 Welcome, everyone. I'm going to call them to order the Board of Finance for Monday, August 8th at 5.05pm. We don't quite remember a Board of Finance meeting point like this where, unfortunately, our CAO is out. There's good one of the personalities. It is Catherine's absence. We also have just three members of the Board of Finance because of various summer schedules. Thank you, President Paul for joining us by Zoom. Councilor McGee is here in the room and we so we have the quorum and we are we are in order the first time on the agenda is the agenda and because it is not certain that we will be able to keep this quorum. We're looking for ways to make this meeting move more quickly and believe Councilor McGee is going to offer a amendment to create a consent agenda. Thanks Mayor. Yeah, so I will move to amend and adopt the agenda to add to the consent agenda items 4.01, 4.02, 4.04, 4.5, 4.08, 4.17, 4.20, 4.21, 5.01, 5.02, 5.03 and 5.04. I'll I'll second that. Okay, thank you President Paul. Any discussion of this motion. Great. Seeing none. We will go to a vote. All those who can please say aye. Aye. Okay, so I believe the next item remains and that consent agenda did we set that will be item 2.05. Yeah, there is. The consent agenda is item three. Okay, so we've just expanded that. Great. So the next item is the public forum. 2.01. Is there any member of the public that is. Your machine to speak. And. Do have a person on zoom position to speak. Okay, great. And we do have, we have a large herd in the school district that we have on agenda for later, but handling that. Okay. And that's a discussion item six. So go ahead. I'm going to enable your microphone for public forum. Hi. Excuse me. Good evening. I heard your crunch time. So I will be as succinct as possible. Item 4.14, which has to do with the noise exposure map. And, um, and how that will be communicated to the public. Um, 4.15, which is the sound insulation. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. We've been waiting for this for a long time. Um, but what I wasn't clear when I read through it was. Ken, a resident. Opt to. Go that route, not sell their house to the airport. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. The relocated have that work done and move back in. I didn't see that as an option. And I wanted to understand that. So that's something else that I think is important to note. Um, and the last item. Unrelated has to do with the high school bond. Um, I still have not seen any communication, Mr. Mayor on it. I address it to you because I feel it's a community issue. And I'm not sure what it's going to be. But I don't know what it's going to be. But I don't know what it's going to be. But I don't know what it's going to be. And I don't know what it's going to collectively work on. Um, I don't see anything suggesting that the state will contribute any significant dollars. Um, to. This high school. And I don't see them acknowledging the role they played. In first of all, applying the more stringent. Standard to us and ultimately delaying construction. Um, I don't know. I don't see anything suggesting that the state would have to apply those added costs. And I really wish that that could be addressed if it's all been an executive session, I wish there would be some public statement that could be made. For all of us. So that we know that some effort was made. By this community to have the state acknowledged the role they've played and contribute some. Contribute some significant dollars. I think we're at a point where we can find some friends who can help us. And if there's a good enough summary that they're presenting to you. And I am concerned that. We are ultimately capping our potential. I find it's okay to cap finances, but I think we're capping our potential by eliminating programs that are culinary pre-tech. Child care. These are all. Basic skills. and stay in place. And I'm concerned about this direction that we're going in. And my last comment is that I'm one resident, and you certainly can discard my comments. You can shelve them. The students are, most of them, too young to vote, so their voices, I'm not sure, are being heard. There aren't as many families in our community, and so I don't think they muster a big pool of voters that can sway a council or a school board. And then of those families, a lot of those are non-citizens who don't have the right to vote. So I feel like the people, the potential that's being capped is a group of people who really have very little clout with the governing body of this city. And I'm very disappointed in the direction we're going. Thank you. Thank you, Sharon. Is there anyone else on line wishing to speak to the board? No. All right, then, checking in the room, I don't believe there's anyone else here at the public forum. So I'm going to put the voters at the public forum and move item 321, which is the amended consent agenda. So we have a motion to adopt the consent agenda and make the actions indicated. Thank you, Councillor McGee. Second. Second by President Paul. Any discussion of the consent agenda? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Councillor McGee and President Paul, for working with us to make that change. And now I will hopefully manage my way through the rest of the agenda. Properly with those changes. So I believe the next item, Rich, go through to correct me when I get this wrong, is 4.03, which is a very exciting item. This is the Oakledge Universally Accessible Playground Construction Contract. This is something we have been working towards for years and looking to assemble the resources for years. Seeing as like a moment to celebrate. Yes, it does. What do you know about it? John, take the lead. He's spent the most of it. Well, depending on how you add it up, it's either 13, 10, or six years in the making. We've been working with an advocacy group called Oak Edge for All to Build the Region's First Universally Accessible Playground at Oakledge Park. We've been working on the plans, combing them for years, trying to get the costs in check. We went out to bid several weeks back and got a very high bid in from a single bidder. Initially, we had zero bids. Went out and did more of a retreating and got a loan bidder and an extremely high bid. And we've been working diligently since then to value engineer the project from $1.4 million to $700,000. This project is paid for with matching funds from LWCF, yes, and local money like Pennington Parks and the county of Phoenix. So we're really excited to get under construction. We've got a great team put together. We've got a returning resident engineer that helped with phase one, which was built in 2019. And happy to entertain any questions. Can I get the floor is open? Questions? Discussion? Be glad to make a motion. Go ahead, Prisabal. I would just, I don't know if there are, if Councilor McGee has any questions. This is a great milestone on a great project. I'm happy to make the motion to take the action as recommended on Board Docks. Thank you, President Paul. Seconded by Councilor McGee. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we will go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We will see you next week in Council. Yep, thank you very much. Thank you. Just kudos, Mayor, Mr. John, and so we really will just pass the line. Awesome. Thank you, John. Thank you so much. Next, we're just going to jump into 4.06, which is an authorization, execute, design, contract, bring a little bit of road, path. Can you give us a quick summary of this? Yep. So the city was awarded a grant to the bike walk plan program all of last year. We had brought that through Council for acceptance. At the time of accepting it, we asked to use the Be Trance on the Ready program where they have pre-qualified design consultants already vetted. In reviewing those qualifications, we asked BHB to provide us a proposal for the work within the path. And we are here today to seek authorization to award such a contract to them, providing them to be one of the highest qualified contractors or design consultants for the work, as well as their fee is generally within the range that we expected for a design engineer for this caliber project. Very good. Are we ready? Are there questions or a read for motion on 4.06? We will make the move and take the action as indicated on board document. Thank you for the motion, Councilor McGee. Second. Second by President Paul. Discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. 