 I'll call the December 20th 2023 city council meeting to order. Virginia, we have some agenda additions and changes. Yes, we have an amendment to item 7D. It's in the reading file. That letter to CBE has been revised. So I can talk about why down in the manager comments, but basically there was an incorrect comment about fireworks. And so we have a revised letter that we will get into the packet. Great. We also have a attachment that was missing in the packet on 5C. So we will add that attachment and get that in the revised packet as well. And then also 5A, we will be postponed. Okay. Great. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda as amended? Don't move. Second. Great. Any discussion? No discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Passes unanimously. Great. So we are on to public to be heard. This is a portion of the meeting where members of the public can bring concerns, comments, thoughts to the board on items that are not currently on the agenda for tonight. Is there anyone in the room who has anything to share? Would you like to share with us? Carl, come on up to the seat right in front of you. What's that? Come on up to the seat right in front of you if you don't mind. And for the benefit of the person who writes our minutes, if you could give us your full name. Carlton Houghton. Great. Thank you. Okay. Last night I came to the, would be a planning meeting. DRB meeting. What was it? Anyway, the presentation that caught my attention was the old domino building down here. And they wanted to put up a, they were requesting permission for a five-story building, which was permissible, but not mandatory or something on it, on the decision. And if you've ever gone down Park Street during the day, I went down yesterday as an example about one o'clock. School was still in session, so there was no school traffic going. It wasn't, you know, homeward bound traffic or out-to-work traffic. It was just ordinary. And there was a second car out of Lincoln Street, and I hear a whistle, chip trains coming back through. But the first car and myself followed, we got safely far enough onto Park Street so it didn't interfere with Pearl Street coming down. And I think one other car got behind me, but that was tied up. Usually those trains run 20 cars. Sometimes they run 24, 5 cars. Other times it's 18 cars or something like that. But it ties up at least four crossings. In the meantime, traffic from all directions is funneling in. When I got down by Rocky's, I had to stop for another light. And because of the way of the terrain, you can see all the way to the top of the Power Day on Hill. And it was just inbound traffic. I got there and now it's inbound and outbound all the way up to Mountain View and Industrial Avenue. In the meantime, these other roads are filling in every day, but it's congestion. And the chip train just compounds it. And I've talked to a retired engineer and he says this bypass over here isn't going to solve any direction. You know, use a familiar phrase, you build it, they all come. It's just going to compound the traffic. And if they put it in these apartments on four stories, I forgot how many apartments they were, but it was a sizable number. And that's further going to compound. Now, if you, I stopped at the Woodstock to make a delivery, but I time angle my delivery so I only make right turns. I don't have to cross two lanes of traffic. I mean, it's all the time. And I don't think we should have another four or five story building on that property. It's just going to make that much worse. And we don't, I submit, we don't have to compromise ourselves for the benefit of somebody who isn't going to live here with their mess after they get through building. The quality of the construction may be sound, but it's just going to compromise the village. There's no serenity or, I forgot the other word that we're going to use. I think I get your point. And our full responsibility is to the people of this community. We don't have to be solving all these other problems on the backs of local taxpayers. And I would, I guess that, well, I don't think that decision will come to you this board before it won't. Okay. Those decisions have largely been made in the land development code. Well, they're waiting for provisions that we passed a year ago before they make a decision. Sorry. They're going to make a legal, they're going to hand it down to the legal, whichever in my favor, somebody. I don't want to misrepresent it, but we'll let the court step in. That's their normal process. That's what John was saying. I'm sorry I'm lost. Yeah. The Domino's project last night was a sketch review in front of the DRB. So that will be sorted out by them. I don't know that there's anything legal happening with that particular project. The Taff Street appeal, Notice of Violation Appeal was also on the DRB agenda last night, which is already appealed to state and environmental court, as folks know. So that's, I think, probably a different agenda item on that. But anyway, I'm just saying we should emphasize this in a couple of meetings, including this board. It would be our benefit to take a two or three-year moratorium on these buildings until we get things sorted out. This little village has been, it's still a little village, even though we have a city title. There's only so much we can absorb before the quality of life is not very good. We always already have crime that we can't get to or can't deal with because of the part of it is because of the judge in Burlington who just puts you back on the street the next day, so the police don't even bother with some of this stuff. It's not that they're interested or don't care, but they put their attention somewhere else where they can be more helpful. Well, I appreciate your comments. I think we get your point. Okay. And thank you. And we're still waiting on a senior center. We've lost 25, I'm guessing 25 percent of our facility because these offices over here and the construction is going to be, I think Brad said it, upward to eight months or something. And I guess it needs to be done. I'm not questioning that. He made a very compelling, I just hope that the seniors don't just give up on it. And I got to wondering this, is that why we're, and it's not, we're not doing the eight months just to let the seniors go away and then it solves all the problems. No, that's not the intention. Okay. I don't think any of us consider the seniors or the senior center a problem. What's that? I don't think any of us consider the seniors or the senior center a problem. I think what we're trying to do is make sure it exists and make sure we can build it up to be more vibrant and active over time. That's right now. We've got membership splitting up. We don't have a bus anymore. Right. We don't have the combination to lock anymore. We used to do a lot on ourselves and it was accessible and everything seemed to be humming. And then I learned yesterday from a gal who was been on the seniors for as long as I have, we lost a gal who was in her 90s and she lived in South Berlin, but she was a vibrant part of that group. Anyway, I'm just trying to stay abreast and learn some more things. But I got to wear this hat. I apologize because I can't look at that light in my eyes. Yeah, the lights in my eyes too. That's why I took my glasses off. What's that? The lights in my eyes too. That's why I took my glasses off. Well, I didn't bring sunglasses because that doesn't work. Thank you, Carl. Appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. Let's see, online. Reza Marin, I think you were next. Let's see your hand up. Yes. Thank you, Raj. Reza Marin, I live on Countryside Drive. I have two questions, but they're very quick. The first one is the Williston Observer had an article that Williston is postponing their property tax reappraisal because the state has changed what targets the requirement. It's now only the COD coefficient of dispersion that targets it, and it must be over 20% for the state to order that reappraisal. As I see us through our website and we're still connected with the town of Essex, but it shows us as 11.53% COD. Williston's COD is 12, so I'm wondering if we're also considering postponing this property tax reappraisal. Not so far that I'm aware of. Not that I'm aware of either, but we can ask. Okay, since it's a possibility, do you think it's something that will happen? I don't actually know, but you're the only one telling me it's a possibility, which doesn't make you wrong in the least, but you're the first I'm hearing about it, so I wouldn't want to comment any further until we asked. Yeah, it does. Thank you. My second thing, very quick also, is there any timeline for when our branding logo updating is going to happen? So the sign stops saying village of Essex Junction, and they start saying city of Essex Junction? Not at this time. We did reallocate some of that funding for the strategic planning process. We're still working on that right now, so we don't have a start date for that yet. That's the $40,000 that sort of carried over year after year that was budgeted for rebranding. Well, it's still this year. This current fiscal year is where that is, so it just hasn't been used yet for that. Okay, and so there's no timeline on that, correct? Thank you. Sure. Okay, Craig, you're next. If you could give us your last name for the sake of the minutes for later, that would be great. Sure. My last name is Dwyer, B-W-Y-E-R, and I live on 10 Taff Street, and I just wanted to publicly acknowledge all of the hard work and professionalism that Chris Ewen showed leading the meeting, and in my opinion, a very hubris case of the owner of 8 Taff Street, trying to overturn a 41-year zoning of residential to farming commercial. So it's crystal clear to me, and the rest of the residents who attended that the DRB is upholding the decision to uphold the 41-year zoning of a residence, and not to flip it to commercial or farming, that is crystal clear. And it's also very clear to me that the city is, unfortunately, in litigation with the owner of 8 Taff Street to figure this out. It's now a legal matter. That was made very clear as well, and it was also made clear that the city is upholding fines against the owner of 8 Taff Street, which is understanding, and I think taking the high road. But what I don't believe was communicated is that while the city is halting fines for having livestock on a residential zone, the owner of 8 Taff Street is not halting the amount of livestock. He has been increasing it over the last month and a half. As a matter of fact, it's been doubled. So it used to be 25 livestock. Now there's 50, and the owner of 8 Taff Street has also erected new structures on the backward property that are pretty large. So while the city is halting its fines, the owner is not halting livestock or building structures. It's not a reciprocal idea of halting it, if that makes sense, if I'm being clear. So I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the city council. It's affecting the quality of life and the real estate value, unfortunately, while this gets handled in court. And I'm understanding of that. That was made clear. But again, the owner is moving forward with adding more livestock and structures. And that's a concern for me. And it was a concern for the other 10 residents who showed up. But for the sake of time, the DRB said, we have our decision. We're upholding it. And respectfully, it wasn't going to open up comments to 10 different residents, which I was understanding of as well. But I hope I'm clear about what's going on at 8 Taff Street. Sounds like you are. