 I call the meeting to order, so the first thing to do is to review and approve the agenda and I have one change I would like to make, which is that we have some guests here from out of town who are presenting on the Heaton Woods Loan Reorganization of their loan. So since they have a far way to drive home, I'd like to bump them up to just after the conservation commission application so that will be an item like five and a half. And then we'll, I don't anticipate that one will be very long, so we'll go on from there. Any other ideas or questions about the agenda? Okay, so I'm going to consider that the agenda approved without objection. So next up is general business and appearances. This is a time for any member of the public to come speak to the council on a matter that is not on our agenda and just as a heads up for this as well as any item that isn't on our agenda, our norm since this council has started is to, for any member of the public who comes to speak, please try to keep your comments to two minutes or less and Donna will be helping us with timing that so she'll hold up cards to let you know whether you should be winding down or whether your time is up. So heads up about that and I'll remind people again as it comes up. So anyway, so this is the time for anybody to address the council on item not on our agenda. Okay, so moving on. So consent agenda, do we have motion? Just a note on that, I got messages on two typos that have been fixed and are reflected on the website. I would move that we approve the consent agenda with the fixed typos in the meeting minutes from 6.13. So further discussion items, I just appreciate that with the police vehicle purchase that you know further down in our agenda will be discussing the strategic plan and a part of that is considering prioritizing non-fossil fuel vehicles in our equipment purchasing. So we'll be talking about that further at a later time. Yeah. All right. Yes. Could I just ask that the public refrain from chatting? It's really it's hard for us to hear and if you've got a conversation to have it out in the hall, please. Thank you. All right. So there's no further discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. So that passes. Thank you. Right. The conservation commission appointment. So I believe we have one applicant for one seat. Correct. So would we have a motion about conservation commission? Yes. I move that we appoint the applicant to the conservation commission. Charlie Hahn. Yeah. So Jack is that a motion? Yes. And is there a second? Second. Okay. Further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Great. All right. So the heat and woods item, if you're here to represent that, that'd be great. Come on up. So I think probably the best way to do it is I'll give a kind of a background and then some folks from heat and woods as well as some folks from heat and woods as well as the funders for their project are also here to speak to the request. So a little bit of background. The original funding for heat and woods back in the 1992, I believe, $600,000 in community development block grant funds that were granted to the Montpelier Housing Authority in 2015 Montpelier Housing Authority met with the folks from Living Well and they expressed an interest in purchasing it, which activated a repayment provision. Initially we had come to terms and it was two years deferred, interest only payments, which is the last two years until May of this year, and then a 15-year repayment period of principal and interest. The request came this year earlier as they were reaching the end of that deferment period. Reaching the end of that deferment period that due to a number of unforeseen capital expenses and energy improvements, the request was to defer the loan or turn it into a grant. This is not actually an uncommon request. This is something that we have done for the down street when they're doing a renovation so that the community development block grant is secured by a mortgage and then we have in the past forgiven those in order to do a renovation and to facilitate that refinancing. This is a slightly different situation because it was an outside entity. It is a non-for-profit. They do a lot of good work for low and moderate income folks and particularly our most needy folks and our elderly. It's a level 3 facility and they can explain what that means better than I can. Normally what we would do is we would call together the Montpelier Loan Fund Committee and the Loan Fund Committee would make a formal recommendation to council. Attempts earlier this year to schedule everybody were difficult and then in June two of the members resigned, leaving us with three out of five and when the meeting was scheduled the third could not attend so we didn't have a quorum. I recorded the minutes of the two remaining committee members but there is no formal recommendation from the Montpelier Loan Fund Committee. As a result you are tasked with approving or denying the request from Living Welfare. My recommendation which is in the memo is that we do approve a long-term deferral with the provision that in the event that it is sold or transferred that the repayment provision applies so if it was sold to a for-profit entity for example the repayment would be required to the city and securing that we can recapitalize those funds. I should just make thanks Kevin I should make one clarification the owner of the previous owner and developer of Peton Woods was not Montpelier Housing Authority but Capital City Housing Foundation which is a foundation that is a subsidiary of the Housing Authority essentially. Thank you. Any other questions? Kevin. Yes. So I read the notes of the committee meeting even though they weren't able to vote something out and I see that committee member Klein had a suggested course of action. Is that exactly