4.07 is a contract with Cascade Engineering for the purchase of 4,000 recycling carts and opposed ordinance teams to require recycling carts. The main parts of the city that it's all in requirement. Welcome, Lee. Thank you. All right, anything to that? So much. We just had a lot of feedback from counselors and residents around this initiative and work with the administration CAO's office to really get this effort moving. We've run in a really tight timeline, worked with city attorneys on the ordinance changes. And I believe we came up with a good effort to really minimize one injuries to our employees, to wind blown litter, as we all know in the spring when the snow melts. It's a pretty unsightly mess out there that our staff has to monitor and spend a lot of time taking care of. And I think it's kind of benefited the residents and the city in the long run. Really looking forward to this effort. Great. Me too, Lee. I've only been working with this for a long time to see an expanded city plan. It's a lot of time covered and stuff I can have in my history. Further discussion questions? Are we ready for a motion? Chef, that's a question. What do we expect to improve in the first 4,000s? So a lot of that depends on manufacturing and delivery times. Right now, it's a five to nine month window. I'd like to expect that. But with my last car order, it took a while just for the way shipping changed our right now and availability of materials. But being a bigger order, I believe that it won't be as long. And it's going to be four to five months, or five to nine months scheduled. And then the rollout will be a little bit longer because we have a lot of public outreach to do. Our public information manager will follow up. Rob Goulding has created a web page that will allow for the information to be granted and settled for people who are going to work on it. So there's a lot of work to do. But hopefully, by fall, we'll have a little bit more information in the timelines. Great. Could I just ask, my only question was just, once I think the word spreads about these charters that the demand may be greater than potentially anticipated, how soon will you, I mean, once you get the 4,000, are you then getting the 3,600 in the queue to come soon after that? Or is it a separate event when you go to do that? It'll be a separate. We'll send that remaining order out for an RFQ. And we only have so much room to keep the 4,000 cards. We hope that they will move fast. We have to deliver them. Customer service has to handle all the logistics with assigning them to the resident and all that delivery. But we're hoping we can manage the 4,000 and get them out the door as fast as the orders come in. Yeah, I hope so. Great. It's going to be winter, and we have competing issues with snow removal. But I'm confident that we'll get it done. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. I'll make the motion, Mr. Mayor, to take the action as recommended on board docs. Thank you, President Powell. Second. Second. I'm going to count on McGee. Any further discussion? So now we'll go to vote. All those in favor, motion to please say aye. All right. Aye. Which carries the innocent. That brings us to 1.09, which is a huge collection of system improvements, contracts, increase the insult amendment. I'm sorry. Yeah, sure. There's two items on here. One is for people in King to continue their construction inspection services through the end of this year. So that that's the first action we've been working with us on this project for a couple years now. It got delayed initially during the COVID. Then they started last fall. And now we're at the end of their contract. And I do have a work retroactively asking for one month of working there. I just want to point that out. And the other piece is overlay park, which I think is going to be a great addition to the project. We didn't have money for it initially. And then we've got our approval for it a few months ago. And that approval is now being asked to use for a change order with our contractor so that we can rehabilitate overlay park. Had many water breaks. So that was a very bad location last winter. So that'll be a good one to fix up. Very good. Discussion? Thank you very much. I will take the actions of the first one. Very good. Is there a second? Mr. Bob? I'll second it. I think that I'll second it. Yes. Do you have questions as well? Well, I think that this is a pretty big deal. And I mean, I'm happy to vote for it now. I think that we probably should take a little bit more time, perhaps as this goes on to the council agenda so that people really understand what this is and what is going on here. I mean, it's a pretty significant. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this pretty significant? Yes. Yeah, absolutely. We didn't have funding for it initially. And getting part of money on a street where we actually had a bid alternate and we didn't have the funding for it. And now we're able to bring it into the projects and really make right something that's been breaking for years. So especially this last winter, you'll drive down that street and you'll see many pavement patches and it was not going to do well last winter. Yeah. OK. Thanks. I'll make the second and happy to vote for it. Very good. Go ahead, Cassidy. So will the work on Overlake start this construction season or go into next year? Michael or next spring? Right. So part of it, actually, the part that had the most breaks were the contractors saying that they'll be able to do it this year. But since we're adding it on so late in the season, they couldn't get to it all. They're going to come back and do the relining portion next year. That's their plan. But I hope it will. Yes. At least I'll address the worst of the worst. Get that before winter. That's the part that's most likely to keep flowing up. OK, thank you. OK, if I know further questions, you will go to vote. All those in favor of a motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Very opposed. Motion carries unanimously. This brings us to another water item, 4.10, which is the optimization for up to 1.1 million dollars for a step one loan plot in the water. State Revolting Loan Fund for Upgrade Planning of Wastewater Plant Infrastructure. So this is a significant, also a significant item. And really, we've talked about this a couple times over recent months. But I think that it's important to board and the council understand where this contract is an important milestone in the beginning of really what is going to be a multi-year effort to properly update and improve our wastewater systems. This is something we've been working towards in some ways since 2018, well, maybe it's much longer than that. I mean, it's an August 3. You can see this item, of course, going back to 1953 when we first started building this system. There's been generational upgrades in the 50s, 70s, 90s. And we, out of 2018, the series of very problematic events and breakages committed to $30 million more of improvements then. And the team has been working hard with full approval of $30 million back then to make those investments in the years since. And what has come out of that effort is a large number of investments, but also greater clarity about where we're headed from here. Somewhat greater clarity about where we're headed from here in terms of infrastructure and definitely a need for further infrastructure planning, which is really what can be recommended tonight. So a lot of work that's gone into bringing this item forward and dragging a lot of head over to you for your open remarks. No, I think you captured it well when things happened in 2018 using the information at the time. We did make a request to the voters that would substantially address some of the highest risk items and the things that actually failed. We have completely updated. But as we took a deeper dive into the plants and really looked at the need for comprehensive upgrades, the amount of investment needed is more than what