this is so that we can help keep more dogs. We will have, there are kind of three silos of dog people. Well, maybe four. But you've got the people who have small dogs and are willing to use a small, very small dog park. There are people who have large dogs who need a space that a tiny small dog park is not appropriate, but they feel their dog needs to be in a secure, fenced in area. Even we've got a committee member who has a husky and he's afraid to let his husky off leash because he said it'll just take off. So he needs an area that's fenced in. We've got somebody with a new fee, two new fees. Where are they, how are they gonna use this small space? So there are all kinds of dogs but then there are still gonna be, so there are dog owners that are running their dogs off leash right now. Yeah. There are dogs running off leash right now that I think this park will satisfy their needs. It's not gonna satisfy all the needs of all the dogs that are running off leash. But I think some people run their dogs off leash who would feel this park was appropriate if it was larger and it was where it should be. I mean, if it was the size it should be, they'd feel like their dog had at least some room to run. And then there are gonna be people that we're gonna have to look at how do we address the needs of people who have dogs that really need a lot of open space. But that's for another day. That's not for tonight. So in the only, another major issue is accessibility. And some of us who are familiar with accessibility would question whether or not the entrance is actually accessible. It's definitely not. Wheelchair accessible, just the surface material isn't. You couldn't get in with a wheelchair. It's P gravel. And we know folks who use wheelchairs and who could not get into the dog park. And we cannot say, well, there's some people who just can't use this dog park. This dog park has to be opened to everybody. So that is number. You balance it, size and accessibility are two critical features, okay? And then, and I would say next would come shade and some seating, you know? But shade, it's this thing is totally out in the sun. So, you know, I think that's an amenity that is quite important in a space like this. But accessibility and size are our first two challenges. Okay. Okay. So if I were to summarize, Betty, size is a concern and you're willing or the committee is interested in working to add back some or all of the light green area. And you're requesting that the committee should be a greater part of decision making or at least it. Absolutely. Included in the conversations. We don't have people who have built dog parks. We are people who installed this. Well, the people who installed it may have built other dog parks, people supervising haven't built dog parks. And then importantly, accessibility. Accessibility. And then there's other improvements like planning some more trees and that aren't, you know, aren't, won't keep it closed. Okay. But we just feel strongly that it needs to be enlarged. And again, those areas that you asked about, we can help in problem solving around those areas that are stone, you know, ledges or knolls and the vegetation on the east side and what could be done. And I think it will take some, you know, some a little bit of direction from leadership, I think in saying, well, this is, this dog park is important and it may mean that you have to weed whack instead of mowing. You know, it may be that you have to put some time into this, you know, more than you think. And if that's the case, I'd say, give us an estimate of what it would cost you to take care of it. And then we need to talk about how we find the funding to make sure there's enough resources for, enough human resources to take care of, take care of the park. Okay. Okay. Are there other individuals who would like to comment? Okay, we've got one, Barb. Oh, okay. I didn't see, she's hidden behind. Hi, Barbara Service. I live in Summer Woods. I was the chair of the original dog park task force back in the dark ages or so it seems now. And I just wanted to comment that they were all kidding, but we all remember on June 5th, 2019, the council approved a plan that included a larger dog park than what's here. And then came the perfect storm. So in the perfect storm, we had COVID. I don't need to remind you about that. We had two significant staff people who were changed and there were just a lot of transitions. And so we're hoping that that perfect storm can be remedied. There was conversation, I heard, and you know, but things are here, but there was conversation. I heard that there was a suggestion, well, let's wait and see what the public has to say. I can tell you that I have heard already from people who came to the meetings that we conducted in 2018 and 2019 saying, you promised us and our promise has been broken. And I think that the council committed to the plan, the committee committed to the plan, everybody was around it and we have now broken that promise. And this is not about pointing fingers. This is about a perfect storm of everything that could happen did happen. But I'm really hoping that we will be able to preserve all of our integrity by moving a little more quickly to remedy the situation and to expand the dog park so we can have an opening. I agree, we should not open that park until it's bigger because what we're gonna see is a lot of people going, really, is this all we get? Because there were a lot of people who came to open meetings and contributed to the conversation and have an expectation. And it looks really great when you first come up Dorset Street, come down Dorset Street and you see it and then you realize the size of it and it's not gonna work. And as you get closer, you then see the access issues and one of the people who came faithfully to those meetings is a woman who uses a wheelchair to walk her dog and she will not be able to take her dog to that dog park because she won't be able to get into the entrance. So that's it, thank you. Thank you. Yes, Muriel. Yeah. Yes, thank you. I'm Muriel Moore. I'm also on the committee for the, you know. Muriel, will you take the mic and push it there? Thank you. We wanna hear you and so do people at home. Okay, that's fine. Thank you for your time. I just wanted to also comment as a member of the committee that I too feel that the dog park is too small and you've heard much about that tonight. The only thing that I will add that the committee felt as part of our discussion was that we hoped that this increase in size and doing this would help to alleviate the problem of dogs running loose and like red rocks, we learn nature area, that kind of thing, that this would help by having a dog park that was big enough to accommodate dogs who really needed to run. As you can see, I do have limited mobility. And the park is not ADA compliant. And I think that is something that has surprised me that with brand new construction, this park from the get-go is not going to be ADA compliant. And I feel it should be. Right now, I would have great difficulty taking my dog to a dog park and trying to navigate that one, particularly because I have problems with uneven ground in walking around and there are no paths in the park. There's nothing to help with that kind of thing. And I do feel it should be available to all in the community. And to me, this also speaks to your recent declaration of inclusion that you all signed here recently and agreed to. I would like to also just add that I believe that money is available to really make this dog park something special. And that is through the American Rescue Funds. I'm interested that the city is currently doing a community survey asking how to use $3 million that is supposedly unallocated to this point in time. Well, I think if you added some money into this dog park, you could cover what is required. And I feel that this is something that should be done. I think there's no reason not to have a first class resource for everyone in the city and their canine companions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this topic? How about at home? Okay, is there anyone who would like to speak on a different topic? Oh, I'm sorry. I see. Ellen. Oh, sure. Ellen, yes. Yes, Linda, I'm sorry. Linda, I've been on the dog park for quite a while. And I have to say, yes, it's too small, but I do a lot of walking as does Helen and I see her everywhere like I am. And I have to say that I really feel if we're looking for money and looking to extend the dog park needs to be open for people to use now. And we need a plan for the spring because the more we talk about it, the more delay and we won't have it before winter. And I don't, I really don't feel the dog committee will have any credibility. It's not good now to keep telling me, Linda, and I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking for people on haze and kinds of great growth in Dorset who have dogs. So I'm just saying we need to weigh can we do it now with a promise that land is going to be there first thing in the spring so that we can thoughtfully think about how we're going to fund it and how we're going to do it. Thank you very much. Thank you. And then Austin, Palmer. Yes, thank you. I'm on the committee as well. I'm kind of the new kid on the committee, but and new to a lot of these issues. I just like to underscore and concur with everything that my co-committee members have said. I thought Muriel was very eloquent in making her points. And I was the one, I think, on the committee who argued most vigorously for getting the park open this summer and that had a lot to do with just the credibility of the committee and the credibility of the city to get something done that it had promised to do three years ago. And I was willing as seriously as I take disability issues and the ADA I was willing to say let's just get the park open so that we have something to show for ourselves. And then as soon as we get the park open, we will put all of our energy into making it ADA compliant and accessible. But as it turns out, even that is not gonna work because of the size, that because of the way that the place has been fenced. And what's happened is basically a disaster. And so I'm in full agreement with Muriel that we need to get, we need to get this right. If we have to wait another year, that's I guess what we have to do. But it doesn't just attract from the credibility of the committee, nobody knows about the committee, but it attracts from the credibility of South Burlington as a city and as a community. So I just implore you to get serious about this. We have hundreds, I don't know, probably thousands of people who think of their dogs as one of their family members. And like me, they need a dog park in order to responsibly provide for their dog and give them the exercise and the recreational time that they need without letting them go off leash or otherwise, you know, invade on other people's property or personhood. And providing a workable dog park is absolutely essential to making this a community where people wanna live. But I don't know how to say that more simply. It's critical and we need the area enlarged as much as possible as close to the two acres that we were expecting and we need to make it ADA compliant. Thanks very much. Thank you. Are there any other comments? Oh, yes. I also went and Lisa, would you tell everyone? I'm sorry, Lucy and Kaskin, I'm on the Common Area for Dogs Committee also and I help oversee Red Rocks Park. So yes, I do see a lot of dogs. Met this wonderful chocolate new fee yesterday. The problem with the dog park is we were approved for a much larger area and I'm not sure what happened when they were putting in the fencing. So I believe we need to comply with what we approved for by the DRB and it's not so much an issue with ADA accessibility, it's accessibility for anybody and I'm not sure if you can even open the gate. If you had to outward to try to get to the park is an issue right now because there's a dirt berm and trying to get up and over that. That was also addressed on the permit from the DRB. So there's supposed to be like a pathway for the parking area across to the entrance of the dog park and that has not happened. So we do need help trying to get the park in large to what it's supposed to be and to get that fixed so that people will be able to actually get over there without having to climb up over a dirt berm. Thank you. All right, any other comments on, oh, yes. Good evening members, my name's Sean Maloney. I'm a resident of South Burlington and I created the Facebook page Friends of South Burlington Dog Park three years ago and I've also been involved with Betty as far as trying to get more attention to the dog park and my daughter who's now a high school senior started participating in this process when she was in seventh grade. And the delays that keep going, as had been mentioned and I hate meetings where people repeat themselves but I gotta be me. It really is crazy to think about like how long the signs have been up, how long we've been talking to people, citizens of the area, the excitement about the dog park, the potential of just so many activities for dog owners and the community and then just to have these continuous delays, this has gotta be a priority. It was approved for the certain size and it's not even close to that. So it's not even a question of compromising. It's a question of someone just like took the reins and ran with it and did their own thing. And that's unfortunate but you can have perspective. My dog was six when we started this whole thing and now he's 11. I'd like to see him enjoy a dog park in the area rather than like driving up to Star Farm or over to Essex and for the amount that like, what you've done with the community as far as building the center and just expanding on it, like developing this idea of like a community in South Burlington to not have like this dog park access done already is really disappointing. And so anyways, my daughter would be here. She's might be on her way but that's the message that she wanted to convey is that like as a dog owner, dog lover, dog rescue volunteer to not have this space available is really crazy. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else on any topic? Okay, thank you very much. That was very informative and I appreciate the map. Moving on then to announcements and the city managers report. So Tom, would you like to start with announcements? Nothing really to report other than I would just say I would love to know why the dog park wasn't built as large as it was approved for but that'll be probably a discussion at a later meeting at a warrant time. Okay. But wait, didn't Senator Chitton and run the primary? What happened? I was successful. Thank you for asking. Well, that's good to know. Cheers, cheers. Matt? Yeah, a couple of things. First of all, yes, mentioning the election. It was my first opportunity as a city councilor to participate as a member of the board of civil authority in elections and what an amazing experience. I learned a lot and I want to thank Donna Kimville. I had no idea how much appreciation that we all owe her for running a successful election. It is a really challenging, technological. She doesn't sleep for like 38 hours and it was just amazing how it all comes together. I will say we have a new polling place. So we spent a lot of time and I was at that new polling place. So we spent a lot of time explaining that it is a new polling place and it's not a mistake. It was, this is a plan because we have five now districts. I think we can do a better. I think it's a great polling place. It's safe, it's secure, it's beautiful. I was glad that I got that posting. But I think we can do a better and I suggest we keep it, in my opinion. But I think we can do a better job noticing, notifying people who are going to come on November 8th for the general election about where to vote. And I take that upon myself and I urge everyone else to whatever messaging channels you can, whatever way for signage that we can use so people will know not to go to the middle school but to come to City Hall if they're in Chittenden 8. So there's that. We're talking about committees here or no, we say that for later. Well, as a liaison, you can talk about that committee. As a liaison for the bike and ped committee. We talked about a lot of things, but one of the things that we talked about in our meeting last week was the East-West Crossing Design Workshop that's happening on August 31st as a pedestrian, as a biker, if you're interested in how we get from the Staples Plaza over this $10 million, $12 million bridge that we're building over to our side participate in the workshop because I think it will be very valuable to have everyone's input on how we get from East to West. And I have over the last two weeks met with the committee for the common area of dogs and had multiple discussions with Betty and her team and they do a wonderful job as advocates for guardians of dogs and dogs in our community. And I understand their frustrations completely full disclosure. I have a St. Bernard puppy and would very much like that dog park to be open. I have opinions that may differ from the rest of the dog park committee. I think absolutely 100%. It needs to be accessible. We need to change the entrance so it's safe for dogs and dog guardians. We need to make it easier for people to access the site. And I think we can make those improvements without going through the permitting process, without contracting again with Middlebury Fence Company who built an amazing fence. It's just not the way that we was intended. I may disagree with some on the dog park committee in that I do want this open. I think there will be, if we have to go, if, if, if we have to go through a permitting process, if we have to wait the back of the line to get the contractor back here, we could be looking at another nine months. I don't want, so the comment that Betty made, which is, which is really important, if we have to go through that process, if we're told that there's no way that we can fix this until we go through the permitting process, until we can get the contractor back. I think it's going to have a really difficult time having people standing on the outside of that, that beautiful fence looking in. And the concern that Betty articulated very well, which is, well, then we're going to get complacent. As long as I'm on the city council, I'm not going to be complacent, and I don't think anyone else is either. We know what was promised three years ago, and we didn't deliver, but we still can. There's still time. But job number one is fixing the entrance, so it's safe, fixing the entrance, so it's accessible. And I think we can do that. I hope we can do that, and I'm going to make sure that we do. Okay, thank you. I, Tim, if you don't mind, I did notice your daughters here. Would she like to make a couple comments? We usually don't go back on the agenda, but I like to make the exception for some no bad words. Yeah, then I won't do it again. Hello, I'm on. Yeah, it is. I'm out on Maloney, and I was originally on the dog community council when I was in eighth grade, and now I'm graduating high school, and we have worked so hard. I remember when I was younger, and we didn't have any hope of there being built one for a really, really long time and whatnot. And so now to find out that we weren't given adequate space and then finding out the person who told us we originally were going to have that space resigned and whatnot, just kind of shocked me that South Burlington could be like that because I've lived here my entire life. I've been in the same house since I was a little kid, and having this dog park would be just so much better for not only South Burlington, but also like people of Hinesburg and whatnot, because the closest good dog park is all the way downtown Burlington. So if we were able to have the space that originally we requested and whatnot and have adequate entrance and make sure people who have wheelchairs can also be accommodated because they have dogs too and would like to bring their dog to a dog park because they might not be able to do hikes and whatnot with their dog, and also having a place for shade and whatnot because dogs will get overheated and you don't want to have your dog just go in the car for the shade. You'd rather have it in the dog park where you yourself can also be in the shade and whatnot too. And also having it, like it seems finished too and I hope that it can open pretty soon too because I'd be able, I would like to bring my dog there before like he's too old for it and whatnot. And like with the Saint Bernard puppy definitely that would be a good idea. But having the dog park the adequate size would just be better for the people and their dogs because of there's like most of my friends who live here in South Burlington have a dog and whatnot and usually just have to take them on hikes instead of building a better community with the other dog owners here in South Burlington and whatnot. And we can have like dog events at the dog park. Like we had like a couple of years back we had a Halloween costume contest when we were like first trying to get the dog park. And so there can be like little events like that where people can come and like celebrate dogs and whatnot all together and build a community of South Burlington. So thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, top that Tim. I can't. So I was the presenting officer at the Chamberlain School District for the primary election and it went very smoothly. The new machines I thought operated well. They were a little slower but you got at least a ding ding you know if the vote went through correctly. What I really liked was the fact that the ride-ins deviate from the old path into the hopper and actually go into a separate compartment that's separated physically from the rest of the ballots. So when it was time to retrieve those you didn't have to like pull everything out and then imagine that some are mixed in with the others and then have to sort through the whole thing. The really magical part of it was that we didn't even have to check the ride-in ballots at all because the machines if you chose on the menu at closing the poll time would spit out a nice ticker tape of a scan of every ride-in for every primary for every race. So by taking that you could go through let's say you know Democratic governor and find you know Joe Schmoe, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck in the Democratic one Phil Scott, Phil Scott, Phil Scott, Phil Scott, Phil Scott, Phil Scott, Phil Scott should I keep going? And then you could just tally them very quickly without having to sort through you know a stack of ballots for you know that are separated by Dem, Republican and Progressive. So that's a really nice feature that I didn't really know about when we went in but when we printed that out it became very useful. So that was good. I did get a couple of texts from residents who were concerned about some confusion over the new district and I did make an effort by posting in that Facebook group SBVT Community Watch about the new district with a link to the PDF of the map and a link to a PDF of all the streets that were affected telling people what to look for to see if their street was affected in you know if you were in 8 and I also posted that in the SEQ front porch forum but that being said I think before the primary we might want to call upon Avalon and the other paper to have a front page story maybe a couple of weeks before the election saying check these you know streets to make sure that you vote in the same place otherwise you're going to be going to City Hall. So other than that I had some conversations with the resident on Golf Course Road about Mr. Hergenrother's project on long drive and the amount of noise coming from the ledge chipping for the new storm water permit that they need. I personally went up to Golf Course Road on Friday and took a handheld realistic sound meteor and did some measurements. The noise is a little bit reduced from what it was originally two years ago because it's behind a small hillock it's down closer to the pan of the land where the golfing actually takes place on the backside and they're they're digging this really narrow trench in between the trees to put in a storm water conveyance tube of something with some sort. So I think there was an email that came out Friday saying that they were 90% done I didn't hear any chipping today so I don't know if they're done but they might be hopefully so that would be great. Anyway, we talked about that a couple of times. So that's all I have. Okay, thank you. I think the good news is we had the largest primary turnout 25% or second largest. So at least a lot of people who had a new polling spot figured that out may have they may have had to make a couple trips but they figured out so now they know and it should be run a little more smoothly in that respect next year. Well, I've had a really busy couple of weeks. I am the liaison for the natural resources committee and when I visited their meeting or sat through it they had two questions for us. So at some point the council may want to discuss this. They wanted to know really what their role with the DRB should be. They used to they felt have a bigger role and it just isn't clear to them. The other thing is that we have an open space plan and they were questioning me and of course I didn't have the answers. What does the council want them to do about enacting or working on that open space plan? So those are some things that I bring back to you of their interests. I enjoyed going to the first I think it really is the first orientation that we had for all committees educating them again about the ins and outs of open meeting law and committee work and their roles as committee members. And so Jesse did a great overview of kind of the city and then Colin went through the legal stuff and so I think it was well received and it was great to see that many people. I also attended kind of a hearing I guess for the climate task force and that was good and then I worked the elections 11 hours it was a long day but I agree with Tim and Matt and and oh I forgot Megan we'll get you next Megan that it really did work much better and I was pleased with that. I also attended the planning commission meeting and I also met with the Vermont gas systems oh they don't call it that I'm sorry VGS about our suggestion or I don't know recommendation for the ordinance and heard from them we got the chance it was it was I think a really good meeting both Jesse and I met together with them and and we kind of pursued ways that they may be may be able to help us and consider some advice and know how so that was that was good that's all and Megan sure well I can certainly speak now I know that we have another item for the committee assignments I might pull off on the formal housing and the housing trust on committee till then but just don't don't want to be the sole counselor to say I have nothing other than the dog park I agree with all of you there that I don't quite understand what happened and that this just has to get fixed we need to we need to move that fence so I just want that to be focus ASAP I agree that this is this has got to be done yesterday so thanks okay thank you city manager so I will definitely put on a future council agenda dog parks I'll give you a full update a couple of other things for me if for residents who are here in the audience or watching at home you have until midnight to pay your taxes put them in a drop box here at city hall as has been mentioned we have two really critical opportunities for public feedback out there's a survey up for the climate action plan encourage folks to go online and review that plan and provide feedback as well as the ARPA survey which is closing on august 26th if folks want to provide final comments on how the council should consider using those dollars Megan may be talking about this later but a huge thanks to the affordable housing committee and housing trust fund committee for spending all morning on Friday reviewing the RFPs we received for the use of ARPA funds to incentivize the development of affordable housing they are planning to bring you those recommendations on september 6th so stay tuned for those thanks to Helen and the committee members who came to the orientation Colin and I had a lot of fun with that and look forward to doing it every year quick update on the dorset street signal work we finally received our VTRANS permit to bid out that project it's called the 111 permit that we have to get from VTRANS to bid that out we hope to have the bids back by september it is a very complicated project so I think we will likely be coming forward to you with some project updates on that later on as Helen and others said great turnout is second highest ever state primary turnout on election day 32.3% of registered voters voted for 5,225 South Burlington residents and agree with Matt huge amounts of kudos to Donna Kinville and to all of our BCA members who make that happen we also had our most successful library program to date of Jennifer's tenure with us with the summer reads program we had 306 kids submit 1,996 submittals for the summer reading program and an additional 432 people attend programs so thanks to Kelly and Natasha for a really well well planned programming thank you for the reminder about the bike ped bridge public hearing on august 31st here at in this room at 630 the we will be presenting three design options to the community for feedback on what to move forward I've gotten a little preview of them they're really exciting really encourage people to tune into that and then finally just the illuminate our illuminate Vermont festival which will be December 16th and 17th on Market Street this winter we got the ACCD grant for that is coming along Travis Ladd and Wreck is doing a great job planning that the website www illuminatevermont.com is up and running can track progress there in eastern real estate the new owners of the mall are sponsoring the events in this room for that festival so nice community contribution great thank you okay we'll move on to item six the consent agenda there are five items sought of the disbursements minutes from our steering committee meeting of June 22nd an update from the Chittenden County Public Safety Authority appointed designee the financial statements for July 2022 and approving a grant for engineering design of logwood stormwater infiltration project I'll move that we approve the consent agenda second okay we have a motion to approve and a second is there any discussion Megan yeah I yeah there was um let me just find it the Sunbelt rentals for the shovel I was just curious why we're renting a shovel is this a special kind of shovel that