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Annie Cooper. Hi. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yep. Gotcha. I wonder if you don't mind, this is a little peculiar. I wonder if Carl Houghton is still in the room. If someone can let me know, is that okay to ask? As long as you direct any conversation or questions or comments to me. I will. Let me, I appreciate that. What I want to say is I hope that Carl can hear me if he's there. And I hope that I'm being loud enough for that to happen because I would like to say something that I think would, you know, on the heels of. Anyway, I should be there in person if I want to solve that. So let's just let it go. Thanks. Just to work clear, this isn't a conversation with members of the public. Nope. The room, this is strictly comments to the board. So. Sure. But hearing each other speak is a very integral piece of being in community, Raj. Yep. That's great. Understood. I appreciate that. I feel that Carl has brought so many pieces to that I came to speak about as well to light that I appreciate and value what I did hear Carl Houghton say. I have been talking about the senior center for a very long time. As you all know, I've been in email exchanges with all five of you at the board with our manager with Lori Houghton and Karen Dolan. And I've been adamantly opposed to the way that the senior center is being handled. I was happy to see Carl Houghton at the meeting that Brad spoke at because I do feel very frustrated that we are not putting effort in where we should. Bradluck has a total recreation budget of $4,589,000. Sorry, I just lost my note. Just give me one second. I have notes so that I don't over talk. Bradluck has a total recreation budget of $4,589,000 and $33. How is it possible they can't afford to staff those few hours per week or send someone over the volume of staff within the city as well as directly within the rec department is pretty high, especially now? How can we not accommodate those few hours where we might close because a volunteer is not there? Two of our recreation department staff who are full-time have been handed a second job paid within the city on top of the full-time recreation department job they already have with benefits. Sorry, the first job has benefits, the second one is not full-time. What I'm bringing that up for is not because that's a problem for me so much as how is it that we can do that but we cannot offer our seniors the bare minimum of ensuring that the hours that we have assigned for that doesn't have a way for them to be there that doesn't involve a volunteer. It is the least that we can do considering that we have removed the van and that we are creating upheaval in the life of people who deserve and value this time they spend together. One of the biggest delights in my life of being a part of Essex Junction is that space we give to children and to seniors. And at the very least we should be able, we're smart enough, there's enough money floating around from the budget, the tax, everything that we do, there's no reason to not have this small piece and I really ask you again for the millionth time I understand that somehow me trying to protect all five of you, I'm trying to protect you and it's been twisted into a weird thing where I'm an enemy, you're misunderstanding and I don't know how to help you any better than I'm trying right now. I would like you to really hear me, take a hard look at what you're choosing to do and pay attention before something goes awry that disturbs a good hardworking honest person. Thank you for your time and thank you for allowing me as much space. Thank you. Is there anyone else on Zoom that has anything they'd like to share? See anyone else in the room? So we will move on to what is now 5A, discussion and consideration of budget engagement options and worn to budget open hearings. All right so Ashley is with us, I will share the number. All right good evening everyone, so tonight I'm bringing an engagement schedule to you guys to look at. This is to help us to put some engagement efforts out towards the budget and getting that information out to people. So we've kind of broken the engagement schedule into two sections. The first is like wanting to get feedback from the residents and the second is really education and information about the budget to the residents. We basically have broken it down from January 10th to February 28th to have that opportunity to gather feedback for from the residents mainly because we have to have the annual meeting warning finalized by February 28th so that can go to be printed on the ballot and to go print in the annual report. So we are planning on doing a couple of engagement opportunities other than the meetings that we already have including some coffee talks and bringing back our community meal that we had in the past. And then after that February 28th date beginning in March and going through April we'll focus more on education and answering questions that are on the ballot. In addition to the city council meetings again we'll have some coffee chats and then have some other media outreach with the town meeting tv the Essex reporter doing radio appearances and then the communication department is also going to do extra things obviously with our website facebook and front porch forum and then we have an extra little thing of planning to do some recording of the department heads explaining their budget to also help educate people on the budget. And so on top of just discussion around the budget schedule we are asking the council to set two public hearing dates to discuss the budget and ballot items. Those two dates are on the Saturday January 27th which is when we're planning on having the community meal would be the first public hearing and then the second public hearing would be held on February 28th. So I'm happy to answer any questions about the engagement schedule or hear any feedback that you guys have about that for scheduling these public hearing dates. Great thank you Ashley. Appreciate it. Any comments or questions from board members and can't see Amber on there. We could add her to the screen. Anybody here? I'm sorry Marcus I wasn't looking. No so good. So the first question I have Ashley is there is a notation here in the engagement schedule in regards to meeting with groups like seniors apartment complexes, rotary club lines club. Do you see this as being post do you see this post sorry during the informational portion or do you see this during the decision portion of the budget? Where do you see this being laid out in this schedule? I would like to obviously it's going to be up to those groups when we can come to those areas so that's why I didn't necessarily plug them into the schedule. I'd like to get them in as soon as possible especially with those with the senior centers and the apartment complexes trying to work those in in January in early February if we can and then obviously the other groups we have to go by their schedule what they have on their agenda so I'm trying to like I put them on there as other opportunities for us but we don't have a definite schedule on that but I've obviously would like to get it ahead so that we can get that public feedback. Thanks the the other thing I do I would like to say just a comment I know that by our charter we can we do we have to do one public hearing. The recommendation is two public hearings I'm all for that I prefer that but I would also like to say that I also would prefer both of these public hearings happen at a time when the public would be participating and changes potentially be made because right now the way this schedule one would happen where the public can give in but changes can be made but the other ones can happen on the same day that we have to approve it. The likelihood that we're actually going to make changes at that point is going to be slimmed in there so I would like to see the February one moved to one meeting earlier so that again the public hearings themselves and I know there's other engagement points that are happening but I would like to see at least these two public hearings be the type of engagement where the public can participate and changes are still possible. I mean the only thing I would I don't see anything wrong with that necessarily we could talk about scheduling but in any of these opportunities especially when we're in session they will act very much like a public hearing where anybody can come and make input there's nothing preventing anyone from coming on any of these dates the 10th 424th February 14th or 28th to to do that that said is there anything that would to Marcus's suggestion that would be a problem I'm not trying to discount it they're just just making the point for people are listening that there's nothing prohibiting anyone from coming to any of these meetings writing to us calling us and I'll add something to the writing to us portion in a minute you know so these the public hearing is just very much an organized polished presentation and then taking more feedback but so the only I guess the thing that would be missing from some of those other meetings would be the presentation portion of it where we're running through the budget piece by piece that so that would be different so what up so what I'll say to that is is this for consideration is the fact that again it's also the way that it's promoted it's spoken about because people could show up today and talk about these things that we just talked spent a whole day talking about right so obviously I know that there's plenty of ways to engage but for these two particular ones because the way they're not handled I think come out of it still being able to make some changes because I think people will focus their attention public hearings versus the other opportunities so if we changed it if we did what you're suggesting and changed it to the 14th Regina or anyone else um and called that the public hearing and made changes to it we'd have to have another public hearing or would we we probably wouldn't well there's a lot that we have to review to make sure we can do this between state statute requirements our charter how the timing works for the warnings for these public hearings so my suggestion would be if you felt if you wanted to make this change um it would be with uh some flexibility that we can ensure that can actually work with the schedule because there's just too many parts and pieces for me to be able to actually answer that question right now if we can do that or we can't do that and have what impact that has on the rest of the schedule and an additional question for me would be are we going to be in a position to because that takes a work session way to write from us because then we'll have to stop what we're doing a session early freeze it make our presentation produce our materials do some education around what we're proposing the whole work session or two to four weeks early and I don't know that we have that kind of time we want to have the work sessions that we want to have to incorporate the feedback we're