we have remaining in the $30 million. And so we're pausing but moving forward and making sure that we're not just spending the last little bit of money that we have and bandating so many of these systems work together. So fixing one means that you got to unpack another. It's like working on an old house. You can't just fix the windows. You might as well do the roof and all the other things at the same time. And furlintonians deserve wastewater plants that function well and consistently. And it is regular that wastewater plants be fully upgraded usually on the 20 to 30 year time frame because of the harsh environments that exist in the wastewater world. So working together with the mayor, we're going to be doing a comprehensive preliminary engineering report that looks at stage one and stage two, which is the bulk of what needs to happen. And then we'll be coming forward with some revised cost estimates for discussion and how this thing really needs to happen over the next few years. We're keeping up close eye on the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act money, not entirely sure as of the last report that came out how much is going to be available. But as always, we're leveraging the state revolving fund, which is very low interest, low cost, 2% funding when you get to construction, which is, I'm sure, ritual attest to is a good borrowing cost. So as long as we can leverage that program, we will always do so. I guess the last piece is we just like to invite counselors, we have ongoing tours, which are led by our Wastewater Facilities Manager, Matt Dow, who gives the most enthralling tour ever of wastewater every fourth Thursday of the month. So we'll put that out, encourage you to come, encourage your constituents to come so they can really see the fine hard work that our operators do and look at some of the systems that we're gonna be eventually asking for help to upgrade. So this preliminary engineering report is, I've come to understand it as somewhat comparable to some of the infrastructure planning that we've done together on other projects. So if you think of the Rio de Janeiro Enterprise Project that's going on currently, there's this preliminary engineering alternatives analysis decisions that need to be made and sort of an iterative process to develop a very great clarity on the direction and costs and schedule. This engineering would be targeted as you see in the memo, construction in calendar year 24 with at least the first stage of this multi-stage, multi-year process. And so this is the, so that you're gonna, this is like, you've had some discussion in recent months on this, this is kind of flagging it for you to be aware, this is really engaging a designer for this level, you're gonna have these choices back in front of you again, discussion again later in the fall into the winter as we, and further discussion, you know, likely through 2023 as well. So just flagging this, so you remember this conversation as it comes back later. With that, the floor is open for discussion, the questions, motion, Councilor McGeeves. I would just like to ask that we talk about this as a full council next week, just to make sure that we're understanding the full scope of this going forward and there's many decisions that we're gonna have to make related to it. That would be helpful. So thank you for bringing it to us and the board's support is to make it. Very good. I would say it will be, I will have to be remote, which I'm buying to do, because I have a lot of issues, but. I agree if you have some issues, deliver it later. Okay, next one. Are we ready for a motion on this recommendation? Here's a ball, go ahead. Thank you. I mean, I'm happy to make the motion. I also did want to add, and thank you Councilor McGee for the heads up on that. I do think I agree with you while this particular vote may not be, I mean, it is substantive for sure, but I think the longer ramifications, the implications of what we're leading on in terms of rates down the road are important and people should know, you know, these are necessary things, but they also are things that will have longer term economic implications for a lot of our residents. With that said, and we will have this on the deliberative agenda for the 18th, not 18th, the 15th of August. With that said, I'll make a motion to move the three, the two recommended actions. I won't read them. The recommended actions is recommended on board docs. Thank you, President Paul. Thank you, Councilor McGee. Motion's on the table. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. All right. Aye. And there you post. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'm moving into the airport section of the evening for a number of items. Okay. And I see we have Nick joining us as well remotely. If you want to kick us off, Nick, this with a 4.11 request to accept Federal Aviation Administration Grant to lead environmental assessment and to execute a contract with the sero associates to conduct environmental assessment. Sure, absolutely. And thank you. It doesn't make sense. Sorry, Nick, do you want to maybe think, we'll vote on them separately, but I think speak to how the linkage between this item and the next one as well. Perfect. Perfect. So five of the six items that you're going to see tonight are actually grants that we are moving forward with, with the FAA, so accepting of grants. This is the same time of year that we go through all of these first. The first one here is all of them really are associated with our master plan, but especially it is first one 4.11, which is an environmental assessment on the various projects of our master plan. Specifically, this one has to deal with obstruction removal into the approaches of our airport and the various runways, a requirement of the FAA and relatively small environmental assessment because it is just the obstruction removal, but nevertheless, before we board with it with this project later on, we have to perform this environmental assessment. The second one is somewhat related as it's, is it pertains to a new passenger boarding bridge or a jet bridge off of the new terminal project? That one is actually a congressionally directed spending bill, but slightly different. And I'll pause there for a second. Mayor, do you want, would you like me to keep going on all of these? No, I think let's, let's do, deal with those two and then we'll talk about the noise related ones. So, Councilor McGee. Thanks for that, Nick. I just had a quick question. I noticed that the contract with Picero is greater than the grant on carriers where the additional funds will come from. Sure. And Larry is also here to answer any questions, but essentially the FAA is only reimbursing 90% of the total project costs. So all of these costs are only 90, excuse me, the grant is only 90% of the total costs associated with a Saros contract. I think Nick, Councilor McGee's question is, how do we fund the local match share there? So the 10% is then funded with another federal program called the passenger facility charge. So you'll see that of all of these grants, the 90% or the 10% share that's remaining is funded with various other costs. This one happens to be funded with the passenger facility charge program. Thank you. Doesn't happen in other areas too often that you can. Use federal dollars to match the deep to the local match for the airport programs. That's generally the way for specific aviation reasons. So further questions are ready for motion. I will, yeah, two recommended actions on board talks. Great. So the, Second. President Paul, seconded that. So we are going to vote on 4.11 and 4.12 together. They've been motion, moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. This brings us to 4.13. And 4.13, which is the next stage in the residential sound insulation project. And 4.14 is another noise related item. Could you kind of guess oriented on both these items and to agree this relationship between the two and that out for us next? Yeah, absolutely. So actually the next three, 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15 are all related to the noise program. I'm going to skip really quickly to 4.14, which is the update to our noise exposure map. Of course, related to all