what you're recommending or are you recommending something slightly different? No I'm recommending something slightly different. After talking to one of the challenges is that we talked to the loan that for their energy improvements is secured by Vermont Community Loan Foundation and in partnership with Commons Energy so one of the requirements of the Vermont Community Loan Foundation under writing criteria was that the this loan had to become deferred and to take a subordinate position. Subordinate position that's a pretty standard piece we do it all the time on refinancing but that was a requirement so really the task at hand in front of us is that if this isn't approved there's a good chance that that funding will not be approved and so it's a it's a decision on you know deferring our interests you know out another 20 years 22 years unless this this group decides to sell it at some point thereby tripping the repayment provision again. Well you know after having some conversations about this I mean I'm comfortable with this I think it's a pretty I mean it's an important thing for our community and it's low risk to the city so I'm I'm pretty happy to support it but yeah any other questions? Yeah. I wondered if we reduced the amount of time or revisited because this came up because of unforeseen renovations were higher versus you said we did the same thing as we did before which we expected to do with the other housing authority party. So why does it does it have to be the full 22 20 years could we do it like 10 and then revisit their status? My recommendation is that we do it that it runs basically when the term ends for the first and second position for the first and second position on community commons energy and the loan fund then that would take in the payment provision when that's paid off. So that was one loan gets paid off in 20 years I missed that piece. So when that when that loan is the loan that they're using to refinance is paid off we use that date as this as the starting repayment date or deferral. Further motion? Yeah the motion would be great. Recommended actions approve that the City Council approve the terms and conditions similar to the original community development loan terms offered to Montpellier Housing Authority. Does that need to be changed? Yeah it should be changed to capital city housing. To zero interest deferred for 20 years. Maybe you don't even have to refer to the other part the previous. We can just say that the City Council agrees to the terms and conditions of the two million dollar loan. I think you could just say mortgage put forth by the living well group. Is that fair? Okay. No because what was put forth was two options one of which was turning it into a grant and we're not doing that. Okay. We approve the long term deferment of the mortgage on the property at zero interest deferred for 20 years. One Odom does that make sense? John you're good with that. Okay. Second. Okay any further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Thank you. Thank you. I'll see you in a little bit. All right. See you. Okay. Okay so we have a couple of topics that I think there may be a lot of discussion about and people may be here to weigh in on the proposed smoking free downtown proposal as well as the item on dogs. So I want to just up front tell you that I want to structure this conversation a little bit for us and so here's how I anticipate these next couple items going. Ginny I assume you and others are here to present. Love to hear your presentation. I'm estimating that that's going to be what like 10, 15 minutes ballpark. Okay great that's fine. At that point I would love to go directly to comments from the public. I'm just going to go straight there and you know along the way council if you have clarifying questions that's fine but let's hold off on our discussion until afterwards and then I would love to I mean I'll have a pretty focused discussion after the comments from the public. So all right so having said all of that Ginny you want to come on up and take it away. So while they're pulling up extra chairs we have five people who are going to be speaking to you this evening and I'm going to introduce the team. So we have Matt Whalen who is a prevention consultant for the very district office of the Vermont Department of Health and he's going to talk about health issues of second hand smoke then I'm going to talk a little bit about the history of tobacco control in the national sense and also our experiences with this council over the years because we have a little history. We have Liz Gange from Down Street who's going to give us some perspective on smoke free housing and we have Ron Merkin a community advocate who has been working for the last year or more on a petition that he'll share with you and then Ann Gilbert who's the director of Central Montenegro Directions Coalition she's going to do what I call the final focus is what they call it in state and also a little bit about but later because we can't leave that out. So Matt. Great. Good evening. Thanks for having me. My name is Matt Whalen. I'm a substance abuse prevention consultant operating out of the very office of local health through the alcohol and drug abuse programs to the Department of Health Master of Central Vermont. I'm going to stick strictly to the facts here regarding second hand smoke starting with the fact that there is no safe amount of second hand smoke breathing even a little second hand smoke can be dangerous and that's directly from a 2014 Surgeon General report. That same report notes that tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals including hundreds that are toxic and about 70 that can cause cancer. So among Vermont adults in 2016 50% half reported exposure to second hand smoke in the past seven days and that's from the Vermont