we normally don't have it's Sunbelt rentals shovel for $35 I mean I know it's not a big charge but it's just curious hi Megan this is this is Andrew um I'd have to get back to you on that I can I can I can text uh text Tom and ask him that might have been great thanks sure that's all yep all right if there's no further discussion we might have one oops Tim has a question um yeah there was also a oh is that friend I'm sorry that's from August 1st my phone never mind I'm good okay great all right so if you're ready for the vote all those in favor of the consent agenda as presented signify by saying aye aye aye aye and aye there you go very good so that's five zero and it is approved we'll move on to number seven opportunity for counselors and the public to share information and resources on climate change so Matt yeah much has happened in the past two weeks key of course is the IRA the inflation reduction act approved by Congress which will send 369 billion dollars to the states including a significant amount to Vermont to make sure our homes are more energy efficient and that more people drive zero emission vehicles but even though that's the federal issue and we're we're going to wait and see how the money sugars off here in Vermont and how it can be spent there's action happening at the state level significant action just today I attended two different meetings of the Vermont Climate Council that's the 23 member appointed body to design climate policy in Vermont including the Steering Committee and the Transportation Task Group which is creating a carbon reduction strategy to ensure that those that can't live near the employment centers because they can't afford homes are the ones that we're focusing on to get zero emission vehicles or higher mileage vehicles so we can reduce transportation emissions those meetings are all open to the public I encourage you to attend you can find them at climatechange.vermont.gov in addition there's two very significant developments at the state level that have occurred over the past couple of weeks the first is in transportation a week ago from today last monday the Vermont Interagency Committee on Administrative Rules also known as ICAR which is made up of officials with the Governor Scott's administration approve the clean car and clean truck 2 standard this is a California regulation which dictates how many cars must be zero emission vehicles scaling up so if this becomes the regulation all the car lots on Shelburne Road and all throughout Vermont 35% of those vehicles on the lot will need to be zero emission vehicles by 2026 by 2035 100% of those vehicles need to be zero emission vehicles the same is true for trucks but to a lesser degree medium and heavy duty trucks think of the garbage trucks and the buses and the fuel trucks will have to be a 30% will have to be electric or zero emission by the end of the decade the other key thing that's happening is in the thermal space so over the past year the Department of Public Service has developed an updated energy code this is the residential building energy standard and commercial building energy standard called RBs and CBs in short this is how we make sure there is uniformity in building and design throughout Vermont to ensure the highest levels of energy efficiency in the use of renewable energy this will become part of the regulation will be before ICAR in October and will likely be enforced and enacted in January so things are a lot of things happening at the federal level and a lot of things are happening at the state level but there's not a lot of information about it and that's why I appreciate the opportunity that you provided Chair really to bring them up here great anyone else have just to add on to that I'm glad that Congress is able to pass the IRA unfortunately I don't think it's going to have any effect on inflation for quite a few years if any at all but at least the name helped identify it the other point about the electric vehicle tax incentives that are featured in that bill will probably have no effect here in Vermont for many many years because it requires the cars to have 100% of their batteries be built in the United States so until those batteries are furnished in such a way that meets that bill specifications those tax incentives won't be available on any cars you buy here but you know it's a direction to move in and I'm glad that they passed it so we're getting there thanks okay thanks Megan do you have anything or Tom I certainly celebrated when the IRA the inflation reduction act was passed I think that's that's a major piece of legislation so and I think that I don't know I think we'll see we'll see with regard to all the points that Tim raised but I I have hope that you know there will be incentives for for manufacturing to to develop in this country which is the positive and I also think that it will keep keep prices lower than it would be if this hadn't passed so I think that's where the inflation reduction is occurring it's it's it's maintaining as opposed to just letting things continue so I yeah I just think it's it was a major piece of legislation and I'm celebrating we have to celebrate these victories great okay all right moving on to item eight introducing the ordinance on regulating fuels for heating and hot water and new construction and consider setting a public hearing for September 19th of this year we're going to get an update from the staff on plans to resource local education and enforcement and Jesse and Colin and our fire chief Steve Locke will be presenting yes yes oh no I'm sorry you did even send me an email no you probably should have done it so let's go back to that and then that's fine oh yeah I apologize hi John Bosange from Golf Course Road I will say before I begin how reassuring is to hear how smoothly our elections went given the turmoil and everything nationally we hear and here we are with such great reports another polling place and the the smooth operating machines just really nice to have have that happen in our town considering what we hear nationally but I'm here to speak in support of the recommendations given to you from your climate action task force I'm assuming and I'm going to begin by assuming there are very few climate change deniers in our town and the audience are listening tonight this is a well educated community who accepts the science that explains the devastating impact that humans have had on heating the heating of our planet it's not natural but it is human caused but I do think maybe just maybe there are climate delayers in our city and that worries me a bit and that's why I'm here to speak with you for just a few minutes your climate action task force asks you to adopt a plan to reduce South Burlington's carbon footprint beginning in January 2023 by focusing on homes and commercial buildings which contribute to what I didn't know was 34% of the carbon greenhouse gases in our city and to utilize renewable primary heating systems which means using electricity maybe woodchips electric heat pumps beginning in 2023 that plan recommends that all new buildings have a carbon free primary heating system hot water system in order to receive a permit to build well there's nothing novel really about this type of ordinance it's been done all over the country as we know and as you know even next door to a city in Burlington the report gives us examples after examples of cities across America who have done this type of ordinance and it's been effective and the research shows and I didn't know this until I read the report that such ordinances significantly reduce energy use and consequently reduce our carbon footprint and most importantly the construction of energy efficient homes that do not use fossil fuels have similar construction costs so now my question is how can we not do this what would be any reason not to adopt these recommendations and make them binding to any new construction or any developers building plans I can't imagine I was thinking about this I just can't imagine a builder telling us that they do not support energy efficiency they do not believe in helping reduce utility costs and at the same time help reduce our carbon footprint or that they think we can delay the inevitable because we have time to do so they know as we do that just the opposite is true and there's no turning back now what builder is going to tell a younger and newer generation of home buyers that they can't afford to include the requirements in an ordinance when we know now just the opposite is true Nurk and I imagine a developer telling us that they want to keep the cost of homes down and build affordable apartments condominiums and single-family homes so they will only build like we've built in the past with no concern for the carbon footprint of those affordable housing units it's inconceivable for me to think that people will be forced to live in homes that are still heated by fossil fuel systems of course a developer can build mixed housing units for our children's future all construction in the use of primary heating systems is less expensive to build a developer's sales will be booming I think just booming as a younger generation responds positively to their commitment to help mitigate the climate crisis no builder will be telling younger and new buyers that they just must absorb the cost of a carbon-free place of living that's just not true what a public relations nightmare that would be for a developer who's going to buy a home from them smart developers will stay ahead of the curve on this one they'll want to promote their green homes and support of doing their part to deal with the climate crisis that's upon us now smart developers will advertise their commitment to community and help mitigate the climate change by making places of living carbon-free and that will attract younger buyers to their home and to our community that's what we'll sell not the type of home that I live in that most of us live in now we're boxed in with dated heating systems that still pollute this whole discussion reminds me as my work as a commissioner in burlington several years ago and we tried to ban smoking from our parks and church street it wasn't an easy road to begin but the ordinance worked over time because city leaders had the courage to step up for the good of the community now we look back it's interesting and we say we remember when we had to breathe all that smoke coming from someone sitting on a park bench or in a restaurant table and we ask how did we allow that back then like banning smoking from airplanes and movie theaters we can't imagine that occurring now because decades ago it was just controversial and everything was not enforced by the smoking police restrictions on smoking became the cultural norm over time non-smoking areas became what everyone expected your climate action task force recommendations will evolve the same way the recommendations before you when codified into an ordinance will become the cultural norm of how to do business in South Burlington and our children will look back and say remember when they used to build homes and heat with gas furnaces remember when there were no renewable primary heating systems and homes and commercial buildings why did we allow that back then well we're here again at the crossroads we must not deny and of course we must not delay please action task force and make their recommendations into an ordinance for the sake of the future of our children we have no other choice and I'm confident you will do the right thing thank you very much for the time thank you is there someone oh so there is somebody are we moving on to the actual discuss the actual ordinance yes we can agenda item yeah I thought John's comments were a little more general but that's okay I mean they are related to information can I offer some quick testimony it's a process question sure Dave or Daniel excuse me yeah sure Daniel Briggs South Burlington resident Proctor Avenue my only question is really just about process because I thought we were still in the middle of collecting public feedback on the climate change plan so it just seems premature to take action on an action on an item from that plan before that's that public comment process it ended that's all okay well I think the count thank you it is unusual I would agree the climate test force I think made a case and brought to us this ordinance that they felt should happen sooner rather than later versus the entire action plan which is enormous and the majority of the council agreed that we should at least look at the ordinance see what it looks like and consider earlier rather than later whether this is something that we wanted to adopt that's not I don't know if we will but that that is the process we agreed to believing that this was one piece of the recommendations that potentially could go forward sooner particularly since our sister city Burlington had already gone down that road so that was the process we engaged in Daniel so I'm prepared to make a few introductory please statements okay I will wait wait wait do we just just agenda eight yes we're we're now going to start agenda eight even though it seemed like we already did can I cut our city manager off yes you may because you did ask me permission not to cut her off but to make a comment before we begin discussion on agenda item eight I just wanted to announce that I'm going to recuse myself from this agenda item and with the chair's permission I'd like to explain why my employer is a nonprofit trade association called the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association VFDA Vermont Fuel the organization has a diverse membership base really 250 businesses of all shapes and sizes but majority are in the thermal energy business they're either distributing the fuel or they're selling the equipment that provides heat and hot water or they're installing the equipment in your homes and basements that provide heat and hot water and cooling electric and combustion technologies about two-thirds of my membership base the same ones that installed wood stoves and oil boilers and gas furnaces and water heaters also install coal climate electric heat pumps and heat pump water heaters that's their skill set not only do I provide them legislative and regulatory assistance to these skilled trades people I also run a school we've trained thousands of heating technicians delivery drivers people that work on the electrical systems like licensed S licensed electricians S licensed plumbers oil gas techs electricians plumbers fuel delivery drivers thermal efficiency experts these are my people these are my people my father's also a Vermont licensed plumber he's retired but still lives in bellows falls where I grew up Southern Vermont which is near the Massachusetts border New Hampshire border and as a teenager full disclosure I work for the family heating fuel company this is who I am this is what I do and this is what I know and I have lots to say however I recognize the comments made on this side of the desk might be a distraction from what I hope will be a robust discussion by the council on what role the city should play in determining how residents are able to supply an essential commodity not a luxury not a cigarette but a necessity heat and hot water and how that's enforced thank you chair really I'll be over there we'll move on then great thanks so to be a timely staff responsive to the council's wishes