of our noise programs and required by the Federal Aviation Administration, all programs need to be inclusive of the 65DNL noise exposure map. We recently completed that map in 2019 in preparation for various changes at the airport operational changes and of course the F-35A at the Vermont Air National Guard. As part of the Vermont Air National Guard's environmental impact statement, they also addressed redoing or updating their exposure map, very different than ours, but redoing their exposure map as part of their EIS one year after full deployment of their aircraft. At that same time, the city and the airport are also committed to redoing the FAA required noise exposure map and to find those areas for our noise compatibility program. This is that updated noise exposure map. We are now just over one year of full deployment of the VTANG's new aircraft, plus updated operations at the airport taking all operation at the airport and updating our noise exposure map, which is 4.14. Associated with that, within that noise exposure map, we are now authorized by another federal document to perform noise compatibility upgrades or programs to the eligible residents within that 65DNL. What you see here is 15 houses. You see a contract 4.13 and 4.15, 15 houses, seven plus eight. Those are the first 15 houses as part of the noise exposure map and compatibility program to undergo sound mitigation efforts or really redoing, upgrading windows, doors, insulation, sometimes HVAC or air conditioning units. Those are the first 15 houses. You'll see one of them, item 4.13 is a brand new grant for those houses and also associated contract with Nina. The other one, 4.15, which is the eight houses is not a new grant. You have approved that grant in the past. We have that grant right now. We underwent a bidding process and now are coming back to you for the construction contract again with Nina on both of those items. They were the lowest qualified bidder. So overall, this truly is kicking off an updated noise exposure map. I did hear earlier on a question of when this is coming out. We're just embarking on this. So we're going to not only be performing public hearings throughout this process, public comment periods and then releasing the grant in early summer to mid-summer of 2023. This hopefully will align very nicely the updated map of the Air National Guard because there is some confusion and we want to make sure that these two different maps are associated. I have one second. Thank you. Please. Yeah, 4.13 also includes the design and bidding of 54 new homes to be improved. That will go out to bids. We can apply for a grant by May to continue that program at the same time applying for another the availability to design 15 more and continue that process. That's great. That's a really important point. And this is the first year where we aren't able to do both but we have the 15 houses of construction. Like Larry said, 54 houses of designing right now. We'll bid that out in the spring and construct next year and also come back to you for the design work of the next 50 houses. So next year we'll be really working with just over 100 houses. The important part also is is the acoustical testing was done as part of the pilot program which allows us to move forward without any further in the 70 to 74 DNL, right? So those next 50 for a home home need no more study. We can just start working with the people and design. So in other words, every house 70 to 74 DNL is now eligible for sound insulation with no further study. That was a really successful important step for this entire program. Thank you, Larry. And here the local match here, PFC charges could not be applied to this because they're not really passenger related, I think. Maybe for some other reason but in case we have solved the local match problem through this partnership with VGS which I think my mom mentioned is carrying through this. You know, it's just a couple of years ago this is the rubber started where they made the road and that match is holding up well, Nick. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, Super Monk gas systems, like the mayor said, committed to the city a few years ago through COVID our FAA grants were actually 100%. So we didn't need any local matches as we came to this particular point in time. However, of course, these grants will have a local 10% share. VGS has recommitted that same funding source and will provide that portion of the various grants and not only provide the 10% funding but also a very logical step for them to be able to interact with these homeowners and not only provide, for example, 10% of the cost of a door or a window but also provide information to maybe upgrade your hot water heater or do another project that they have programs for and 0% financing for as well while we're already doing construction. So a really, really great partnership happening with many, many homes at the same time. And do you want to speak to just the, quickly the point that came up in the public forum? Will these upgrades require people to move out during this work? And if so, is that part of what's paid for? Right now, no, none of this construction will require people to relocate or move out. But of course, if there's very unique circumstances and unique design efforts on each one of these buildings so we'll be working very closely with the homeowner just in case there is intrusive construction. Right now, that would require a little bit more research but I do not believe it would be eligible as it certainly not as part of this particular grant but something that we can research a little bit more if the FA would allow that. Okay, great, thank you for all that. Laura's open for further discussion. Councilor McGee and then President Bob. Okay, I just had a quick question around selection. I don't like, I understand there's the areas on the map noise impact is significant. How within those areas are the homes then chosen? We're starting between the 70 and 74 because that's closer to you and the levels of higher. That will take a few years. Once you move beyond that, you'll be dispersed between the different towns with which homes gets chosen to move forward. Just to add a little bit to that. Each house does have a 10th of a decibel on that particular house or on the particular map so that the higher the decibel or average decibel levels that's the selection list. To Larry's point there, we do have an implementation plan that's approved by the FAA. So the ratio of houses depending on how many are within each community, once we hit a certain level, because right now most, if not all of the houses are in South Burlington, but once we hit the certain decibel level that is beyond that, then the ratio will be divided between Winooski-Wilston, South Burlington and Burlington. President Ball. Actually, that was sort of my question was, we do hear a fair amount from people in Winooski and while the airport is in South Burlington, I'm just wondering how long it will take until some of the homes that are in Winooski will be able to participate. I think in this next 54 houses, there's a probability of some of those being part of the Winooski population. We have not selected those 50, excuse me, we have selected the 54 houses, but we're gonna be very close to the line, if you will, to cross over into Winooski possibly next year once we select the next 50 houses. We're also looking and trying to receive, I don't wanna call it a waiver, but a special authorization from the FAA based on demographics and based on financial ability. So to perform work in Winooski earlier than expected, right now that's not approved yet, but something that we're working with the FAA on. Okay, are you, I don't know if you want to, Mayor, take these one step one at a time. I mean, there are two of them are really to do with the insulation program, the other about the noise exposure map. I mean, they're all sort of interrelated, but I didn't know if you wanted those to do those separately. If you come to the other way. All right, time. McGee, do you have a preference for, okay, so it sounds like they can be moved together and everyone. That's what I was gonna ask is Councillor McGee amenable to moving them together. If I move them. Yes. Okay. All