trying to get throughout the process seeing a point obviously but um it does mean that we freeze what we're doing early at a point that we may not be ready for um we could intentionally advertise this differently and and call it something different to get that engagement earlier um without changing the legal aspect of the 28 being the legal public hearing you know so we could start off the 14th work session with a potentially slightly more brief presentation on where we are and how we got here for folks that showed up and continue into our work session taking feedback but the legal warned statutory public hearing would remain in the 28th um that's just a thought I mean that meets your what you're trying to get to yet I'm okay with that compromise again we're meeting it just by having the one on the on the sorry the 27th so we're already meeting the one statutory that we've got so um so I'm okay if we find a way to handle it differently and I do want to make sure that I that I would love to get that but early as many people as possible um what I'm afraid of is the conversation will permeate through the community is they'll get into the late and then they'll show up at a public hearing to which they can make I'll just put it this way make no difference because it's too late in the process because I don't know what'll bubble up it's more of a comment I was saying as we see the alterations from the comments that the work that we did during that day so as it starts to be conversed people will start to participate so anyone else no Andrew Amber um Scott can we see Amber on the screen is that you or is that Regina it's me I see her and share your oh I'll share well often when we all yell Raj if I if I have any comments I'll yell no worries we just miss you okay well I'm here Elaine did you have anything um on this okay I guess my only thing would be I'd love um to see a way um that we can advertise perhaps off our website for people to um you know be able to review where we've you know what we're what's been proposed that's presentable and then send us comments in an audit in a in a way that they can do when they're ready maybe there's a microsoft form we can link to or we can collect comments um from the from the from a link on the on the website um just to increase the opportunity for people to um to send us their thoughts quick quick question for Ashley Ashley you need um a connection to the rotary for getting on their schedule because I can help with that because I'm on rotary yeah no I'd love I'd love for you to make that connection I do know somebody in that but I would love to have your connection as well I think coming from you it might make a little better easier inward maybe probably not is it Greg is your connection Greg yeah proceed he'll take care of it it'll happen um sorry my second point was going to be um just not committing I don't want to speak for the other counselors but I may not be able to attend some of these coffee chats during the day so I'd hate to promote that these are going to be with counselors until we actually know we we can schedule them on those days so I don't know how we word that um but um we all have different commitments when these are going on but I just would hate to to let people know that one of us or more than one of us two and max would be there if we can um that's the only other so form potential of a form in that scheduling uh detail I will say that I am developing the budget page that will have the schedule on there and we do have form already created on there so people can get feedback so that's that's a go yes um and then as for the coffee chat meetings I'll send out a schedule poll for you guys uh tomorrow and you guys can tell me if which days you can and can't attend um and then those that you can attend Regina Jess and I will uh can man those as well so in terms of a recommendation we have a motion if people are happy at this point I'll make a motion to set the public hearings on the FY 25 budget for Saturday January 27 2024 and Wednesday February 28th 2024 I'll second we have an emotion in a second is there any discussion hearing none all those in favor say aye aye aye all those opposed nay great motion passes thank you very much thank you Ashley thank you thanks Ashley great uh 5b uh discussion and consideration of capital program review committee policy and local option tax policy we have Jess sorry for the glare in the background I can't get that light to move um so we uh the capital committee began meeting regularly again earlier this spring summer um and one of the first tasks that we were given was to update the existing capital program review committee policy um so in your packet you'll see that that policy has been updated um to reflect changes from village to city um any references to that um in the policy and then also just cleaning up some of the um definitions of what is included in the capital um per the purview of the capital committee uh and then the other thing that we were asked to look at is the um creating a local option tax policy so this was like a two or three month long process that we went through we pulled um there was a member that pulled pretty much every other community that currently has a lot um to get copies of their policies or procedures or whatever documentation that they had um so we kind of took all the the best parts of those policies to create the policy the draft policy for the city of Essex Junction um essentially the policy just outlines that local option tax revenue will be used for capital projects um and we proposed that 25 percent of the annual revenue would be allocated specifically to sidewalk projects um and then knowing that this is a a very new policy for the city um included language that will um define a process for reviewing and updating this policy as we move through and see how it works for us and what the capital needs are over time um and then the last thing that we have been looking at is the sidewalk policy so we haven't actually we did a really rough review of the policy um staff and our engineer and amber looked at it um as well and definitely needs some updating um but wanted to just kind of put it on the radar and have the council provide us direction um on moving forward with reviewing and updating that policy but also identifying any specific needs that the council might have great thank you Rajin did you have anything to add to that I did not have anything to add other than just so this bunch of items on this agenda um so really the recommendations um are to accept the capital program review committee policy um to accept uh the um local option tax revenue policy with any edits that you might have and then the sidewalk policy we're not asking for any action it's just um whether you want to direct either staff or the capital committee to look into updating that policy well let's do them one by one um capital program review committee policy any thoughts or comments on that had a couple things on there Andrew um first one just being a general thought not that we change it on this policy but where it references a policy uh as defining a capital purchase of anything over ten thousand dollars wondering if that is really the the definition we want to use for our community or whether we want to have something that might align better with uh like the general accepted accounting principles based upon our finance directors determination instead of just a ten thousand dollar limit uh I remember early on with the committee one of the first things we had to do was rank a server replacement and because it fit within that ten thousand dollar policy um so just to prevent things going to the committee that frankly don't really need to um might be advantageous to at some point in time redefine that uh under membership the last sentence talks about the committee's first five appointees that happened back in 2012 so this could probably be deleted as well and then in under the membership where the second paragraph says a first meeting shall be the organizational meeting not sure if this is also needed and or if that should be changed to be the first meeting of the the year if the annual election needs to happen so I agree with your second point most of your points and I had a question around the dollar limit a different question but since it's the same item um is ten thousand a relevant number now and that kind of ties into our purchasing policy when we start talking about purchasing policies again those thresholds are they realistic now with the way things are where we are now um but in I kind of like how Andrew approached it is a dollar amount appropriate or is it more is that the right way to go generally we'll acknowledge on that particular point later on and we'll clock two times revenue policy it is specified even more more so to say rose bridges culvert sidewalks and water lines so maybe I don't know if that's the appropriate thing but obviously we have it somewhere else and on that note we excluded Bridget we excluded buildings but further down in that paragraph we bring them back in so I want to make sure I'm clear on they don't examine buildings but we're having them examine building repairs or replacements and I just want to understand that the nuance there for me sorry yeah the original intent that was that was an error I caught that as well okay that the not including not deleting and building repairs or replacements in line and the first paragraph was it was an error the intention is not to include those in capital fraud and for review excellent nor have they ever okay just perfect um anyone else all right right all right so based on that feedback Raj I had one comment sorry sorry Amber all right um so I I did review this but then I caught on the 14th time back around here on the second page about quarterly reports I'm just wondering if we really need this language in there because we have been getting actual meeting minutes in the packet and I think the way that this written is quarterly reports will be provided I think it really ties that ties it too much um that I don't I may be provided if we feel we need to put this in here but I don't want to put will I prefer to just take it out because I think I think we have the minutes in the packet and I don't think we need this language not to mention you're you're always going to have a counselor that's sitting on this committee that you can get an update from and these documents will be very much live so if anything changes they'll be reflected in the updated documents that we'll all have and they'll be online so they will change fairly and frequently I'm comfortable with having that gone having that removed personally right everybody seems in in line with that so with those changes I mean I guess there's the open question to the amount does that you know which what's the did you have a more did you have a suggested change more specifically Andrew or I was having something to be aligned with something determined by the finance director the finance director will have the professional expertise to determine what is a capital expense versus what is not just based on their own knowledge instead of a dollar or no I don't know maybe just wanted to speak to that yeah I was about to say just do you have any comments on that yeah I think yeah I think it makes sense to like Andrew is referencing