and hopefully hold the trust of the community that I hope is not eroding at all we have spent staff has spent a bunch of time in the last two weeks drafting an ordinance for your consideration as well as talking about how administratively we can do that we could implement such an ordinance immediately so what we have in front of you today is a quick one page memo from me a draft ordinance that Colin drafted with feedback from the team the city attorney as well as summaries from both the planning and zoning team and the fire fire marshal's office about how we currently enforce and permit such regulations so starting with the ordinance a high couple high-level bullets we have based this on three main goals we've mirrored so the city of burlington's ordinance we've added hot water to that at your direction and we have included language we need to make the administrative changes we need to make locally because our systems are different than burlington to enforce these you'll see a few highlights as you consider this draft there are standards set by the vermont commercial building energy standards for heating sources there are not similar standards for hot water that we've yet been able to find but they may be out there we do want to call your attention to that domestic hot water regulation statute it's not been tested in the courts so it may be considered under a heating umbrella we just it's never been defined by the courts we currently don't have a building inspector which would be required to receive these certifications so you'll see that that is contemplated in this ordinance this would be in the force with certificates of compliance on all new construction including single family homes that are not currently do not currently have involvement with that process in the city so that would be a new addition and it's all approved through self-certification including waiver requests no inspections will be done but enforcement mechanisms will be through the fire marshals office so that that's the ordinance before you in terms of future capacity we believe that through the addition thank you very much council of having now both with chief Locke on board a fire chief and a fire marshal we have the capacity to implement this ordinance as it's currently drafted within our current staffing capacity if you as a council would like to explore enforcement and education as components of implementing this ordinance then the specific questions we will be looking at over time our administrative support building inspection support to actually do those inspections on single family homes and education and communication support and if you give us that direction we will start looking at that for the FY24 budget so those are introductory comments chief Locke and the city attorney are here if you have any specific questions for them obviously Andrew is here as well and is the expert and I'll leave it at that okay are there any specific questions by council members at this point yes Tim so I'm just going to go through these randomly not in any order the revocation of appointment section seven it says upon recommendation of the city manager the city council may remove the appointed building inspector any time do we need to add for any reason just a just a I'm just curious I'm just these are the things I just found I was like well why doesn't it say for any reason I mean I don't know if that's necessary or not but or does that is that implied if you say at any time we can certainly add that we can certainly add that okay do you think it's good to add it makes sense I mean it makes sense okay we also have I mean it's under state statue we people have property rights to jobs so we can't just terminate them willy-nilly anyway but certainly I think there are also some some minor like grammar you know wordsmithing things I found I'm not going to go through them because this is just the first draft so I guess one of my first questions is today there are no certificates of occupancy that are given out for single family homes is that correct is that something that we might want to change if we were to so that wouldn't be specifically in this ordinance right so but from my perspective I mean does Burlington require a CEO for every single okay so I'm a real stickler when it comes to making sure that new homes are built according to specifications and I know that most builders honor that requirement but um I I just don't understand why single family homes have always been excluded in south Burlington I don't know what the history is of that Burlington is the only community in the state of Vermont that enforces the code on single family owner occupied homes okay all right so I'm just going to raise that flag right now that I think that I don't know what the cost is right now and I think I've set it before any new construction I should just this should be all construction commercial multi-family single family should all be inspected I mean I think it's in everybody's best interest that we do that the but you're excuse me you're understanding that this may not be the ordinance yes I put that yes so you're just raising that as a yeah because further on there's an additional issue of the of the okay certificate process right so uh-huh these are things that's caught my eye and um another thing was domestic hot water systems and that's under section okay uh as it's at B to to be so when I think about domestic hot water I think a water that comes off of a boiler but are you just talking speaking in general terms of just what a hot water system is within a a resident or in a yes in a building period yes and I think the word domestic have any specific definition here that we should know about I think our charge from the I recall the charge from the council was that was kind of the the words that were used and instructing us to include that so that was one of the reasons that that we included it I won't profess to be a utilities expert or a hot water or heating system expert but we try to come up with language based on what and what the recommendation was so that can change based on what the experts would say in this field okay so I mean I'd like to raise I think that might be a problem just might be I don't know and also in the definitions of renewable gas methane is is talked about if it's excuse me can I just interrupt Matt I think had some information about the definition of domestic or where it comes from so to answer your question if you want it to be like for Rowland Dakota South Rowland to resident 51 winds up lane the first time long time can I just make a comment because I think we're going to get into this back and forth so per our meanest no no today per our conflict of interest policy in the city when a counselor recuses they become a constituent so Matt is now addressing the council as a constituent and a Saint Bernard puppy owner yeah as the son of a plumber and somebody trains plumbers and heating technicians domestic hot waters the water that comes that is potable it's the domestic hot domestic hot water systems are the water that is heated and that runs that can come through the faucet that you can drink okay thank you good to know so getting back to what I said before renewable gas means methane produced by organic materials source landfills wastewater treatment facilities and farms do we want to consider hydrogen as well is it too early to to add hydrogen to that mixture so to speak as a renewable gas I mean my employer's talking about installing an electrolyzer to you know turn water into hydrogen and inject it right into the the methane you know from the network for for heating things at the site and I I think that that's going to come into play more and more I I don't know how far on time that is but just just a note is that should we be adding that as another gas source which could be considered that could be added at a later date when it becomes a economically feasible option right I agree it's not economically but on that point I don't want to take you off your list I know in previous ordinances we've done a really good job of referring to state statutes so that if our language should so we don't have to keep evolving hours so I don't know if that's possible as we go to the next version in iteration of this but referring to any state defined definition of what a renewable energy source is which might encompass hydrogen in the future okay and then I think finally there is the definition for a solar ready as part of the certificate system and and as I've said before solar ready to me is not enough there has to be a solar kilowatt requirement that's based on some formula for the space of the house or the volume or whatever it is and maybe we don't get it in this round but really every new unit that's built in the city should come with some solar along with it and if you have to sacrifice some roof space or some parking canopy space I wouldn't call those sacrifices those have to be specified and codified in order to make sure it gets done because we get a lot of free sunlight over many months of the year some months better than others December's not that great but May is excellent and our last July was really good so those are the things I found so far there's also a couple of typos I think the word stretch turned into sketch later down in there but I can't find it so that's all I have right now thank you okay thank you Tom so my question is and I want to restate from the outset that I still support doing what Burlington did my pause is similar to what I had at the last meeting that I'd love to ask the administration much testimony or conversation they've had around the hot water heaters it's just it's unclear to me especially with the two bullets in the draft memo if we're ready and I would love to know how who they that Jesse as well as our attorneys have spoken to with regards to experts to understand these systems more specifically I've received I don't know two emails from individuals today calling for questions about how hot water heaters could be electrified in multi-unit family or large complex places if that technology even exists the economics the costs is certainly an aspect of this whether or not they can afford the electricity to do it I also am very interested to know who we've heard from in as experts in this field and maybe resident Kota can speak to some of this but having to do with the safety I just think of ice storms and if the electricity goes out for a few days individuals in high-density housing that might not have the means to escape a severe weather incident I want to be sure that we are not putting them up into a circumstance where they could be at risk of going cold in the great state of Vermont so I'd love to know seeing that Burlington spent three years drafting this ordinance which again I support doing what Burlington did also on the ordinance inspections and so on I'm really curious who the administration has heard from so far in the hot water aspects and whether or not we're ready to venture into that space just a point about losing power I mean even if you were if you had a natural gas furnace you wouldn't be able to get any power you wouldn't be able to heat out of it because you wouldn't be able to light the flame in the first place and you wouldn't be able to to run a blower but if you had a natural gas fireplace that didn't have an electric ignition that had a pilot light you could in fact get heat out of that but that's the question is you know how many units would have that so pretty sure gas systems can run without power so none of the cider mill furnaces can run without electricity so individual residential homes but I'm talking about large multi-story complexes that can still draw my house the furnace continues to run even when the power is but I'd love to talk to heating experts that could there's continuous room in the powers and I also have two stoves as well but my furnace continues to run without electricity is it gas it is and is it is it hot air or hot water hot water so it's well then what pumps the water through the pipes and when the power goes out I don't know I'd love to talk to a heating expert but I'm under the impression that the electricity as a backup source can still continue to function okay okay maybe it just clangs so have you I don't think the city's taken testimony per se I'll jump in here I'll jump in here all right yeah I I'm assuming that everyone talked with for my gas systems I talked with two representatives about the water heating the hot water heat pump and they had no qualms with that it's one of their products and I also talked about the sorry geothermal and they said that that is also one of their products that they install pipes either way and that that is something that they're working on with a client in Rutland and would be open to doing that as well so just to I received one email I think that we all received from from Patrick O'Brien but he recommends that we talk with for my gas systems and based on my conversation with the the two representatives from for my gas systems they are on board with this they helped Burlington write their ordinance and they just want to be included in any you know policy discussions going forward but they they raised no red flags with regard to the current ordinance that we are looking at so I just thought I'd share that okay so Chief Locke did speak with Burlington or email with Burlington folks do you want to it was just that I reached out to the director Burlington Electric to ask why you know he why they didn't go after hot water in the first draft of their ordinance and the Darren's response was it just there they're not high energy consumption that the heating units are and that in the future they may go back but I think for for them to get the ordinance to the first place they wanted to just focus on the high most what they were going to get the most gain from and so while they may go back in the future that was their reason for not including hot water units and then I think anything beyond that we just followed what we thought was your direction for including including the hot water heater language in the draft ordinance Tom so in the conversation did you have any distinction or differentiation between multifamily units as well as single family residents because I can see the case for new large homes going up in the southeast quadrant to make those all electric my my concern is the high density housing that we just need to have reliable heating sources so was that part of that it was not just as simple as why didn't you go after this in the first place well didn't Tom get say that the summit property buildings would be all electric no no gas did did you say that that they were all split systems for heating and cooling but I don't remember what the what the what the hot water was sourced from does anybody know I'm going to chime in I want to say from the outset I am not against I'm just not quite sure we've heard from enough people to be ready for the hot water piece of this so I could very well support it but I want to confirm that what you just said and I want to talk to people that know heating sources for large complex buildings and that they've seen this language and I'm just not certain that that's happened yet Well I certainly read a lot of Vermont gas was on board I just wanted to say Vermont gas was on board and I I I really don't know where that qualm comes from Councilor Chittenden I