right, so with that said, I would move the actions as recommended on board docs for 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15. Yes. Thank you. I'll second that. Thank you, President Powell. Seconded by Councillor McGee. Any further discussion? Okay, great. Thank you, Nick and I for the hard work on this and it's positive to see this. The comments later work moving forward. We'll go to a vote on the combined motion. All those favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. And then you post. Don't believe so. Some items pass unanimously. Excellent. I think this brings us to our last, we go to 4.16, which is also an airport item request to accept a federal aviation grant for construction of taxiway, mail and overlay, taxiway A, mail and overlay and execute contrast or construction with SDIR and construction and related inspection services with the Farland Johnson Consulting Inc. Want to give a real quick summary, Larry? Sure. This is just the maintenance project of our taxiway alpha. We're going to mail overlay, fresh pavement, it's deteriorated. We're also the only addition to this is we're paving a 20 foot shoulder and putting new guard lights, which gives us more ease of maintenance during the winter with respect to them not being in the grass there. Are we ready for a motion on this or just questions? I don't work on it. Thank you for the motion of Councilor McGee. Seconded by President Powell. Any further discussion? I can't. We got it, we got it. Thank you for hanging in here, Councilor Powell, President Powell with us. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Okay, 4.17 was taken care of. Thank you. It's an agenda. Thank you, Larry. Thank you, Nick. 4.18 is on the deliberative. Unless I screwed up the notes. So this is approval to accept a grant award for progressively directed community projects application. This is, CEDO item. And we have a CEDO team here to help us with this. Thank you, Brian and Marcella. Can you give us a quick summary of this? Sure, this is federal funding that my wonderful colleague, Marcella Gage, secured from the support from Senator Leahy and it's in support of the Community Resource Center. It was identified about a year ago, really, specifically to fill existing gaps for the operational costs of the Community Resource Center. That includes all the service provisions, the meals, the whole line yards. So basically comes the staffing for the operations. I think it's important to point out there have been, we're very excited to get this commitment and appreciate the Senator's help with it. This was initially conceived to be a funding that we contribute to the combined, a complicated Community Resource Center and shelter pod community. Basically, that's not insisting, see what you could, but we're now seeing the decision to split the, I mean, I think I forgot this right, right? So the location is standing at Feeding Chin and the money will be supporting the continued operations there as opposed to shelter pod community, is that right? I thought it was getting something wrong, Marcella, from your regression there, perhaps, but I got it right. So if you follow that, I think this is important to just note about this, that there's been a shift in thinking with respect to the shelter pods and the Community Resource Center. After a lot of stakeholder community feedback, it's no longer a thought that Kolo again, we're still gonna have a shared community facility for the residents, for people living in the shelter pods, the Community Resource Center serving a broader population that's gonna stay at Feeding Chin and where it's operating successfully. I will have more questions about that at a different time, but so this grant is gonna cover existing gaps that were gonna be covered by the R-Valuation. Exactly. In utilization of the Community Resource Center, while it moved from the core of downtown to the periphery on this avenue is still at or even slightly above what it was last night last year. So the need is there, services provided are really making an impact in reaching folks really important. People have asked, you know, score blocks from downtown is really as convenient and essential if it's turned out not to be a barrier to co-operation. Okay, I'm curious if I'll ask additional questions about that. Thank you. Okay, are we, from their discussion or a refer motion, I will use to take the action of the core blocks. Second. Second by President Paul. Thank you. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Thank you. There are your posts. Motion carries unanimously. It's brings us to 4.19 opportunities to execute contract for the Illinois versus the shelter community. Right, yes. Just a couple of introductory remarks, really, Samantha's going to explain it because she's the only one in the hard work here. You were reaching this point now that, you know, we sort of envisioned, we would hope we would get here, which is the point where you start to actually do the work necessary to make the project come to fruition. So this is the practical aspect of all the work that it would be undertaken. So I think we will have a larger request to safely provide shelter at the site. Samantha will answer any questions or just point to you, honey. I just want to, there's one correction that needs to be made in the motion. So this memo has four different contracts and happy to answer questions on any of them. But I see that there is an error in the board of finance number for D, the contract with up and this, the number is wrong, and the other two places in the memo. So I just want to amend that to match the amount in the city council authorization. If you need us to call out what that number should be at this point in the record, or something like that. 228, that was the new numbers. That's the correct number. So you have to average things. I didn't correctly ask the board to answer the question. So and just to clarify, these are four contracts. There'll be one more contract that is trying to get it in with this package, just still there details folks were meeting on the site all the effort. So still details to figure out for that final contract. But construction is anticipated to start next week. Great. Thank you, Smith. We're the major milestone that this project will get underway. It's done with your approval. Great question. Yes. I know a lot of terms of timelines to take on the manager for the site. We have sort of rough estimates in terms of what the site work and then anticipating delivery of the pallet shelters and the shelter come up in this. Front timeline. Yeah. So say work, we'll start next week. The pallet shelters are scheduled to be delivered on September 17th. And there's a team coming to put those all together. It'll just take two days. So we've got to get the site ready for those shelters. And then the up and the shelters are gonna come sort of staggered onto the site. They're being manufactured locally. So as they're being completed, they'll come to the site and then the final piece will be the larger modular buildings coming from KBS. We are still, we're working to get those delivered as soon as possible. It will likely be the second half of October. So we anticipate we're hoping to be able to have the shelter up and running on November 1st. It might push, you know, a couple of weeks past that, but we're driving hard towards the November 1st start date. I'm happy to make the motion. I'd recommend to record the last week that I've changed, I made it. Excellent. Thank you. I'm happy to second, I do have a question though. I'm not sure if maybe Councilor McGee asked it and I just missed the answer. You had asked about the timeline. And then did you also ask about management because I'm wondering where we are with that? It was not a question that Councilor McGee asked it, but I'm happy to answer that. I'm happy to answer that. The management discussions are, we think nearing completion in the next coming days. So we hope to be able to share good news and do. I think you all as well as the community will be pleased with the results of this work. It has taken us lots of time, but it has been very fruitful, very productive conversation focused on ensuring successful outcomes for the residents. I guess