Adult Tobacco Survey that was hosted by our Vermont Tobacco Control Program in 2016. So that was a point in time measure and about half Vermonters were exposed to second hand smoke. At the time of that same survey 18% of Vermonters reported being current smokers. The important note there in my opinion is that 82% of Vermonters are not smokers. For that same survey 43% of current tobacco users made a quit attempt in the last year. So of those 18% that are smokers about a little less than half are trying to quit is what that survey tells us. Another important fact of note in the Vermont Tobacco Survey, younger adults, racial and ethnic minorities and those with lower income and lower education are significantly more likely to report second hand smoke exposure. And those who are white, non-Hispanic, older adults and those with more education and income are less likely to experience second hand smoke exposure. My last point from that same survey 91% of Vermont adults believe that second hand smoke exposure is very or somewhat harmful, leaving about 9% that think that second hand smoke is not harmful to the body. Thank you. Thanks Matt. So we have given you a bunch of documents that I guess only you have. I thought that they were going to be able to be shared with the audience but I guess I didn't understand the technology. So you have them and I might refer to them, you can find them. So I'm going to reference a document called second hand smoke and smoke free zones which is just a quick history of tobacco control starting in the 60s really when you started to not be able to smoke on airplanes and in restaurants and various other places. Some of that was federal, some of it was local. Vermont was a leader in second hand smoke control. And every step of the way there was opposition. There were people who didn't want this to happen for various reasons. But as it did happen, every time there was progress in tobacco control, smoking rates went down, which is how we got to 87% not smoking now. Tobacco control really, really works. There's a document in there called Prevalence Policy and Prevalence that looks like this and it's just a direct demonstration of how when they pass a law it goes down and they pass another law and it goes down. And this is a huge, huge public health victory. Most of the legislation and policy so far has been about indoor air quality and we're talking here tonight about outdoor air quality, which is really the next public health frontier in this topic. On the more local level, we came to you in 2016 to talk about a survey that we did in 2015 that is the survey looks like this. Some of you have seen it before I sent it to all the counselors also. Some highlights of what we found out here and we had 300 people or so in the pedestrian survey and 80 some in the businesses. What we know and think is important is that on businesses, 46% of the respondents are supportive of some kind of restriction in the downtown, 59% think reducing smoking and secondhand smoke is important or very important to the downtown community. They mentioned litter a lot and they talked about designated smoking areas as a possible solution to restrictions. With the 285 responses and 10% of those of the pedestrians, 10% of those were smokers. 63% have been bothered by secondhand smoke in the downtown area, 56% have been bothered by but litter, 12% said if this passed they might come to Montpelier less frequently, 14% said they'd come more often and the rest said the same. So it's not going to keep people away from downtown Montpelier if this happened. 60% said they supported the policy, 35% did not, the rest were non-committed and again they brought up this concept of designated smoking areas. We have two actual precedents with you. We were instrumental in working with the city to get the parks declared smoke free in 2015 and that was a couple of years worth of work with the parks commission and working through things like well where would our employees go to smoke and all that problem solving that we always help with and then the park wits in 2018, that's another ordinance which is more recent and they're smoke free. One of the things that has come up in discussion is could this be done by just adding on to the parks ordinance instead of creating a whole new one. Barry last summer did add on to their parks ordinance a 25 foot perimeter and then there's another document in there which is we came back after not getting traction on this and submitted another document that's in your packet about city council goals and how this would fit in with your goals for a healthy community. So in some, a smoke free sidewalks in the downtown core would allow the 83% of adults who do not smoke and their children and their pets to safely move through the town without being exposed to carcinogenic substances and that's our pitch so now it's your turn. Thank you. Thanks Matt. Thanks Ann. When I saw you about the main specifically the French block apartments that are currently being renovated right on main street which this is part of the downtown where the non-smoking would happen. The French block will be our 17th building in downtown Montpelier that will manage as down street housing and like all new properties that come on board with down street the French block will be smoke free. Living in our buildings must be at least 25 feet away from the building. Down street adopted a smoke free policy in our multi-family portfolio in 2013. We rolled it out in stages we've been increasingly addressing concerns from renters that unwanted secondhand smoke in and around their home is really bothering their quiet enjoyment and it was very important to us that we recognize how such a major rule change in someone's home would have an impact on on a lot of our households. So we took the time to listen to feedback we