think it comes from in in large apartment buildings the question is what are the choices for construction construction time to add in a water heater is it do the does each unit have its own water heater right inside of it somewhere like either in the ceiling or in a closet or are they all located in the basement I don't know maybe chief knows no I think it's a variety depending on the occupancy and you know often also when we were drafting the ordinance we could not find a reference to language when it came to governing the hot water systems so we basically applied the same standard as for the heating systems so I'll just say it did feel like we're on a little bit shaky ground trying to find the enabling legislation that would is it better that's safe to say yeah the code that was referenced by for the renewable primary heating system we basically duplicated it for the in essence duplicated it for the the domestic hot water heating system and the same thing is for the domestic hot water heating load and is fueled by those standards are the same for both because we couldn't find any any differentiation between the two well I think Vermont gas said there weren't state standards right or they thought there were but they couldn't put their fingers on them they they think they are coming in future iterations of the statewide documents but they they don't exist yet so we could write it and reference those future standards when they become when they are developed I mean we certainly reference all these other state standards so a couple things I was traveling last five days my meeting with Vermont gas systems is this Wednesday so I have not yet spoken or heard from them but I also think the public would benefit from hearing directly from them so I hope that we have opportunities or at least we encourage them to either officially weigh in or offer thoughts and I'm sure that will happen so that being the case I don't know if we can move forward with just the Burlington thing the Burlington standards which has some value and consistency and then similar to the dog park I would also agree opening what we have to serve the community passing this legislation which is consistent with the neighboring community and then continuing to take on the hot water heater if we want to get this worn for September but again I could support it I just want to hear from people that understand hot water heaters to in to tell us that these systems exist and that they will be safe and reliable for large multi unit homes Helen Yes I would like to say that I'd like to go forward with what we have here and we could certainly remove it at the public hearing but I I feel comfortable based on my conversation that this will pass with you know with regard to Vermont gases you know input that without any any reservation they had none that they expressed to me the only question I have is we received emails from Andrew Chalnyk I know that Ethan is here and he was copied on these emails with regard to how some of these things should be phrased I would like us to talk more about what Andrew was considering to be needed changes to the wording and to be able to just move forward I see no reason why any concerns that Councillor Chittenden might have cleared up on Wednesday or not and if not then we could certainly you know in September deal with those but I have confidence that he will be satisfied on Wednesday I see no reason why we should remove that based on my knowledge and directly from from our gas systems do you want so I'd like us to look at Andrew Chalnyk's and I'm assuming that this is something that Ethan could weigh in as well since he received that email but with regard to the domestic water heating system removing the renewable word and then that the meeting at least 85% of the buildings designed domestic hot water heating load he thought that that could be removed as well and then he also in the second email he added that solar could be a source of energy for this hot water heater so he just worked it into the the introductory paragraph and then still left electricity with pellets or other renewable fuel used by conventional primary water heating systems so that's the one question I have the second question I have is with regard to the renewable energy I have to go back to this device see it's something with regard to unit whether the the geothermal could be included in this trying to find the wording popping out at me unfortunately but if we could talk about Andrew Chalnyx that could I think be of of value darn why is it not coming thank you for your patience I'm going to find it are you talking about that where the solar fits in because it's beef that was the one thing and then the other thing was it was like a unit it seemed like I was just trying to see if the geothermal could be covered by this this language covers geothermal wouldn't it be covered by electricity that's what I was wondering to yeah yes thank you thank you yeah you're probably right but I'm glad to have that confirmed I do trust him you tend to have oh Megan you just muted yourself I said I I trust what Tim has to said he he seems to have his technological knowledge you know that stands the test so the question that comes down to the solar whether we include the solar is Andrew Chalnyx recommended and then we just removed renewable and then the 85 percent of the building's design domestic hot water heating load and the two okay and why why do you want to eliminate the 85 percent I thought we were trying to keep this aligned with Burlington they don't have hot water so this I think is if I'm understanding what Colin said right and how do you have a duplicate duplicate hot water system that would be twice as expensive okay I get it it's just for the hot water okay not the heating not for the heat right okay so are we suggesting that we need to add in solar heated water sources as a form of renewable renewable well it's not a fuel but it's it's a renewable energy source but we're talking about solar solar amounted solar heated water systems right I mean maybe I haven't articulated my concern well enough and I'm not against that my concern is for the high density housing and if there's clouds and if there's power out I just want to hear from people that they will still be able to stay warm and that's why I'm concerned with the hot water system that might also be heating some of the units or as a backup system if it doesn't have an additional source so where who's online tonight to talk about large developments compact dense developments like the Snyder Ravens are they online tonight anybody in the house Ethan's got his camera on Ethan's a developer I didn't know that Chris Snyder is in the room way in the back in the shadows almost Andrew do you want to speak I mean these are your recommendations so why don't you go over to the podium and explain how you got to these and then we can hear from Ethan so hi Andrew Chandlik thank you for so you know quickly moving this along really appreciate it just a couple of things so you know we are we did hear that there are several large multi-family developments that are all electric or intended to be so Cambium Rise in Burlington the affordable housing being built in Morrisville understand city places intended to be built be built all electric so I think that you know there is certainly technology for that multi-family multi-unit high density you know system and you know there is a technology to service that having said that right the the task force after having talked to Jack Hanson about why Burlington didn't move forward with hot water he said they just weren't sure to echo some of your concerns Tom that you know it would be the right system for every large building and so we we did recommend in exemption right for folks that can establish that you know this is the technology is not there to reasonably service the needs of the building that that's in the in the presentation and you know to me that that makes sense to see how this evolves right so that that you know that I think that's how that's how we would go that was that was part of our recommendation I think we you know there are solar hot water systems that people use I think that's kind of you know an easy one to to throw in to the ordinance for for hot water that people should that that should be recognized as a certainly renewable system for hot water you know some of the other changes that they recommended are just minor we can talk about it now or later really and it's to your point Helen it you know most we didn't anticipate you'd have a backup to hot water so my understanding is for instance heat pump hot water system already have built in electrical resistance backup so it's kind of it's kind of built in the technologies kind of standard you don't need like another complicated statuette says you can have like a third backup so that's it thank you okay does that Helen yes and I found the the renewable district heating what is that renewable district that's like when the McNeil you know wood chip plant in Burlington they take their waste heat and they would actually lay pipes in the city with like let's say steam or hot water and then residences would be able to tap into it and divert that hot water into their house through okay yeah I think thank you UVM is a system UVM yeah the big system that physical plant behind the Howe library pipes steam to lots of the buildings through pipes underground thank you yeah okay other comment Ethan do you want to weigh in on yeah thanks you've been Goldman yeah thank you Andrew said it very well so I don't want to you know repeat everything that he said I think that the the multifamily building heat with with heat pumps is is pretty well established from Burlington and you know you're all sitting in a very large building right now that's heated with electrical heat pumps so there's lots of solutions for that I think that's that's less of a concern and I guess I would also emphasize that and I think Andrew made this point as well that the for multifamily buildings there are definitely technologies that are available now that have higher capacity for those type of systems you know there's some reports from national labs as early as 2017 there's some new equipment that came out in 2021 that's specifically designed toward those buildings but I think what you've got for language around exclusions around economic inviability allows us to put something in place today that covers all the cases that makes sense today and as new technology comes out and as we get better at dealing with it it will cover those new situations as well so rather than having to chase it and saying well now for units up to this size with blah blah blah you can just leave it up to the builder to come forth and say I looked into it and it's going to cost too much and so it's not ready today and then they can move forward with an alternative plan if they discover some situations where there aren't high enough capacity hot water systems for the particular case that they have so I think that that language gives us a lot of flexibility and takes the burden off of you to continue chasing the technology and put it onto the industry to continue you know evolving best practice Does that satisfy you? So I'm not saying I'm not satisfied what I'm saying is I just want to hear I have a couple of emails into this in my inbox today from developers and builders and then I just seem like they need to be heard from too on these ordinance and maybe that'll happen on September 19th I'll say I'm as one counselor I am completely comfortable doing what Burlington did I still have reservations about the hot water heater they spent three years coming to where they got and I'm just worried that we're pushing too hard and too fast on the hot water heater I could get there I just want greater assurances from those that understand these issues and the implementations of these better than I Does the ordinance govern when somebody replaces a water heater because it like a natural gas one just breaks and it needs to be replaced? This is only new constructions okay but we'll touch on that in the future okay yeah that's when we get to all the houses right right So I do feel the need to acknowledge and I would recommend you open it up for other public comment that you know most of the time when staff is here before you we are presenting on something that is core government service that we are solely the experts on this is not something that we are at all expert in we have no capacity we have no expertise on staff or expertise in consultants right now focused on helping us craft this so we are you are asking us to craft this with using the expertise of our community members which is fine but is something that's very unusual for us and I just want to thank Colin and Steve and Terry and Andrew and Paul who you know put a lot of other things down to pick this up and try and get educated really quickly but it is not it's not something we feel very comfortable doing so if you want additional expertise brought in we are happy to coordinate that we have not tried to do that today in an effort to be very responsive to what you directed us to do so just one for that out there I think you may also have other members of the community who would like to okay be engaged is there are there other members in the audience who would like to speak yeah Chris and again we'll potentially have a public hearing on this so absolutely your report so I'm Chris Snyder with Snyder Braverman Construction Company and involved in city center development around in this area right now and also along spear meadows or at spear meadows on a spear street I think the point that Jesse just brought up is an important one is that there does need to be a group of people of knowledgeable people who help understand and the dynamics that go on both from the construction end also from the energy use end and also from the regulatory end and so my recommendation would be rather than it's my understanding if you proceed with this going to a public hearing does this ordinance already come into effect or does it not come into effect until after the public hearing we would have to vote positively we have a public hearing and then take that information into consideration potentially make changes or not and then the council would have to have a majority who were willing to vote in the affirmative for the ordinance to go into effect okay this isn't like interim zoning okay I'm just it would be January 23 pardon me January 1st 23 and 2023 is when it would be in effect it's drafted right now yeah that's drafted yeah that would be the soonest if we voted in yes it's in four and a half months and so I think what what I would recommend is let's get some more experts who understand all these parts and pieces since who can answer some of these questions about multifamily domestic hot water there's also some concerns personally I've experienced constructed a building where we had tenant complaints regarding comfort within their home using an air using a heat pump system and that those are issues that need to be understood before just making a blanket statement we're going to heat pumps the other piece is there are expenses associated with heat pumps and they actually don't last as long as other equipment that is been on the market that is using gas oil and wood chips or whatever so there are not only initial expenses but also continuing on expenses