if you will, as well as the neighborhood tension that we minimize burns, if you will, on neighborhood properties and make this a real asset that brings out both the best within the residents as well as neighbors surrounding it. Great, that's wonderful. That's great to hear. Thank you. So I'll make the second, I'll do the second even with more enthusiasm. Excellent. Further discussion questions. We're gonna vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. They would oppose. No other motion carries unanimously. Thank you both. Exciting. I'll pass this on the full council agenda next week. Okay. Leave that brings us through the entire deliberative agenda. Thanks. I have a salmon. Good for you. Good. And that brings us to the final discussion, tonight was discussion regarding the BHS, BTC 2025 bond cost estimates and financial tax implications. And we have a large group from the ESD team is here, putting chair or wall as pretend it's not planning in. The book and we're gonna have more people come up. Great. We can introduce everyone and we'd like to see. Yeah. This is a traditional program. So far, it's not necessary. And let me get to you. Yes. So thank you for pointing that out for so as a Paul, that is, you might have a, that is my plan is that you are able to continue with us. We're going to have this in full, even though it won't be official public meeting. Once you were to have to leave us, but we will still continue to record it and posted for the informational purposes. So with that, welcome. And turn the floor over to specifically. All right. Thank you. Thanks for having us. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. This is the third time we've been with you all this summer. And we're planning to give an update tonight in advance of attending the meeting on August 15th, to propose bond relationship. So this is medicine update. We have with us today, Nathan Lavery. We already recognize chair or chair, Claire wall. We have Joe wife from white and Burke and Jesse Beck from Freeman experiment. Have some support and that would or vice chair. Sorry. Thank you. Anything else? All right. Jeff, feel free to come up. You want to come up before the notification? Thank you. Maybe I would. Sure. So currently the most recent cost estimates have the projects today at a $190 million project. And I'll talk sort of high level about that. And then I'll ask Nathan Lavery sort of drill in a little bit on tax obligations. That leaves us with a $165 million bond number as of today. To bring us up to speed a bit, we have reduced the Burlington technical center design program footprint and moved the majority of that plans based on program to the airport. That's a project that we are very much committed to doing which is working with Nick Longo and the team at the airport and you, Mayor Weinberger and your team, thank you for the collaboration there. We're really excited about that opportunity. We have a $10 million grant that was earmarked from Senator Leahy to bring to that project that helps reduce the cost of the original cost which was $210 million for this project. So that BTC from the technical center removed to the airport is really an important one. And I think it's important to note just based on earlier comment that we're not talking about reducing program size of Burlington technical center in any significant way or reducing programs that we wouldn't already be considering for reduction based on student outcomes. And we are and we will build some space into this to have flexibility to expand programs they're doing really well, programs where there are really strong student outcomes. And so that still is a part of fully committed to BTC and we would send our Leahy support, brought $10 million to that project and kind of pulled it out of here, such as the support for everyone to know that. And also the environmental work came back under budget. So we had an original estimate for the environmental work that we received in a most recent cost estimate we can half ago that was less than the original cost estimate. We are considering horizons and on top which are two alternative programs that horizons has never been at the high school site and on top was only at the high school site for a couple of years recently because of lack of space. And both Chair Will and myself have been out talked to students and staff and we've recently heard from the principals that there is a great benefit to those programs being offsite. They are currently one at rock point at the retreat on the end on the very nice spot. And one at St. Mark's is at St. Mark's. So they're in good positions. The school boards can deliberate or make some decision about whether or not that program continues on in their current sites. So we provided you with a memo from our team also a memo from Joe Penn from Weyton Burke and from the design team and that and those two memos give us a sense of kind of where we are today. The memo, one of the memos is some of them with subject updated VHS, BTC 2025 on cost estimate and potential tax estimates goes into the tax estimates. And so those are those tax estimates are based on a 3.5% interest rate over 20 years. And Nathan Lavery has made this sort of put out for on the back page, a number of different home values that those tax estimates would fit into. And so we're interested in how that, if that format is helping and you think will help or if you have other thoughts, comments, feedback on that. And then I wanna make sure I also point out that we've shown these tax estimates without any offset from the weighted pupil and the recent legislation that will allow us to do two things. It was always designed to do two things or if it passed, which thankfully it did because it equitably funds districts with higher levels of need where our state had not recognized that was an issue and worked to address it to the weighted pupil. And that weighted pupil will number one, allow us to improve programming and resources to students who need it the most, such as something that we need. And it will also help offset the taxes that people are paying to provide those services. So the most recent analysis from the state, which was a few months back, number of months back estimated a 16% tax offset or tax decrease for Burlington. But that we would not, we would not, we're not saying that that would reduce the tax estimate, 16%, right? So we will, but it will certainly reduce the overall tax estimate. And they can talk about that in much more detail than I can. And there's a little bit of a, you know, as a scientist at R2 being able to explain that, right? So sort of a tricky thing for us to be able to explain clearly, but it is something that is clearly a part of the funding picture and the tax implications for the residents, says the Burlington. And we've been taking that very, very seriously throughout this process, trying to really work hard to balance a great high school with the impacts to citizens of Burlington and taxpayers and being mindful of that, of the need to really diligently consider everything we can to reduce costs, while also still offering a great program. And so we are, we have raised funds. We had mentioned the $10 million, $10 million from Senator Leahy's office. And we continue to do state and federal fundraising and we're gonna kick off some private philanthropy as well. But we are actively engaged in fundraising and directly communicating with the state and individual state heads, department heads at the state to continue to break funding to this project. And so that's something that we are committed to do, regardless of the bond number. And so with that, I'll ask Nate to talk a little bit about the estimated tax information and take any questions or discussion. Sure, thanks, Tom. So just a few things I wanna point out that are referenced in the memo. One, we did make assumptions based on the interest rate and term. Those assumptions are based on the conversation that I had with Rich here. So thanks, Rich, for all the help in coming up with this information. And it's certainly useful to know that we're using information that the city would find consistent in terms of how we estimate these sorts of things. The other thing that is particularly important