aligning it with the purchasing policy and maybe we in this policy we just reference the threshold in the purchasing policy so that we're not updating this policy every time we make an update to the purchasing policy my thought originally was that we could raise that to either the $20,000 or $40,000 threshold so $20,000 is the threshold in which Regina has purview to purchase $40,000 is the threshold in which purchases would need to be approved by the council I think with costs being what they are in this day $40,000 seems reasonable there's not going to be a capital project that comes in under that amount but I wasn't sure if we wanted to just use the $20,000 limit to maybe capture some of those I mean we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars for the most part for these projects so I think $40,000 is plenty we may actually want it to be higher than that honestly I mean I guess I'm comfortable I mean we describe what they review in the first sentence and I'm comfortable adding something instead of an amount to say in alignment with our purchasing policies and simple and when we update the purchasing policies this year next year like you say Jess we don't have to come back and adjust this because this was last this is we're looking at 2013 amounts anyway here which are vastly different so what do you think about that Amber are you good I'm fine with that okay so in terms of revisiting this we're approving it as amended that's more of a question for Regina in terms of how comfortable you are with understanding what we're doing and what we're proposing I think I have everything clear so in paragraph one we're swapping out the language of defining $10,000 or more with I don't have this exact but we fit in there in alignment with our purchasing policies okay I'm clear under membership how to change the second paragraph the first meeting shall because we're beyond that but I missed what Andrew said in the paragraph above that which sentence we're looking at oh the last sentence of course says committee's first appointees will be appointed oh yes okay so I'm clear on that and then I was a little bit unclear whether buildings need to be addressed in this policy or we're only talking about policy buildings being corrected in the lot policy I can make sure it's in this one too yeah okay so we'll make sure that buildings are not under the purview of the capital plan review committee in this policy and we will also remove quarterly reports from the top ish of page two well that I'm comfortable approving as amended tonight if folks are so I would entertain the emotion on agenda or packet page 10 nope that's a wrong that's wrong uh page eight the first recommendation I'll go ahead and move that the council adopts the updated capital program review committee policy as amended I'll second great I'll motion in a second any discussion hearing none oh could you remove I will retract my motion thank you well we will do these one at the time sorry folks in the public um who may be online watching uh is there anyone uh on zoom or in person who has any comments about what we just discussed or anything they'd like to add I am not seeing any hands up so we will move on Andrew I'm sorry about that just rewind the same motion okay I'll second Andrew moves uh lane seconds no discussion all those in favor please say aye aye I suppose no nays the motion passes that's the first one thank you very much all right the lot policy which is page 11 and just did you have anything you wanted to say about this to get us going or specific um yeah I think specifically it's like I said we just defined this as the revenue being directed towards capital projects um with that specific call out of 25 percent directed towards sidewalk projects um and then I just noticed uh the capital projects do not include section um we're trying to remove the use the the use of the word sewer and put wastewater so I would I would suggest that we change sewer to wastewater slash sanitation in there okay any comments from the board on this policy one question about language the capital projects do not include the following paving specifically for paving and I'm curious about this because and I know that our sidewalk policy which we haven't gotten to yet um doesn't talk about materials and I know that recently came up in discussion around the west street the yeah west street the project there um and I would assume that in future projects there will be discussion about what types of materials to be is I don't know if it matters that this says paving if it if it matters in a discussion around sidewalks or if we're talking about roads or if it needs to be this paving is specific to specifically roads so therefore it should say roads well I mean I'll I'll just speak to that Marcus I mean I think and you know this the the um position of our engineer and our public works department is that we are not paving we are putting down concrete we're not using asphalt on the on sidewalks and so I went I will only speak for myself when I drafted this I meant paving saw I meant streets but I don't think that it applies to sidewalks either based on based on the practice so I mean I'm happy for if you want to put in a you know a change to that to say paving of streets that's fine but um I don't think that that there was there was any um intention for there to be paving of sidewalks included in this that makes sense yeah I don't know if the language changes absolutely necessary not and just I want to make sure that it's clear from reading what it what it's supposed to be yeah yeah and I think in my mind the distinction really is just a normal maintenance paving that we do annually which maybe the majority of the time will be streets might be sidewalks on occasion the capital projects more are we are gripping it up and repaving it and potentially doing other things along with it um so maybe it could just say routine uh paving maintenance or something is what's not included well I think there is a there is paving wait a minute I think about that because I some of these where I'm thinking is some of these projects do have paving as a component because you're ripping up whatever it happens to be the street and then you have to pave it but I guess it's not routine you could say you know does not include annual paving uh as prescribed in the in the annual budget process or something like that you know just non capital um obviously if we're ripping up a culvert we're paving to cover it back up um but um I yeah just does not include routine paving street paving because if it's a project for the culverts it's not routine so that works um I like routine street paving yeah great everybody likes routine street paving it's a good concept looks good followed by practice followed by routine street striping yes clean that's the street ricky loves it we should also align the definitions that we just talked about from the capital policy because this first under definitions this also says that exceed $10,000 so we need some to align that and I'm going to throw a little wrench in Amber's work here I think she knows I'm going to do it but I understand the need to address sidewalks specifically I would like us to consider for a moment I'm notwithstanding what I said at the beginning of the meeting um that we maybe broaden that a little bit to include um pedestrian or bike infrastructure projects because often these go together um so I don't know if because that you know if we're doing I'd hate to see us bypass an opportunity um that might present itself when we improve a sidewalk or install a sidewalk but we didn't include the funding because it's for the sidewalk and we'd have to score the crosswalk or the bike lane enlargement or whatever I'm just spitballing here but there will be other add-on potentially add-on things that we can do to improve accessibility in an area but if we're pigeonholed into just using this money for sidewalks specifically we may not be able to make those other improvements so I don't know if that's yeah good I thought that the purpose of the 25 set aside for sidewalks was predominantly for sidewalk repair and so I would think that if we were to have an opportunity to also take on bike lane expansion or sidewalk crosswalk expansion that's not sidewalks and so could we could that portion of a project be from the capital plan and 25 percent from the lot is for sidewalks I mean as long as we adjust the scoring on it because if if we have to wait six years hence because that's where it's scored but we're actually touching the area by the sidewalk repair that and we we could have and I can't think of a specific example so I apologize then we we might lose an opportunity for efficiency or to make a bigger a bigger improvement with just a little more effort again I can't think of an area well I actually can think of an area and I'm you know now that I think about it the sidewalk between willies I think it's willies court and the jug handle west street extension scored among the worst especially as you approach Warner and there has been talk about making an improvement across full street so if there are traffic steps so that's been a year's long conversation well that needs to be redone because so we're only interested if it's a whole nother argument I'm just so I wonder if it makes sense I just I thought that the purpose of setting aside in the lot revenue was specifically for sidewalk repair because we wanted to be attentive to the things that residents were calling out needing repair and that we would be able to use this funding to do those spot repairs with the intention of not making them expansions into other things but to fix this I that's just my understanding total I'm totally fine with that I just want to bring it up so I will just caution too that that 25 percent is basically we started at like 20 percent and you know and I actually started at a dollar amount looking at the CCRPC study and using this figure that the engineer provided for us per per linear square foot that we would be calculating and I was thinking it's going to cost 200 grand plus to be able to do any dent in anything for sidewalks so I would just caution that if we start dipping into that 25 percent to do other things that we're that we might not have the ability to do the sidewalk that you intended to do keeping in mind that the lot policy does allow you to continue to use the lot money for capital projects it's just allocating 25 specifically for sidewalks so you still have 75 percent each year to spend on other capital projects which could be your pedestrian side stuff then I'll drop it it's totally fine anything else no so aligning the definitions changing sewer to wastewater and sanitation is there anything else I have making sure there's no building reference in here change sewer to wastewater sanitation under the do not include portion change paving to routine street paving change 10 000 the language around 10 000 to alignment with our purchasing policies and that's it sounds complete I thought the reference to buildings in this was to say that buildings are not included you want to remove that we do want to keep the buildings portion to not be included in here yeah it's to make sure that it's only as a not right yes yeah we will clarify the lot policy also that buildings do not come under the purview of capital or the