that can be more costly than using the current boilers and furnaces so I just think all of that needs to be discussed in understood and I'm not against energy efficiency we build all of our product at a very high standard they're probably the well I know that they are right now the most efficient homes that I've ever built hands down the multifamily buildings here have extremely high efficiency ratings and you know with high density housing comes efficiency just in general because of how you utilize the cumulative systems I just I'm curious though Burlington I don't know if you are part of their discussions if you do any development there but they did work on their ordinance for quite a long time so I'm assuming but I don't have the factual facts to back me up that they did ask for experts they didn't go forward with the hot water which I appreciate because that's I don't know maybe it's a little newer and the technology has caught up or is better than when they were crafting their ordinance but I have to believe that they did get some of your concerns addressed to their satisfaction we probably need to as well but I also don't always think we need to reinvent the wheel every time we have a similar policy objective if there's language that's has been developed thoughtfully and carefully I don't I don't maybe chief Locke knows how much do you that were you part of any of those conversations okay so but I appreciate yes we do need some some more answers and some more people and we have Matt there who probably could inform us a little bit and Helen tonight yes the the heating does include the 85 percent yes yeah so there can be a backup for the heating to respond to the concern that Chris Snyderman raised when we get very very cold temperatures so I I don't know if he caught that but that there is a backup for the heating for the heat not the hot water but the hot water comes with the backup in the device itself yeah in and I did see that and I did understand that I still think that it's there's concern one then you're putting in two full systems because when it's 10 degrees or I mean zero or below the heat pump systems essentially their efficiency goes drastically down and so they have to work even harder during those extremely low temperatures and so I don't know what the spike in the electricity is or need is during those really cold temperatures but then you would have to have a gas or a propane system already in place run throughout the whole building as well to ensure that you were able to maintain some temperature comfortable comfortable temperature not asking for 90 degrees but yep I get that okay I just think that there's should be more opportunity for for the city to gather some experts maybe find out what the city of Burlington did and who they communicated with and maybe there is someone who could provide some background as to how they landed where they did okay you don't have to re-credit just find out what they did sure thank you yes hi I'm Amy Dimetruz the Champlain Housing Trust and I'm also looking forward to the public hearing when we can have a broader conversation about this these really are very complex issues especially when they relate to multifamily buildings so the affordable housing sector in Vermont has always been focused on energy efficiency since the 90s I'd say we've been leading edge in terms of energy efficiency we've put in wood-fired boilers we've done solar hot water systems we've done solar photovoltaic systems we've done heat pumps and if it were and we've we've incurred additional expense to increase the energy efficiency the insulation of our buildings we really build extremely efficient buildings and there is often additional cost but we are willing to bear that because there are savings we don't find that with electric heat pump systems in Vermont gas territory in fuel oil territory definitely there's a savings but not in gas territory so I was excited to see that in the climate plan there is a provision to review your policies in relation to disparate income and economic justice and this is an economic justice issue for low-income people and our ability to build affordable housing and not impact their rents so we'll we'll provide a little more backup information to those allegations at the public hearing when you hold that okay thank you thanks if I could just pick up on that yes you may so that was very well articulated and I I know that ordinances are difficult to craft but I have so much confidence in our lawyer that I would welcome some sort of distinction between single family residences of certain square footages and those requirements as well and more flexibility or exceptions to just be considerate of exactly what Amy just testified to I think multi-family houses that we all want to address our climate goals as I look to you the you maul and their possible redevelopment I just want to make sure people living in high-density housing stay warm in the really cold winters and so I want to make sure that our policies allow and also that they can afford to live here so I just hope that there is some distinction between multi-family homes and individual residences while still achieving our climate goals but I go back to what Ethan said and thank you Helen for letting me jump in here if this is deemed to be too expensive so just like Chris Niderman said does that mean I should put in two systems that might mean you just get a space heater for your bathroom when you take a bath I don't know or shower but it could mean that they would be exempted because it would be more expensive so that exemption is already in there I would prefer us like Ethan said not to say when it gets to this square footage this turn the different columns of exceptions just seems to be unnecessary when we can have people developers pricing it out and saying this is not within 25 years going to be reasonable for us so they can opt out and use an alternate source and that's written into the ordinance so there's just not locking anyone into a more expensive more onerous less doable solution it's actually giving them the option to opt out if that is indeed the case so I sympathize and I think the two who come forward to speak to that issue but I don't see this ordinance as something that would require you to take on a more expensive option can I just point out that Vermont gas system sent out a flyer in their recent bills stating that they were going to be increasing the rate 27% pretty soon if you've been following natural gas prices they've gone from roughly $2 a term to $8 a term mostly because of Mr. Putin's war in Ukraine right and the instability of distribution of gas from Russia to Europe so the US is exporting a ton of natural gas to Europe and other customers as well so the seeming lower price of natural gas is not going to hold for a few years unless something resolves itself in Europe with its gas distribution but I see natural gas prices and Vermont gas systems bills creeping up over the next couple of years just so you know that Matt do you want to add anything or do you want to wait for the public hearing it's up to you thank you for the opportunity Matt Kota 51 wine tap lane I think it's really important as you go forward with the consideration of this ordinance that you consider three key points and all you need to hear additional testimony one is the technical feasibility can you build an electric home of course you can can you build a multifamily home and provide hot water using an air source heat pump given the physics of the building and the logistics of building something like that TBD what's the affordability the affordability issue is actually not something that we can just price shop on Amazon we actually have testimony before the residential building energy standard we know that an all electric home versus the current stretch code based on testimony before the department of public service is $37,150 big deal right if you live in the southeast quadrant your home price went up twice that probably in the last six months but if you're building a multifamily home for affordable permanently affordable and that's the cost per unit plus we add on an impact fee for schools pretty soon developers are going to walk away from what we want to do to fight climate change which is to put high density housing affordable housing where the jobs are and that's the problem with this and then the last thing you need to think about is environmental impact so we heard information about the inability for certain systems cold climate heat pump systems to keep up during the coldest nights of the winter well let's remind ourselves that we are a winter peaking state that means the highest consumption of electricity in the state of Vermont occurs on the coldest nights in January and yes we're not like other states that are wholly dependent on coal for power production we have a largely renewable portfolio and that's a good thing but remember electricity is not inherently renewable it is the movement of electrons between atoms it's how the power is created that's either renewable or not and on the coldest nights in the winter here in South Burlington and across Vermont we rely on ISO New England and their power producers and when we're turning up your heat pumps and it's failing to keep up to right enough heat it's being powered by coal, natural gas oil and garbage burning refuse and wood burning wood all combustion power plants that we need in order to use electric heat in the middle of the night in January that's not good environmental policy thank you and so I'll just say that's I don't know what the percentage of time that is or the percentage of total power consumed in Vermont but like you said that's a peak a winter peak issue the other 99.8% of the time if that's what the number is it's you know a renewable resource through the GMP portfolio it is very much competitive and it can also be for multi-unit and it's incredibly efficient and provides the heat and the cooling that we need and that is something that Vermont gas systems includes in their portfolio so I really think that we we have to hear what we heard last week that if we don't act now we are going to have even more challenges within a few years and it will be it's already you know a big challenge for us and we have to take a bite out of the apple now and if it if it is truly unaffordable for CHT or for Snyder Braverman they can make know that argument and they have they can opt out but for I would hope for for many people this would be seen as something we just have to do we have no choice we just have to do it so we cannot continue on I mean I just don't know we cannot do things the way things have been done so in terms of moving this along like what are the next steps we did have a couple suggestions from Andrew about some small language changes is the council interested in having them embedded in this draft for a public hearing I'm in I'm in favor of that Helen they seem to me to be reasonable and for my mind and okay Tom I'm reading them now okay there's like five draft I don't know how many emails get up to speed and overlay the two different ones that are before me well I think um where is it it's in to be right under the definition of the domestic water heating system you'd strike at least 85% of the building and the renewable and then we wanted to add what do I just ask Andrew to walk us through oh you want to walk us through yes Andrews the last email you sent just me all your changes in one so I can screen share okay thank you others can see what he's talking about great that'd be good thank you in a minute hold on too many windows open here we go good job so since you framed this as since you framed this as to move along again I was traveling the last few days and I couldn't meet with wrong gas and I need to hear from more experts that know building construction and so on I fully support the first part as for the hot water system I could be a yes in the future but for tonight I'm going to abstain because I just don't know if we're ready to do hot water systems because I don't have confidence I'm I always have confidence in these administration but in your testimony you admitted that there is no precedent for it and that you have not heard from a lot of construction so I could get there I'm just not ready to support it so um that moves things along I am an abstention on the hot water heater aspect but I do support the other aspects of this ordinance consistent with Burlington do you also well let's go through them because there's a solar well you don't want the hot water though so that's the solar would be hot water I mean you not I'm not ready for the hot water not ready for the hot water excuse me but I think the highlighted is what you're talking about yes thank you so it would um that my suggested changes along with my earlier comment would be to um instead of having domestic a primary domestic water heating system to just have a domestic water heating system renewable sorry renewable domestic water heating system and um eliminate the 85 percent requirement in the language that that I struck and then to add that that system could be satisfied with either a solar hot water system and or a system that's powered by the sources described in one two or three I hate the word Smith but if we could just move the solar hot water down into one of the numbered units below it however you want to draft it it just seems to me that wasn't a fuel source necessarily but but fine that that it's a source of energy for that purpose right if it so that that's my preference might not be so add a another in between would pellet you could say or fuel by solar irradiation or something like that yeah yeah you can say that yeah then there was just one other small change Jesse in the definition of a heating system itself I think that um someone had revised the Burlington statue to add I think a primary hot water heating system I think that maybe was just to me is a little confusing I think what they were trying to isolate there is what type of heating system would be covered by the 15% exception to their statute and and talking about hot water heating there was confusing but that's kind of a minor point so I would I would have I would strike those words that were added in in that definition yeah exactly yeah is that still two that would it gets three yeah three and three yeah it can I what while I have the floor for a moment I just um you know the research that we did shows that cold climate heat pumps today operate down to minus 20 not not zero and there was only one day in the past 25 years that south Burlington was below minus 20 was back in 1999 and it hit minus 21 for a moment so the research we did shows that you know heat pump systems would today's cold climate heat pump systems would would work really well in terms of costs Burlington did a study that had their electric department do a study and showed for the most part that it was a push as I said in the presentation a couple weeks ago with respect to construction and mostly a push with respect to operating there was one use case they found where operating a multifamily multi-metered building rather than a tenant metered building was slightly more expensive 15 percent more expensive compared electric building compared to a fossil fuel building they modeled that when natural gas prices were 80 cents a firm I think natural gas prices are almost double that today and so if