to understand about these estimates is that they're all based on holding certain other variables in the education, finance, kind of tax equation, constant in Vermont. And Vermont system is a bit confusing to people. There's other variables, spending is only one of the important variables. So we have to make certain assumptions about the others. Another one, for example, is enrollment. Again, we've assumed constant enrollment for the purposes of these calculations. We've heard anecdotally that in other places where they built in high schools like this, it's actually drawn families back into the city. So there's some potential there, right? We have more families ultimately driving up enrollment. That will actually put downward pressure on the education tax rates at Burlington. So there's some positive potential there. But there's also risk in the other direction as well. And so it's just important to know that we make the best assumptions we can make when we can make them and when we can't, we hold variables constant. The memo includes estimates for the tax increase for different levels of outside value. And that's on the third page. And there's kind of a simple, it's a linear relationship there. So if the value is not reflected on here, that goes for you. And just kind of set for every $25,000 of value, the estimate increases by $55 per year. So kind of extrapolate out from there. And then last thing I just wanted to point out that the borrowing estimates in here where the tax estimates are based on the assumption that we have fully phased in the entirety of this borrowing. Number one, it won't all happen at once. So we're not gonna go from zero to $165 million in debt a single year. It's probably gonna be phased in over three to four years, depending on a combination of when we actually need to spend the money and how the city approaches bonding versus kind of short-term borrowing. So there are elements to this that are kind of gonna play out over time. And this is kind of an all-in estimate, if you will. And see if there's anything else here. Oh, and lastly, I think it's important to understand that the $165 million bond amount essentially assumes that we are able to bring no new revenues to the project whatsoever. We actually think that is not likely to be an accurate assumption. We are working hard with consultants we've hired with community members to identify why for and hopefully receive awards of funding for various parts of the project. So I think it's very likely that we will be able to bring other money to the project and in the event that we are successful, that will reduce the amount of this authorization or whatever authorization we ultimately get. It'll reduce the amount of that authorization that we actually need to utilize. When we borrow less money, it's going to reduce the impact on taxpayers. So I think it's just important to understand that there's a lot here that is still subject to change, but we think that these are fair and accurate representations of our tax implications based on the state and the position that we're in today. So I think with that, we can open it up for any discussion. Great. Thank you. Yes, I'm going to go ahead. Thank you all very much. Very thorough. It speaks to hours and hours of importance on the project. I'll step on the list at this point and introduce you as well, so I'm going to try to do that. I think in terms of the impact to taxpayers, it would be really, really helpful to have an interactive tool somewhere online to help folks understand what the implications will be for this as we move through the process and we're not going to have to ask you about it which is something that you can remember. And I was just thinking, just to make sure that everyone has complete information, especially given the fact that some of it could change between now and when the voting is over. So, and just as that information was available, I appreciate all your time that has synthesized and made it understandable so far, but as we go forward, I'll tell you some of them. I think two of your points. So I guess it would be something similar and put a phrase all to help people to try to estimate the impacts on them of the reappraisal and share that technology. Yeah, and we can work on that. We're really trying to figure out the best, the best way to get information to people so that they understand the impact of the app on them, especially as, yeah, I think it's a complicated, there's sort of a complicated number of factors right now that we want to make sure are as clear as possible. Chris and Paul. Thank you. Thank you. So I, the only thing you probably, you may have been in the room when someone spoke at public forum, councilor former, councilor Busher to the cost of the tech center and what is being done to see that that cost is not borne by Burlington, completely by Burlington taxpayers for putting aside the $10 million that we got from Senator Leahy. And then the other is given that we're in this, to some degree in this predicament because of a decision that was made by the state, what conversations are there to see that the state steps up and compensates us for that? Yeah, we've had many conversations with the states since they, since we worked together and they kind of recommended that we not continue to inhabit the high school full speed. And so we'll continue to have those conversations. I think it's number one, making sure they understand the need. That is absolutely clear from the top down that we have the need. It is competing a little bit with the pupil waiting that was just passed. And so that's a reality of the ask that we're currently making. And so what we're doing now is applying for programs that we're eligible for that are in the current budget. And we believe there are programs both federal programs and programs to the state that were eligible for it. So we will continue to go for those programs. And as they said, we are working with the online public affairs who helped us through the way people process and all the work that it took to get that bill passed. We're working with them on fundraising. So that's something that we're very committed to. And we also hear the concern and the push for us to continue to do that. We understand that's something that is expected of us and something that we really need to make sure that we continue to pursue and deliver on. So. And I would say on behalf of the board, myself, vice chair, Wic, who's here, Claire Kumar, team Gullick and the entire board, we have not asked the citizens of Burlington yet to mobilize in those efforts of asking for state funding and federal funding. And we look forward to the work that we have done here really is comprehensive to be able to tell the taxpayers what the true costs are and all the work that we've done over the last three years. But we hear you loud and clear and personally speaking to the governor last week about that ask and about the need. This is a state of emergency for the city of Burlington. We do not have a high school. We appreciate President Paul, you recognizing the Vermont State Department of Health and being the major factor and recommendation of us closing a high school. So it is, you know, a concern welfare student concern. And so we appreciate your ask and we are committed to that. And that would be ongoing in our efforts as the board to pursue that as well. Well, thanks, I appreciate that. I, you know, I think it's unfortunate that it only took us, I don't know, a decade or two to deal with the weighted pupil. I can't remember how long it's been, but it's been a long time. And it seems as though these two items should not be, you know, I mean, yes, in a timeline, they're coming close to one another, but they really don't have anything to do with each other. And I think it's unfortunate that we're put in a position of, you know, needing for all the reasons that you've just mentioned, needing this and having to ask for it and having the weighted pupil issue come up as, well, we did this for you. And they really didn't do anything for us. They did it for children all over the state, but they don't, one doesn't have anything to do with the other. So I think that's very unfortunate that we're being put in that position. But