lot really in this instance that sounds complete to me all right so there is a motion on page eight the second motion sorry oh thank you gosh are there any members of public there's no one in the room so anyone on zoom that has any comments that they'd like to make on this uh before we proceed please raise your hand another couple seconds not seeing anyone raising their hand so if someone would like to make the motion on page eight under number two on with the city council except the local opt-in tax revenue policy with suggested council edits a second great good motion and a second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say aye aye those motion passes great on to discuss the sidewalk policy and more specifically whether we want capital or staff to revise it and review it review and revise I will start off by suggesting that it would be fantastic for staff to review and offer suggested revisions as a starting point amber you have your hand up I was actually going to say that I think this kind of starts at the maybe at the staff level and telling us what the current practice policy is you know out there in the in the real world and then bring it back to bring that information back to the council and then the council needs to make a decision as to whether the the policy moving forward is to proceed with removing sidewalks and such as outlined in here I don't think that that the policy the policy needs to be either confirmed or or changed before it should go to the capital committee because they're not making policy decisions that sounds great if I could make a note regarding the removal of sidewalks just I think back in the day there was a financial decision regarding plowing to lower some numbers of sidewalks to one on given streets to reduce the amount of plowing we were doing and there was a lot of neighborhood outcry about that I don't know if we the snow plowing plan is a part of this anymore but just seemed inadvisable to me at the time and just to comment about one of the criteria for removing sidewalks in this policy is sidewalk conditions become unsafe or are not in compliance with the americans with disabilities act and my thinking is if that if the sidewalk's not compliant you're not going to remove it and make it even less compliant you're going to repair it and make it more compliant so I would love that especially that removal of sidewalks part to really be examined I think we want accessibility more walkability not less I thought that was suggesting the point at which if the sidewalk exists and let's just say it's a so therefore it's a roadway that's got two sidewalks and it's planned for removal that one of them is going to be removed it would happen at the time that it doesn't comply I see so I didn't read it as we're just you can't use it we're going to just remove it yeah I thought it was just matter of what would trigger yeah it be removed versus us being proactive just started to remove sidewalks that's probably more in line with what was intended Marcus to me that's not how it reads at all so yeah yeah I think in light of the latest LDC revisions and potential revisions to come in the years in the years to come that I think in the TOD study that we're it's in the reading file I think it's a great time to revisit this yeah also looking at the plowing policy does that it'd be great to look at that does that then line up with this and kind of treat them both as as one effort so as Amber said you know reviewing best practices where are we one of the recommendations I'm bringing that back here but I agree with Amber staff first yes yeah the only thing I'd like to add if I may we did talk about this some years ago and there was a directive to staff about doing a pause on any sidewalk removal until we were to revisit this this policy um it's been a while staff have changed over maybe just a general let's not remove the sidewalk and have there be a general pause on this and intentionally not follow the policy as it's written if that determination comes up where there is a sidewalk that is scheduled to be removed to not actually remove it for now I agree with that continuing the pause sounds great yeah and I did get some feedback from Ricky today this is not a full 100 inventory it's off his head that there's only been two that he's aware of from this list that have actually been so that was helpful but there are four marked up here I mean there was two from FY oh seven one from FY oh eight another one from FY 10 I assume those have been north side of briar was removed uh as was another one so we've got an email from Regina with the two I think can't remember what they are yeah same I I would love to see too I guess this is just my former history on on bike walk but if there's a role or any participation from the bike walk committee if that's feasible and efficient for them to have a role in this somehow and I don't know if they've actually had a chance to review the GIS information that we got three or four months ago or if they're even aware of it definitely aware of it okay I believe they've taken a look awesome great couldn't remember off the top of my head for the minutes great um at Orchard Terrace is the other okay to uh Briar Lane and Orchard Terrace all right thank you so what you need I think we've got what we need yeah awesome great all right um anyone online have any comments they'd like to make on that we're not taking any action but is there's any anything anybody like to share around that topic that was the time there's no one in the room so I'm not seeing any hands online so we'll move on to 5c discussion and consideration of rental registry and inspection ordinance and potential warrant of public hearing Chris welcome Chris before I pull it up I'm just going to intro this um so um yeah the we've talked a little bit about this before the state statute changed and the division of fire safety is taking over rental inspections from the department of health they have been creating some rulemaking to make that happen by December 31st of this year um we uh got some advice from both of those departments before that what we're doing probably can still move forward um as of today some of that has been solidified and we now have some questions um so um it is unlikely that we can get some of those questions answered by January 24th but really the changes we're not thinking that this is like we're completely derailed um thinking is at the moment we aren't talking about staffing this position with the certified fire um person that may potentially change um and if so that's probably going to change the cost of the program because we there might be a higher um pay scale there that we have to be thinking about um but we're thinking that it likely makes sense to move forward the discussions that you folks have on your memo tonight are all still relevant policy conversations and questions for this program um and it seems to make sense um from Chris's perspective that there's no harm in moving forward with the public hearing on January 24th if you folks are ready for it um because we're just gonna get the word out there and get some feedback um anything else to add I was supposed to say in the intro no I think that's uh that's right any questions on that before Chris goes into the memo so at this point we're warning a public hearing there might be some edits by then potentially but we feel like the way the rulemaking is going we're on the right path yes or an appropriate path that meets the standards yeah and there I think there's um the waters are just murky I will say uh and we will do our best to clarify um that by January 24th um I imagine we're going to be a little bit in the middle of um what the division of fire safety thinks we can do versus what we think we can do and how to kind of write all of that to collect correctly um I can envision a situation where we don't have that all fine tuned by January 24th but I think in terms of us moving forward with this as a policy I don't really see a reason right now that we should pause this process okay if that I just have to remain flexible yeah gotcha and and I would also uh mention that after January 24th it's very likely and almost certain that still need to be another public hearing with with additional um amendments um we'll probably talk about that when we talk about timeline okay so with if we do have to have another public hearing anticipating amendments does it what would be the difficulty in just waiting until we can have this flushed out I mean we could shorten the conversation tonight and ask our questions based on what we've read unless there's something I'm not trying to cut a short but unless there's something that you really want us to focus on do you like for instance of course do you have pressing questions of us from a policy point of view I know there's a few no so all of the discussion uh points in the memo are still valid I I don't anticipate that the the rulemaking uh at the division of fire safety will have any impact on that discussion so okay to be able to solidify what that is would be helpful okay uh in terms of why um we still think uh January 20 uh uh 24th is uh still uh still a good day I mean it's partly because there's the the council agenda anticipated uh in in the uh meetings after that um uh show that they'll likely be uh be focused on uh on the budget right it just it will definitely delay us if we don't do January 24th we might not have to delay if we don't jet if that makes sense if I just said those well let's I mean let's proceed tonight as we as intended as you intended and um yeah we'll just keep going so did you want to run us through any of this or did you want to take questions I think I I'll take questions okay um anyone here have any questions for Chris this point Andrew you want to start us off I have a couple questions uh the first one of exempting affordable housing units I know that Barry St. Albans City and St. Johnsbury do not do this not sure if other communities do so just not sure why we would speaking from a previous profession um an organization I worked for when we did housing developments and the organizations who then did the property management appreciated having another opportunity to have somebody come into uh tenants units with a different perspective especially because there are times where there were tenants who would not allow the state government in it would not allow the federal government in but felt more comfortable with the local government coming in and so it was another opportunity then that could align all those inspections into one so there is a fair amount of collaboration that does happen on those uh on those inspections and there was some utility in keeping somebody else having eyes on those units so I would advocate that we not exempt it uh and part of that was because of the anticipated impacts of the costs to to them it doesn't mean that we would have to charge and if we if we feel strongly that's the the city should be inspecting those as well but uh I do think um the additional annual costs could be difficult for some non-profits housing providers tell you from that experience that they were those are not a barrier the hundred and twenty bucks a unit it's it's peanuts and do they pass it on to their tenants more often than not there's a government to to tee that pace okay just one