that study were done again I think you'd have a very different result even in that even in that narrow use case okay I asked just for clarification just to understand the language change being suggested as I am understanding it from your email and what the the council seems to support your suggestions is that in section 2b it was a little bit unclear from from what you were saying I think one email suggested striking renewable another email suggested sorry that was a typo sorry so so we strike primary so the strike primary in 2b in addition to striking meets at least 85 percent of the building's design domestic hot water load and right yes and then we'll add and one to somewhere in there in the in the small roman numerals we'll add a four for is solar hot water system is a solar hot water system or is powered by radiation from the sun or something along those lines in addition I think there is a suggestion in to see I believe which was a non primary heating system to change the wording backup domestic water heating system to just water heating system that's correct to follow the Burlington ordinance correct that the extent of the changes yes okay thank you understood thanks thank you okay so those are some changes to this but we also let's see oh that's the zoning permit and the zoning certificate of occupancy that's a different issue that's not the ordinance right so this is no that's not it that's that's your current ordinance that's a current process under planning and zoning and we are if you go back to trying to that's the document you're looking at to change yes okay oh so the certification is that but that says the same thing so that's a new certification section that talks about how we will certify how we will accept certifications from other professionals to meet the standard for the certificate of certification and are people okay with that I know we've had different conversations about certification is in good enforcement and then other people it's like well most people will follow the rules and will be better off at least at the beginning with enough adherence to this ordinance and these new requirements I have a quick question yeah so if the ordinance takes effect you know January 1st 2023 if a developer already has permits for construction does it apply to that new construction is it applicable to any permits applied for after that date so the way well do you want to sure we can wait is the way it was drafted is that are you green are you green I am green yes the way it's drafted is that it would be applicable to permits that were acquired after January 1st so if you received your if you were deemed complete stamp complete by the fire marshal or deemed complete by planning and zoning prior to January 1st you do not have to comply with this new ordinance okay and specifically for the fire marshal so you could have your zoning permit in place but the building it's at the building permit oh okay point okay okay even if you or you had your final decision by the DRB but you hadn't applied so okay all right we had to divide it up a little bit just because of the conversation owner occupied single family residences because they if you're building a single family owner occupied residents you don't need to apply for a permit through the fire marshal right but you still need to go through zoning so we had to have some test in place as to what would be the triggering event and so for single family owner occupied dwellings only it a zoning permit okay by January 1st great thanks okay do you have the um direction you need so basically it's Andrew Chalmick's changes and warn of public hearing if you so vote yes so I'll move that we warn of public hearing or hold on September 19th thank you September 19th at 7 30 which seems to be a good time for us um the ordinance as amended or renewable heating and hot water I'll second that with some discussion okay so we've got a motion to set a public hearing that's been made and seconded and further discussion Tim you have some more questions right so I I appreciate the work that's gone into this this draft ordinance and um I I think that the the public hearing should be that time that we gather a lot of information from not only you know residents businesses developers and and get their input as well and we can accumulate accumulate that even before that meeting as well but I just want to emphasize the fact that I I want to hear from um you know large developers and and and have some facts presented about differences in costs performance um I I would love for Eric Farrell to come here and talk about Cambrian rise if if he you know I mean I'll I'll email him and try and contact him and see if he willing to tell us what the success is like there um mm-hmm just just curious so that's my okay so it's a public hearing maybe the first public hearing right it could be it could be a public hearing in education exactly yeah Tom has a comment Tom that's a great great point counselor Barrett and I think a lot of the answers should be answered then too so I'm still going to abstain just but I want to highlight why before the vote is that Burlington has 12 counselors and they have subcommittees and they spent three years on this so I just feel like they were where they got to is worth respecting and I'm just not ready for the hot water but I want it clear especially to Avalon and you're reporting I fully support the other ordinance of this regarding heating systems I think it makes a lot of sense for many different reasons and I'm likely to support the hot water system after I get more information I just don't think we're ready yet so that's where I am and I appreciate that counselor Chittenden but I think that that the um the heat pump hot water is probably some low-hanging fruit that we can pluck sooner than later that's just my opinion I'd like to hear some more information but I think it's a pretty tried and true technology and we should move forward with that okay so are you ready for the pandemic yes that's two other questions are there other folks in order to make this as an effective conversation for you all as possible are there other folks you would like us to specifically reach out to and invite to provide testimony my interest just to follow up on counselor Barrett's point there is really with the multi-family unit so and I think of the large apartment complexes so I want people that know how to build affordable housing as well as attractive housing that is multi-layered to address some of our climate goals I want to hear from them regarding hot water systems in this ordinance language so I would like efficiency Vermont pardon I would like efficiency Vermont to send a rep if possible we'll contact them and find out VGS if they will come yes and there's anyone else who knows about geothermal Sandy Dooley suggesting green mountain habitat for humanity in the comments that's good too green mountain power that's an affordable housing green mountain power thank you yeah yeah yes yes that's the other part of the grid huh so okay that's helpful if other counselors we're happy to spend some time doing outreach to folks so if other counselors have ideas feel free to pass them on or just CC me on emails you're sending and we'll try and keep a list of and testimony Matt may have some other names that he would share with us that Mack guy is that as a resident of so South Brompton yeah even if it's a minimum written testimony just as long as these organizations know we're considering this language I'm not saying we need to card them all before us at the next council meeting but I just would love to hear their written thoughts and documentation responses to what we're considering and we can hear from the climate action task force so that brings me to my second point we've done a lot of research and read a ton of stuff about you know how feasible this is I mean it wasn't just something that we kind of were hoping and praying so that brings me to my second point so on September 19th you are also possibly making ARPA decisions hearing from the climate action task force on the complete plan setting your FY 24 budget goals it's a big night already so just as a warning to the counselors get lots of sleep before September 19th and don't complain if it goes to 11 don't complain so Ethan put into the comments energy co-op of Vermont which installs both types of systems I think that's useful to have the technical know how good since we're not paid by the artwork it doesn't matter agree to this right so are you ready for we can continue to develop a testimony list but so those in favor of setting this public hearing information gathering on September 19th on this ordinance as amended signified by saying aye aye aye and those opposed and an abstention so it's three zero one right is that where you put these abstention I think okay so so we'll know all right well thank you yes let's take a quick five minute break and we'll move on to the resolution I think the rest of the evening is kind of easy you're still going to complain system a little I'm cold pardon me bring you a jacket the city council well you know I figured they wouldn't have it on blessed and so high today is the 15th right yeah tax day righty so hey Megan virtual link I didn't realize you're going to be remote do you want a virtual link for executive session or do you want us to just call you by either way whatever is easier for you okay thanks yeah thank you all right so let's like to call back to order the self brollington city council meeting of um august 15th 2022 and move on to item nine which is consider and approve an update to the resolution establishing a capital improvement plan reserve fund and Andrew is going to take us through that all right thank you counselor really so this is something I I lay it out in the memo that Jesse and I identified as we were building the FY 23 budget that our current CIP has gotten I think it's Alana's technical turn a little bit lumpy when it comes to the general fund expectations from year to year a reason for that is there's been a lot of deferred maintenance deferred projects because of budget tight budgets in the last few years so what we'd be looking at if we were going to looking ahead to FY 24 budget planning if we were to fully fund in terms of general fund dollars the CIP projects in that FY 24 budget we'd be looking at 5.1 million dollars currently we have 2.6 million dollars going to fund CIP projects which means that alone would be a 15 percent increase in the tax rate so what Jesse identified then something to come forward to council with is is how are we going to fix that how are we going to smooth that and ensure good financial planning for these large ticket items that we're going to have and out years one of the tools in our toolkit aside from as I mentioned in the memo hiring a dedicated staff person specifically to work in in capital projects management including to kind of revamp and help us putting together the spreadsheets and the the smooth figures over the course of the over the X number of years is also to have a capital improvement plan reserve fund going back through old council minutes we were actually able to identify that in 2013 council did approve of a project of a reserve for a special fund for this purpose although it's only been utilized to date for the city center reserve fund it's only monies have only gone in that were specifically identified as expenditures in the budget to go to this reserve fund we're looking to revamp that and to utilize this for the full spectrum of uses that it could be used for so we've dusted off that in your packets a version of that resolution and are recommending a few amendments those amendments are we've eliminated the provision that this fund could be used to cover unanticipated or emergency capital expenditures we think that our fund balance policy adequately addresses that we're formalizing a policy citywide across our funds that for any CIP expenditures anything that's unspent in that budget line would automatically be rolled forward into subsequent subsequent fiscal years being rolled into this fund made a few general edits and clarifying cross citations to the city's current adopted financial policies and we're also including an allowance that this CIP fund can have an unallocated reserve up to 20% of the total value of the fund this means that if there's cost savings in a given project that we can reallocate those two other projects if there are cost overages and anything that goes above just so so we don't have a large you know the fund doesn't become half unallocated reserve we're suggesting that anything above 20% at the close of a fiscal year be rolled into the city's fund balance and this also includes an authorization for council to reallocate any at any time during the course of the fiscal year funds accumulated for a cancelled CIP project or expenditure and one thing I'd also like to know is part of the reason why I don't think that this 2013 fund was used for the broad spectrum of purposes is we've talked a little bit before about how the city's fund balance was in a really dire situation back then and so I think we are we have a great opportunity now that our fund balance is at a we're at the minimum threshold or auditors required so the work that you all did last year administration did in FY21 has really allowed this type of long-term financial planning this tool to to better better be utilized okay this must make you both feel good this is one of the most exciting things I think you will have done this year no incredibly serious I've never seen community that does not have a CIP reserve fund it is what to Andrew's point it's what allows us to smooth out that those expenditures year to year and accumulate money for things like 1.5 million dollar fire trucks that we will never be able to fund in a year this is an incredibly powerful municipal finance tool that we have not been fully utilizing so this is just empowering us to do that as we come to year end in FY22 we tried a couple of years ago we didn't quite get it right it's super exciting yeah no this is the stuff I like to Jesse's very very excited about this I'm excited that you're excited it is stability for our community and it's yeah exactly it's very thoughtful any questions Tim yes can you tell me how the 20 percent threshold works I didn't I'm confused yeah so if there's a a project road paving is a bad example because of the recent overages but if it comes in under budget that that any of those funds would go back into the fund as sort of an unallocated reserve they're not doggiered for anything but we'd only allow that to accumulate up to 20 percent of the value of the entire fund so if it's a million dollars that's in there that's set aside that's allocated for specific projects we would only allow 200,000 of that to be unallocated if it was unused if it was on to go back in the general fund if it goes above 20 if that ever goes above 20 percent at the end of a fiscal year right that would go back that would go to the city's fund balance it allows us 20 percent goes to the general fund on most capital projects you're going to have some projects that are a little over and some that are a little under and it allows us to account for that without coming back to you each time and asking for more money or rolling over more money any unallocated fund balances these 20 percent of the total allocated funds shall be transferred