this is the biggest investment that the city of Burlington will make in infrastructure for a very long time. And it's gonna be on all of us to figure out a path forward that lessens the level of that bonding. So whatever can be done, we're all in this together to figure that out. Yeah, we appreciate that. And we fully agree that these are two very separate things. And it's unfortunate that we are hearing that they're being used together. But we're gonna keep pushing. Thank you very much for stating that. So Super Town Plan, again, I have been working to stay in touch on many fronts throughout our time working together. I certainly need to talk about this project a lot, in particular, 2022. One thing that is important, I think a significant positive step related to this project last week that you and I are gonna answer and talk about Tom, but he went through a movie review last week that did reaffirm our current credit rating and where in that process, which I personally, as I always do oversaw, participated in, I would say in a fairly robust and kind of full airing of, this is the first time I've heard about the upcoming project. There was the most detailed conversation we've had with them and it is, if you look up the report, we can get it to you. It does reference the upcoming investment on my school that's going to be largely fund funded, simply fund funded. And I thought it was positive, although not conclusive, that this is now sort of, it's a formal recognition of this project coming and that they're prepared to kind of evaluate it, I think properly. There is no doubt as we've been discussing for months that borrowing at this level is going to take us to levels of borrowing that go for some number of years, hopefully a short number of years, significantly beyond the borrowing thresholds that we laid out in the joint debt policy that we brought together back in 2018 to get ready for then, thought to be very substantial investment in VHS. I have had it confirmed by PFM. I think it's important that we round this new borrowing in relation to that policy that we speak to explicitly what we're doing here as we read the council is approving borrowing that is in conflict with, or that exceeds thresholds in that policy. We have a deliberation about that and we can get a bonding resolution. And I also think it has been very helpful and to us in rebuilding since graduating that we did do that policy and had an MOU between the city and the school district that referenced that policy and laid out expectations for both sides. We have talked for some weeks about updating and pretending to play again has confirmed me openness from the district. Understanding why this could be important and we need to really update that both that that MOU that exists between us for the current circumstances. We're getting towards crunch time for a vote. I'm not certain everything from that can or needs to be ironed out before the anticipated vote next week. But I do think it's important that we have at least advance that conversation further this week and get as far as we can. And I have heard from colleagues on the council that council is very interested in that as well. They remember that MOU and want to see an update on that. So you and I will speak further about that tonight, but I wanted to mention that here. I think speak to that further if you'd like to hear. No, I mean, I think we've sort of spoken a bit about it and it's where I think it makes sense. So we're definitely open to that as we discussed. Great. Do you think it's, again, all of these borrowing tax impact numbers are based, of course, on their current borrowing assumptions, current crediting assumptions. If there were to be a downgrade, it could impact that. So it's really in all of our mutual interests to do everything we can to avoid that. And I think last week's reaffirmation again, was positive in that direction, in the fact that it's still some knowledge and it's been a surprise to them and that's coming. But I think further policy work together here can be helpful. And all right, if there are not further questions from board members, you do have some rather counselors that I think came in large part for this discussion. Councilor Barlow is here. Councilor Carpenter is online. Do other counselors have any interest in saying anything at this point? Asking any questions? Okay, Councilor Barlow, go ahead. Yes, thank you. I had a question about the 3.5% interest rate is that based on our current bond rating and if we were to get a downgrade with that interest rate or something like that. It's based on our current bond rating that we have in place and obviously downgrade could mean a different rate. What you're doing, Ed? Is it appropriate? Yeah, no, I think you can add and maybe you can also speak to the broader interest rate environment. Yeah, so your interest rate is in the market and all of that. And so the bottom line is that based on our credit rating it does impact that interest rate. The good news is the rating took place last Thursday. It was fine. We will not look at our credit again for another four years. But that's very comfortable. The other piece that's factored into that interest rate is based on my knowledge of a current bond that the city is doing that we're going to market tomorrow. And that is in line with what I expect. In addition to that one thing is to spend a strong appetite for the city bonds because they're very attractive with double A3. Long story short is that we're able to borrow money and basically bring in significantly more dollars as it relates to project dollars. So for example, tomorrow I'm going to place in order for $27 million downtown tip. The debt is $27 million but I'm going to bring in project bonds, $29 million. So that is a way that we can tap into significant dollars for this project and reduce our debt. And that's just one strategy of many that we're going to be exploring to increase the amount of project dollars that are available for this period. Thank you. Okay. Not seeing any other hands in the room. Seems like we got the... Oh, sorry, President Paul, go ahead. That's okay. So I think as far as the interest rate is concerned I think it would be good in addition to having our own in-house people to verify that if we did hear from PFM. That's part of what we have them for is to make sure that if they can give us some sort of a memo to give us some peace of mind that this is a reasonable projection. And then the other is that as far as the MOU is concerned although I would agree with you that there doesn't need to be a final draft of that in a week. I think that the general overall terms of that MOU need to be reasonably agreed upon by Monday. So that the council is going into this understanding that there, yes we would be potentially approving bond language but that the just the number of things that are going to be the number of the effort that is going to be put into oversight and the effort that is going to be put into trying to find other ways of minimizing that $165 million. I mean, obviously if we could get that to $150 then the issue of the bond, the debt capacity and the bonding policy, I'm not sure but I feel like if it was under 150 we probably would not touch that I don't think we would be out of compliance with our own policy on those two years. Now, maybe it's 145, I can't remember but I feel like it's around 150 and that I think is fairly compelling where I don't mean to say that $15 million isn't a lot of money, it is but I think if we could get to that level that would be really great for a number of reasons but as far as the MOU goes, I hope that there will be some meeting of the minds over the next week so that we know what the overall terms are of that MOU. Thank you, President Paul. Okay, with that, I am going to say thank you to our partners and colleagues at the School of Strength and so as a senior, thank you for the whole book. You worked here and we'll be on the stage in a few days and I'm going to call, I'm going to join the board to find it to that objection at six, three, seven. Thank you, Councillor McKee for and President Paul to manage the unusual circumstances of this board finance meeting getting extended. So, good night everyone. Thank you.