developer one organization it is a giant spider web mess of organizations so I'm not speaking broadly for all affordable housing developers or property managers won't be there to clear up but also that you know we know that some of the affordable units in our community are some of the ones that are the most affected by the need of inspection and quality of housing I wouldn't want to miss that opportunity to require improvement where it's needed because if a federal or a state entity inspects it doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to know about it and that we're going to find out whether the requirements are being met so we require we have some authority to make sure they're being met and it's our staff that has to at the end of the day interact for any anything that needs to be addressed or any violations it would be our staff that that is the other folks who are actually in that situation not I mean I'm curious about you know there's there's some programs up there we've just adjusted the LDC to encourage or or make possible ADUs for instance and there are some programs out there that people private homeowners can take advantage of if they're willing to keep the the rent low enough that they can get I don't I don't remember the terms but I know I looked into it um I'm and and that would be that's that's against an affordability threshold um that is the standard so I guess I would wonder is there a middle ground I mean that is only one person 180 120 a year um that but I'm just wondering if there's an appetite there to you know exempt yeah I don't that was one of the things I was wondering about I didn't have that perspective though that you're bringing to this with like of a Champlain Housing Trust for instance put in 25 units somewhere they're used to dealing with that um but if a private developer came forward and decided they're going to take advantage of some of the new aspects of s100 and they're going to put an extra story on they're going to commit to a certain percentage or this ad you example or somebody's going to do something in their home what's the middle ground there that we can encourage that um can we absorb still inspecting them so there are to our standards um and should we or do we want to waive those waive those fees or discount them well so I would clarify that the uh the current proposal only offers a fee exemption for affordable housing units that are already inspected by another agency okay uh so basically if someone builds uh you know the the affordable units uh for a height bonus under under uh back 47 uh that's not inspected by anybody else that would still be subject to this the only other portion with that definition though is so the housing choice voucher or section 8 follows a person and so there are many instances where you have a person who qualifies for subsidized housing it's in a private development a private uh unit and of itself even in owner occupied developments within an accessory dwelling unit and so it's affordable and would then be an affordable opportunity but to know where that person is is not something that you're going to generally have access to that kind of information so that goes to the landlord and that individual they would have to self identify that yes i'm getting money through the section 8 program or through the housing choice voucher so it's not all big developments 60 50 units even individual units the well the the ordinance the draft ordinance right now doesn't really uh distinguish whether whether uh renters are are low income not this is this is just if the unit is already inspected by another agency um then it's it's exempted so I guess what we're doing is enlarging that conversation or I am enlarging the conversation to see you know do we want to add is there another classification we want to add to it and it doesn't sound like folks are on board with that so that's totally fine um I don't think the fees are exorbitant um I just want to bring it up for clarification is I know and I agree with the thoughts that have already been shared concerning uh those things that qualify as affordable low income housing um there is the exemption in here as well for owner occupied units not needs but owner occupied units I am for that particular stimulation in here and I think the staff that's given about the reasoning in here so I just wanted to check in for having this exemption in conversation maybe we still feel that's okay so um I noticed there was a there was an issue with with that I had mentioned uh that exemption in the memo but the language in uh the draft ordinance was not actually reflective of that so that is an amendment that's uh that would need to be made and added but uh to just to clarify you know what language would be potentially added for that um it would be under under the registry required part section 20.01 there would be an addition that says owner occupied dwelling units containing one or two rooms which are rented out or compensation and partial units short term rentals are exempted from the requirements of this chapter uh that language came from uh the city of Burlington uh and I think I think that's that kind of contains it so that's you know if you if you have a if you happen to have a rooming house situation where you have 15 rooms but you own it uh there would that there would still be subject to inspection but if it's a typical um single family house with uh where you rent out one or two rooms maybe for home share uh that would be exempted um I had a detail um in the definitions right at the top um find it um article three definitions building inspector shall mean the duly appointed building inspector of the city or his or her designated assistant can we remove his or her news there I think that's the only instance throughout the whole thing where they're where that sort of exists uh that I I think that should be fine uh I would double check with the city attorney just just to see if there's any any issue with that but uh I don't I don't anticipate any issue great thank you Amber sorry I wasn't looking up I just put it up so no worries um in section 20.06 c just a um addition of adding city of Essex Junction fire department as opposed to Essex fire department it's minor I know um um and then on section 20.08 this the D D and E I think there was there was some conversation about this at the last um council meeting that we discussed this that there was some redundancy in those and I won't word Smith it Chris but if you can kind of take a look at those two sections again just to see if there's any way to clean them up so that they're not they're not redundant and clear um I'll take a look again those that this was uh something I'd run by the city attorney already um and see at least they didn't notice any uh any issues or redundancy with that they had other comments about about those paragraphs which have uh which have been already addressed okay yeah it read it read uh just I don't know not clear to me but I'm an attorney so who am I to say don't you keep telling us um last uh a quick comment I think for me and then I have a question on the proposed fee schedule um still reflects the 115 not the 120 that is yeah that that should be updated to 120 um yeah and then this is a silly question but just so that I'm clear so if I have a if I have a rental property I am going to pay $120 a year to register it with the city and then you're going to come out and inspect but you're going to re inspect as part of my 120 that I'm paying hypothetically I know you're not inspecting every year um but if I if I and if I have any violations and they're not remedied and 30 days or whatever you have to come back out for another inspection then I'm paying another 120 bucks or 115 or whatever it is is that right so like my so the inspection itself set a different way the inspection itself the first inspection is essentially covered by the registration fee you're not paying separately for an inspection unless it's a reinspection right actually and reinspection even of itself if the if the uh issue is remedied within 90 days uh would not would not come with a fee that's the intention was that you know if it's if it's a repeat issue that's that just doesn't get resolved um that the city would recuperate the the cost of that I think the intention was not to be uh was not to penalize uh excessively but to just get issues addressed right no that makes that makes sense I mean I'm not sure that maybe the 90 days is open for for conversation um a standard fire safety they give you 30 days so fire safety meaning sorry when when the fire marshal comes and inspect your property they give you 30 days to to remedy any of the deficiencies so that's that's standard I mean obviously there is the hey I can't do this can we you know move that to 45 days or 60 days or whatever it happens to me um so I'm open to conversation about that but I was more curious that I just wanted to make sure I understood the fee process you want your candy get outside now um just dance away okay folks at home we're listening to what we think is the candy drop off from the fire department roll by outside and they're playing music very loudly so it's Elaine's going to start dancing all right Carrie's rocking it right now Amber are you all set with those questions yeah I kind of feel like I'm missing a whole candy drop thing but I'm good all right so are we though it's okay um we have a couple of things you good um within the objectives uh the first one says so uh a to ensure the adequate life and safety of all residential rental properties uh in my mind I would want to replace rental properties with renters uh I my objective for advocating this for as long as I have is not to advocate for the the properties but for the people living there might be semantics but um rental properties don't have a life so um sorry folks um sure and then the last thing that I have is not on the documents um but then on the the next step in process party for that well I just want to just give me one second because I just want to make sure since it's budget season I've been thinking about this a lot and I think there's a little wiggle room because there's some one time purchasing happening in the first year but this is going to our costs are going to increase at least three to five percent of a year in this program so what is our mechanism or what do we want to address the mechanism to increase these fees at a at a in you know a couple questions do we want to come up with a way or is that a separate conversation for addressing fee increases um how regularly um and or is that just something we need to keep in mind because this you know if I use the salary and benefits that were presented um in November at 97 98 we'd be after five years up in the 120s for that person at five percent every year so I just want to be and I didn't go backwards then and take out the one-time purchases and all that stuff I didn't kind of go through the spreadsheet but I just want to make sure we're understanding that we're these fees will have to go up at some point um then I just thought I'd mention it because it's on my mind I don't know what what the procedure would be I mean we just probably come back and raise them as part of the budget process inflation this year was x we're raising the raising the rate three percent this year we're going to