to the general fund okay okay is there further questions or discussion Megan you all set no questions I'll make to approve second okay any further discussion okay all in favor signify by saying aye aye aye aye okay that passes five zero that's wonderful thank you guys good job yeah good job Andrew thank you so next we have the FY22 year in financial projections and several surplus allocation requests yeah so we've yeah we've been talking about this for a few council meetings now I think since the initial Q4 projections back when we closed the the third quarter of this this last fiscal year we recognized that we were looking at a pretty substantial surplus the reason for this surplus is largely there's been a number of unfilled positions with the city we ended up logging some of our FEMA relief in FY22 we've seen a much higher than projected receipts from our local option tax this year when we made very conservative projections for FY23 back you know in October of 2020 right in the height of the pandemic and also our permit fees are four to five hundred thousand higher than we projected also back at that time so very significant surplus there so we're currently projecting around 1.2 million in surplus sorry we currently are at a 1.2 million dollar surplus and projecting that it could be above 1.5 million once we get our final local option tax numbers so with that and again to go back to we are in such a great position or such a better position when it comes to the city's fund balance rather than designating all of that to go in to meet higher thresholds recommended thresholds of 66.66% of our of our total operating expenditures being held as a savings we are recommending a few expenditures at this point now just so we can get in planning for example the the paving recommendation which is one of the three recommendations so we can start planning for the for the spring season we're also going to be coming back to you at the when we do close the fiscal year at the end of this month at the council meeting the second council meeting at September to talk about a few other potential recommendations for surplus funds and I really want to highlight a very significant one as Jesse mentioned we we now can during the manager updates we've received the v-chair and authorisation to go out and pursue an RFP for the Dorset Signals Project our preliminary forecasts are that that's going to be way over budget where we were anticipating and is in the FY23 budget that could be up to a million just to be fully transparent about that so that if that is a council and community priority to get that project in the ground in this fiscal year we're going to be asking for a substantial portion of these surplus dollars to fund that one other thing to highlight we've talked about this a little bit in the past is we're probably looking going you know in this fiscal year with CPI increases and collective bargaining agreements not being finalized when we put the budget together as well as you know our 19 Gregory Drive lease space for example which is not being utilized where we're not anticipating that revenue although we're trying as hard as we can to mitigate that now we're probably in the whole FY23 about a half a million dollars as well so that's something we want to make sure we have adequate savings in order to cover that whole as well as other during the year financial measures we can do to shore that up so the three recommendations for tonight in front of you the first is I think you've all seen and it's in your packet the Trinity Education Center has an FY23 request from Dr. Childs at the close of last year the council approved 11,000 in funding to support the seed funding to support the youth center Dr. Childs has also requested an additional 13,000 in funding for this year from the same type of allocation through surplus funds and I believe she's she's online tonight so we've given her given that the $11,000 and this would be an additional 13 for this year correct the second request is fire and ambulance shared the memo that Chief Locke put together since coming on board he's identified a number of critical needs that he's requesting funding and and finally is the spring paving projects which I talked about it's about 200 at 200,000 we're asking to set aside so it's one clarification I think of the Dr. Childs request about Andrew tell me if I'm wrong the last year when you were allocating FY21 surplus funds you allocated a portion of those to the Trinity Center mm-hmm so it was in this fiscal year but it was with last year surplus just as this year is with this year's surplus oh okay and they were not part of our $45,000 community correct correct yep okay but then but you're asking just so I understand so you want we're talking about a one potentially $1.5 million is that right correct and we'll need a million of it for the signals correct if we're going to move well we don't have a concrete number on that yet until the we hear back on the okay well let's say it is the million and I have a question on that didn't we budget for that isn't there some of that money already in our budget so we have $600,000 in the expenditure line for that budget we have a little over $500,000 that we have as a revenue coming from the grant source but that doesn't fully cover the full cost we're looking at a you know potentially over $2 million project oh so the million dollars is is in addition yeah correct so that leaves $500,000 for kind of not play money but what we can distribute potentially I mean it might be a little bit more but but the auditor wanted us to keep something around too right well the which was how much was that $300,000 or or no yeah so we're at the minimum of where we of their recommendation now the percent yeah right yeah yeah we're at it's it's 30 days of your total operating cost for the year they have to be set aside that's the that's the bare minimum it goes up to 60 days and then 90 days is the maximum so $2.1 million dollars is what we have now that's at the minimum question yes on the Dorset Street lighting since we have about half of it with the previous estimate funded through grants is there any reason to believe that we can find additional grant monies for the one of the business intersections in the entire state of Vermont so that we don't have to shoulder that entire additional million dollars and I think I think the answer to that is potentially yes the problem with that we would not be able to move forward with a project this fiscal year if we were going to delay to ask for those funding sources and how many years have we delayed this I've been talking about this at least four quite a while okay but go ahead but besides just wanting to get it done because we've been pushing this off so long what are the other rate reasons why we should definitely spend a million dollars of our taxpayers money this year as opposed to pursuing additional grant opportunities and maybe taking another year or two I'm genuinely asking I'm not jockeying for one position yeah yeah so just as a reminder about this project this is the hardware that allows us to in future years go to the adaptive signaling which is what we have on Shelburne Road so right now as we've all experienced there are significant traffic delays along Dorset Street at particular times of day and this once we get the hardware installed then we can move into the adaptive phase and improve that that will be a year after the hardware is involved is in place this is one of the number one concerns I hear from the business community along Dorset Street and from some residents not all residents additionally that's with the traffic we have on the street now when we think about redevelopment at the university mall when we think about city center fully redeveloping we're talking about hundreds of new residents hopefully that won't be solely in cars we'll be out walking about but it also it is you know a critical piece of infrastructure to enable that growth to happen okay so I'm trying to understand so what did the pension plan what what did they want yeah so that was if there was leftover monies available rather than having that sit in in the city's bank account that that be added to the FY22 contribution generating much higher interest than we would in the bank account in order to offset future liabilities in the pension plan to make sure we're we are fully funded so they wanted all of it no they asked they asked for somewhere between 100 and 200,000 to be allocated for that purpose I think I believe they would be amenable if that's been eaten up by other sources that necessarily would not if that was not ripe to happen this year not speaking for the entire pension advisory committee but yeah oh that's why I looked totally okay yeah trinity wants 13k and spring paving is 200 and the chief wants 60 and the chief wants 60 and I don't know how much the climate action plan implementation wants or needs I mean I don't know unless you want to factor in getting um enforcement you know and the personnel to do some more stuff about the ordinance or whatever some of that can be folded into our budget discussions though right yeah I mean it should be because it's a issue yeah so okay so that so all we're asking for tonight because we're not at year end yet so we don't I mean we are at year end but we're not at closing the fiscal year we don't know exactly what the balance is going to be so those three things that Andrew highlight is is what we're asking for tonight um you certainly can hold that decision until you know what the final numbers are yeah or you can do you can mix a match we at least I think have to do request one and two in my opinion I've been training to being the the trinity center wants a 13 000 and and the chief uh wants 60 000 for at least new mattresses and I can't imagine firefighters trying to get sleep on bad mattresses that like if they're sleeping on the floor that really bums me out to hear that there's nothing better than a good night's sleep on a nice you know memory foam mattress oh I just want to go home now and I think that the paving is important as well I'm willing to go with the three requests I didn't hear your question oh it wasn't a question I'm willing to also do cover the paving the three requests seem valid I mean I think the pension makes well we just have the three requests right now that we have to talk about oh and the pension is just that's an that's an at the end of the year end of the the fiscal year yeah so the 13 k for trinity 200 000 for the paving and 60 000 for the fire it was 273 total right okay so you'd have likely a million million four three or four left yeah okay let's do it let's do it is everyone happy with that yes all right so I'll move that we request surplus funding for request number one two and three to the trinity education center for 11 000 dollars uh the fire nameless department for approximately 59 000 dollars no trinity is 13 000 what did I say you said 11 I'm sorry the correct uh 13 000 dollars for the trinity center uh what was the number 59 oh what was it oh 200 000 for paving 59 125 for the fire department and 200 000 dollars for uh spring paving costs for f y 23 okay do I have a second second okay any further discussion all right all in favor signified by saying I hi hi hi and that's unanimous great thank you all right now the approving the final rendition of our policy priorities and strategies so what is before you is all of the changes made um following our discussion that I outlined in our memo at our last meeting so this is for your final consideration and also I didn't link again but does include the the work plans that the committee's put together happy to hear additional feedback but I think we walked through it in a lot of detail last time any feedback any comments are we happy with all of this it's a lot it's sort of hard to take all of it to take it all in actually I think yes we did but I'm just saying for the all right it's what your staff does all day every day in addition to core services yeah yeah yeah okay well if there's no conversation or questions I would entertain a motion to approve the FY23 policy priorities and strategies so moved and a second second all those in favor aye aye aye so that's passed good enough thank you and that's all she wrote right oh no we have an executive session oh I'm sorry reports from counselors on committee assignments did anyone have a oh Megan you wanted to do your yeah I think in the future let's combine the two let's combine the two you know one so I guess maybe all of our meetings and discussion on our liaison work would go what under this you think or in the beginning so I I'd recommend it be done in the beginning because it's when more people are here and we can make announcements and share information okay I agree with that yeah and so then what we also include like airport and you will so we'll all do all the committees okay all right yeah um so transportation sir any green mountain transit meeting tomorrow still looking for an interim director and you missed the pension committee and I did I had three meetings one afternoon one of them was the airport commission and I just couldn't do it the feeling so I didn't go so I don't have a committee to report it's not officially a committee but I keep reporting on it so we had a lot of interviews with airport directors and we will be advancing a few candidates for more interviews next week great and I'll just add my voice to Jesse to Jesse's to thank all of the members of the Portable Housing and the Housing Trust Fund for meeting for several hours on Friday morning to go through five really I would say compelling projects for using our ARPA funds for affordable housing so we'll be hearing from them soon good okay is there any other business just one item in those interviews with the with airport directors is it time that that individuals can submit a letter of commendation for whom they think should be considered I think you absolutely can as a South Burlington City Council I would just direct it to the Burlington HR department and then not necessarily me just so it goes to the right channel the Burlington HR department yeah okay give you a name if you send me an email afterwards do you have a name have somebody there yeah yeah I'll send that to you thank you very good okay good enough so item 14 consider entering executive session for the purposes on pending litigation to which the city is the party and that will be Andrew myself and Colin I have a motion would you like me to read the motion yes please I move that the council make a specific finding that premature general public knowledge of the discussion about the Burton Corporation higher ground environmental court appeal to which the city is a party would clearly place the city at a substantial disadvantage is there a second second second all in favor hi hi hi right having found I now move that the board entering to executive session for the purpose of discussing Burton Corporation higher ground environmental court appeal to which the city is a party inviting in Jesse Baker Andrew Bullduck Colin McNeill second with the understanding we will not be coming back that's true so the council meeting will adjourn after that but we won't be coming back all right all in favor you second oh I need a second I second oh yeah all in favor hi hi hi hi good now so that's it you good yep you bet you good Travis thanks thanks Travis thank you you