we're going to do that with some of these things you know that's a larger conversation that amber really wants to have with revenues generally do we do that how often do we come back to our fees regularly and increase them because you could do that across the board you know any kind of community development work costs more for the city to do every year so do we raise the fees every year is it a five-year plan is it a three-year plan it's just something I think um yeah I would be in favor of giving staff the ability to determine the fee based on the cost of the program not having it wait until it comes to this body to then approve of through a political process but rather have the staff who see the budget know and we're not meeting the cost want to raise it inform the council I think there is a policy um participation though on us to set a bear to set a floor um you know because we do you know not listed in the subjective would be to then return any of these resources that might be in surplus to improve our housing stock generally and you know do what some other communities are doing with you know proactively reach out to landlords and say how can we help you improve you know if there's this is yours down the road um but you know if there's surplus to this program are there zero interest loans we can give a landlord to help them improve a property or even add um or any of those kinds of so I I guess there'd be a floor but um yeah I think it's not something we have to come up with tonight I just wanted to bring it up um or generally around the revenues and how this works because it does worry me adding something and and then finding that we're not keeping up um that's all we also when we approved the land development code last time we specifically took the fee schedule out of the land development code so it lives on its own so it's not within the document that requires a significant amount of process to update so we could also not include the cost in the ordinance itself keep it over on that fee schedule because the idea was that can just be brought to council whenever and you know I think I saw that in Winooski in South Burlington maybe South Burlington's not correct but they have a whole separate addendum to their policy page appendix which is their fee schedule for everything um so I would like I think that's a great plan that that's already actually the uh the the draft okay great okay all right any other questions or comments for Chris anyone at the next step right yep sorry we are yes sir um so I see that there's a desire to send a notice to landlords to tell them that we are doing this um in my mind there's another population here and that would be the tenants and so if we're going to send something to landlords why would we not also send something to the tenants just take a further step back when we had the vicious dog ordinance that we created we didn't send something to register dog owners to tell them we're going to do this and we want your input so I know we want public input I would say if we're going to ask for public input by sending a letter to anybody's that it should be both sets of the equation landlords and tenants uh as or we just create the equal playing field and do our typical notifications that way so uh I could be wrong but I think that was staff's suggestion last time we talked about this uh to send it to both and uh there was council direction that um we're doing this to benefit all parties and do we need to do any outreach at all um in in above and beyond what we're doing otherwise um I think our our feeling is that uh it'd be easier to implement and put this forward if we're notifying than not notifying um and it's the the impact in terms of laying this out is more on the landlord community than the renter community in terms of a hardship um but I hear what you're saying and it's a it's a great question well I wonder in that process so it I do recall some of that but if if we end up doing it including something in that that asks or requests can't require landlords provide something to their tenants um if that's going to happen but I I see your point but I do recall us saying I don't know that we need to do that um generally but you know not sure we can change our minds what what do people think um I'm thinking well yes we absolutely shouldn't try both parties but I'm also anticipating that most of those parties are not watching these meetings and it's going to be a big surprise that there's going to be a fee and we're going to hear from landlords who don't like it and we're going to hear from tenants that we're scared that it's going to be passed on directly to them and then most likely will be and so I wouldn't say that reaching out to the landlords is is they're the impacted people because I think the landlords are going to turn around and pass it right on to their renters so um we need to be prepared to talk to people about why we're doing this from a public information person so not just notifying by letter who lives in these buildings and who owns these buildings but rather informing the entire community why we're doing this and our anticipated outcome of it and yes we acknowledge that this is an increased cost but this is at the uh this is an opportunity for us to improve the housing stock and its extraction so I think it's more of the community information piece as well as notifying both the landlord because we are going to get people in the audience after those letters come I agree with the plan I was I'll say this to take it a step further I think Ben and Ben in the seat of being a renter I could only imagine getting one of these letters that would be one of the first things I would think but at the same time if my lease was up and my my landlord said by the way your rent is going up $200 because of this rental registry and I have to go why because it's only costing you 10 bucks a month like why is it going up $200 this gives the renters that for knowledge so that they can be proactive in those particular discussions with their landlords the other is it also lets them know that this program exists so that if they have problems with their units yes that they will they will know that there's a mechanism there that they can be somebody they can call so no accountability it doesn't exist great so I would agree that this communication should go both I wonder if the conversation before and I'd have to go back and look but I think there's a little nuance here I don't think that we want to wait I don't think that we wanted to wait the extra time in the process to have a we're sending this out six weeks later for this meeting come and join us I think that was sort of what we were trying to we're going to do this here are the dates we're going to talk about it please come in and share your thoughts as opposed to taking one or two extra steps to get feedback give it another couple meetings of consideration and that sort of thing I think we're I think we're committed to how this works it's been done in other communities we've had feedback that this happens and people know about it and how they work we're not doing anything vastly different than what other communities have done so I think that might be that all of this has been discussed before I think that's kind of where we ended up so does that make sense there would probably be two steps to it I think it would make sense to reach out before the ordinance is passed so there's so so that they can provide feedback so that they feel included in the process but also we'll have to reach out again with the registration information and the link to actually participate and having and reaching out twice I anticipate would increase compliance much higher than if we just sprung it on them once so in terms of reaching out to the to the renters does it make sense to reach out to them now when things are not so finalized and you know some I guess some things are still in flux or should it but but they would have a chance to shape the the ordinance or should it be more notification that said this program exists please take advantage of it and it starts on this date I think it equalizes the power imbalance if you send it to everybody as compared to just people who won't know I guess the question now is timing though so when after it's passed and that's about to be implemented hey here's a heads up there's this program and there's gonna be inspections and by the way this is also a reach it's the same department that does health code violation and concerns and all that stuff or do we reach out to the both now and both again well couldn't we reach out to them as part of the public hearing process which is before it's enacted to say we're having a public hearing and that's the whole point of the public hearing is to hear from the public who are impacted by what we're about to implement so give them the heads up with the public hearing and say here is your opportunity to come talk to us about this or you can email or you can call and then once it's enacted here we this plan this program is now in place and I think we should be taking a proactive tone and saying the purpose of this is to protect our renters and we want to make sure you have recourse when things are going wrong in your building and you now have some place you can call and we will be holding landlords accountable and here's some resources for you that's like what Andrew said earlier changing that one little piece of the introduction to say we're trying to protect people and so dear renters we're doing this for you and we're doing it for all the housing stock in our community right so it sounds like we're saying we want two mailers to each which feels different than before which is okay yeah and I 100% agree it's very costly well can one be like a postcard like the hearing loss oh sure but yeah why I was going to be advocating just don't do it so that way we can go through the process as cost effectively as possible if we're going to do it then equalize it for everybody yeah right one way or the other we're either mailing do it to everybody everybody or we're not mail right and we're getting the word out as best we can through all other mechanisms that we get the word out how does this how does this uh this seems like where does it fall in the rubric we approved four months three months ago so you know if this you know we have we have the communications project rubric if this warrants the expense of doing that that's something we've approved and we've said this is what we want to do I would let that guide us on this we are going to do one mailing to both when this is if this gets approved regardless I think we've kind of established that should be done let people know it's coming got a mail registration materials out landlords anyway and get compliance I don't disagree with your Chris that working with them will get more compliance than springing in on them but I would I would guess I would go back to the rubric and say this seems to me like it's a big enough decision where it might fall further down that line of effort we put into getting out the word so I guess let us know we're not going to pull it up now but let us know what you think how does that feel confusing or is that I mean I I think I mean I think it seems clear to me um because it doesn't quite to me but I I just don't want it so this I just don't want us to turn around in a month and say well we approved it because it just occurred to me that we did do that and this is sort of that we did approve that that rubric and that process and we have to use it so you know yeah and that's true when I agree with that I'm just pointing out that we have not created a budget right that really truly does that well because to do these things well costs a lot of money right um so just just pointing that out that we don't necessarily have these dollars sitting someplace to make this up okay so unfortunately for us we are at the you know the midpoint of our budget discussions and so maybe a future workshop discussion point is like what are the major things we're going to be doing in the next fiscal year that we are going to have to notify people about because we did pass that rubric and the whole point of it was to do a better job communicating and if we simply notify the public hearing by putting up some posters at Brown Allen and Lincoln Hall and one or two other places no it's gonna see that and they'll be blindsided by this hundred and twenty dollar cost that will be passed on to them so we're gonna come back to this before we have to mail well we know we won't because if we're talking about the public hearing we have to get that right out um yeah unless unless you delay the the public hearing no we don't want to delay the public hearing what kind of kind of costs are we talking about it's in the I've actually got it I've got the suggested from the November 8th meeting if you do the public hearing notice as a postcard that saves a little bit of punch ninety two dollars printing and postage was two hundred and seventy five two hundred ninety dollars from landlords right and there will be more so tenants by two thousand uh two thousand something tenants yeah and this was that that two hundred dollars basic three hundred dollars basically is two hundred and seventy nine landlords versus two thousand tenants so if you extrapolate that out it's probably a thousand dollars in printing and twelve hundred dollars in printing and mailing just guessing I mean times two if we do it twice so so the grain scheme doesn't seem like that especially since this is going to be a revenue generating and impacting so many residents okay so if the council is clear on that what you would like us to do we can um move forward on that unless we really can't find that one okay let us know if that does to change and uh I wasn't anticipating the the uh mailing mailing everybody at that's uh in terms of timing uh given the holidays and staff availability there's you know we can try our best but but it's possible that we may not be able to meet the deadline to notify two thousand so people yeah that would you'd want to have a contact and service do that not you all but again increase cost yeah yeah like get it to the printer right which we know from Ashley I don't think she's on anymore what that deadline was because we were trying to meet that deadline for the january 27th um communications communication the um yeah um and that deadline may have passed in terms of trying to get it out the first week in january this doesn't necessarily need to hit that same time frame we want people to know before january 24th we don't want people to get it in their mail january 23rd right um um but okay I I think we have enough direction and we can do our best okay let us know you know it's just impossible um to meet the deadline both in staff time and in deadlines for services um I don't think there was any action on this rather wonderful here sorry that would be pretty obvious details I'm uh looking for the yep all right yeah both yours uh is there anyone online who has any comments about this topic rental registry um they would like to share them with us now please raise your hand and zoom a couple more seconds while I find this motion perfect not seeing anyone on zoom so Andrew please take it away well I'll move the city council warning public hearing for the rental registry and inspection ordinance to be held on january 24 2024 so motion in a second uh not hearing any discussion all those in favor say hi hi hi hi hi hi guys have it motion passes thank you thanks Chris thank Chris if you're sticking around for this one too um 5d discussion and consideration of urban forestry grant for trees for main street park um yeah um staff was looking at this grant program for the main street park to try to um offset the cost um to the city for the trees in that park um at budget day uh there's pretty clear that the council wants to prioritize the amtrak train station project over the main street park um so we are trying to figure out if we can still make this grant program work for us in some kind of useful way um I've had a little bit of back and forth with um Warren and nick of the tree advisory committee um and thinking through what their um needs are also considering their $10,000 in the general fund then the proposed general fund budget um and what we could potentially use this grant for if we're not using it if we're not going for the main street park um so um the grant is due January 5th um it uh I can't give you any more specific direction on what we could potentially pivot and use this for for the tree advisory committee um but uh so my my recommendation is if it's possible for staff to pull together a specific application by January 5th for this um money then um we'd be fine doing this this is a one-to-one cost share it's not going to be a significant amount of money one way or the other um my understanding is these funds are um either from ARPA or the infrastructure bill so they've got a decent amount of money they're trying to move through the program now but that's not necessarily going to be the case always um so we thought it made sense to try to put something in for this grant um but that's what they have to say it's very confusing and Murty I apologize so you'd like the flexibility to apply for it if it makes sense to do so on a general basis for the city as opposed to directing it specifically towards the park yes and you just like to guidance them whether we want you to do that or not yes okay um there is a motion on page 36 I've got queued up but how do people feel about this fun with it moving forward as the guy who started that conversation on such a day I will say that I'm totally okay with that I will say that if for some reason again looking at that particular space right now I don't believe that that's a priority to make it what how like the last design that I saw was but if you did put a couple of trees there that would be really that would do a lot I don't know if that is a priority but I will just throw that out there but I'm okay with staff okay with it as long as it's not for mainstream work I just don't think that should be a priority yeah well I don't think it's feasible if we were to just simply try to plant trees too much soil and capping would have to be done if I remember correctly from the limited recollection I have these would this grant would have to just be for trees somewhere in the city and we make up for it in the park for another time sorry um anyone else no all right I will move that the city council authorized city staff to apply for the community's caring for canopy grant for something else in the city is I think what you or for yes for use for use citywide or is that what you say sorry yeah I think the grant's gonna have to be specific oh um that description yes yeah okay let's go let's let's with staff discretion second great discussion hearing none all those in favor say hi hi I was posed motion passes and we have an executive session uh so let's go through the consent agenda I have a motion to approve the consent agenda some will also great all those in favor of approving the consent agenda say hi hi I was opposed great motion passes reading file Regina did you have anything you want to start with yeah I just have a few thank you Chris thank you Chris um so uh just to clarify on the CVE letter so prior it was a there was a template edit that we used from previous years that said that the city council waives fireworks during the fair I believe um you have not waived any fireworks during the fair CVE also is not intending to do any fireworks at the fair with only fireworks that we are aware of right now is our own on 4th of July the letter has been amended to say that if there are any fireworks they have to follow the process as spelled out in the indemnification agreement which would come forward to you um so that's the plan also policy uh procedure wise we will make sure to get the 4th of July fireworks through the correct approval process fire department police department public works will get on your agenda so folks are aware of it um and that that's what we'll do great if that's better yes okay um so um I believe there's a article in the reading file yep it's 7e but just wanted to um point out that efficiency vermont did do that article about the wastewater treatment facility and our our partnership with them so it's a great article people have to take a look at that um ejrp received $1900 in donations and purchased new winter gear for 50 um kids in need in the city so great exciting um on the storm um thankfully we did pretty well um there um we just moved a lot of water through the wastewater treatment facility way more than we ever have probably way more than we did in the july storm um and um we just lost some bugs so bugs are really critical in the system um and we were able to uh get some bugs from south burlington so thank you to south burlington treatment facility because they're pretty well um and so we should be in fairly good shape there um we did lose a beaver baffle up on indian brook um on hovels falls culvert but essentially what that does is uh gives the beaver something else to work on and prevents them from putting a dam in the culvert so um that is unfortunate that we lost that um we'll try to uh think on that in the spring on trying to get that back in place um i think that is all i have great um oh i'm sorry i did want to mention that for the wastewater treatment facility monday night we have three staff um art as well as um both jason's we have two jason's at the wastewater treatment facility they stay late to get a pump up and running so that we can make another tank operational so we had all of them going uh which we also haven't done before and that was really hugely beneficial to make um that work so so now i think that is that's fantastic anyone have anything else no okay so there is i'll just make these motions for the executive session um i move the city council make the specific finding the general public knowledge of a contract would place the city as substantial disadvantage in motion two of the city council entering executive session to discuss a contract for two pursuant to one vsa 313 a1a to include the city council and city manager and do we need to include um the finance director and waste water treatment plan director and hr director and hr director three directors second great uh not seeing any discreting discussion all those in favor of approving both motions please say aye aye let's pose nay great both motions pass um i think we're going to try to use this room because we have so many joining from zoom scott i don't think we're going to be long but if you can great