communicated a reasoning for the policy we stage the policy providing three or four months I don't remember now notice we hosted meetings with our residents to explain our reason for the policy change and not too many people came out to meet with us but I do remember at river station apartments which is by the hunger mountain co-op a great long-standing resident she looked at me and said Liz I gave up drinking I don't do drugs and now you're telling me I can't even smoke in my house it is tough it was tough for her it is fair that she had to make these changes in the life adjustment we're really grateful that she did and now it's business as usual for her and for all of our renters and all of our portfolio to smoke 25 feet away from the building the building's healthier we don't smell smoke anymore neighbors aren't complaining and I do see her still outside smoking and she's happy where she's living and you know it's it's worked out we did transfer that person into a fresh apartment after we made the change for the smoke free policy went into effect and it cost us over $5,000 to turn over that unit because the nicotine and the smoke residue there are financial reasons not to allow smoking indoors and there's also safety benefits into the larger housing community when you lessen the chance of an accidental fire by a cigarette so in our experience at Down Street overall folks understand our logic behind the smoke free policy they don't want to interfere with neighbors and staff with the secondhand smoke and people generally all comply with the rule so if Main Street to smoke free it'll just enhance our policy we already have in place at the French block the executive team at Down Street housing supports this as well as me and I live in district 3 so thanks I'm the instigator to this whole hearing tonight I was here a couple of years ago when there was a public hearing about the same issue establishing a smoke free area in downtown Montpellier and as I remember three people testified in favor of it three people testified against it finally a seventh person got to the microphone and said this seems like it will be a contentious issue after that as I remember it immediately there was a vote in the council and with a unanimous approval it was tabled until the next April the next April unfortunately nothing happened it was not revived mysteriously for a renewed conversation so I got the idea if we got a petition with a thousand signatures with that bring with that they bring more forcibly attention to the city councilors that this was an issue that people were really concerned about that is more popular in the you might think that thousand signatures was actually surpassed I finally got to one thousand five hundred and seventeen as of the last two days the last two days believe it or not people have been contacting me because they've heard about this hearing to ask if they could also sign the petition so the latest figure is one thousand five hundred thirty seven which I think is fairly impressive on the right side of this petition we have three boxes indicating are you a smoker an ex smoker or a non smoker it surprised me how many smokers who signed the petition indicated that they were smokers I was surprised enough so that every time they did it I asked why did you do it and I always got the same response I don't think it's fair to subject non smokers to my secondhand smoke this is honest to God some of them also said that they thought if we had more smoking areas it would help them quit not not all of them but some of them indicated that also I want to point out that something I forgot of those fifteen hundred and thirty seven signatures as of today forty nine are from proprietors of businesses and stores in the immediate downtown shopping area I think this was a major concern in the past of the council forty nine people as I said who have stores or businesses in the downtown area signed the petition because we've heard a lot of concerns from counselors and we share the concern as far as I know and not wanting to marginalize smokers we have dramatically reduced the area that we originally proposed the first area was going to be wherever there are parking meters in the downtown area now the area is restricted to only four streets main from Barry to the Kellogg carpet library stayed from me to the beginning of the capital Plaza hotel complex school street where parents walk their children from Union elementary school after school to after school activities at the children's library and Park Avenue in front of Union elementary school I have personally walked and timed how long it would take me all on all these different streets and from that I can tell you it would take one to a maximum of two minutes for somebody walking through there to get to the border where they could smoke once again that's just one or two minutes if they were in a hurry that they had to have a cigarette in a couple of seconds they could go to a parking lot there are parking lots behind all these streets finally I would point out that there's been a lot of talk and concern understandably about enforcement or enforceability if this is approved we have signs through Vermont new directions that could be put around town indicating that this is a now a non-smoking area we appreciate your your cooperation and also directing people to areas where they can smoke besides that there's been concerned about butts there would be more butts in parking lots instead of on the streets now we have clarified since then that trash tramps not only collects they don't restrict their collection of butts to the sidewalks they do go to parking lots and they have also said that they can put these butt receptacles in parking lots if the if an ordinance is enacted I just want to close quickly by saying that I myself am an ex-smoker and I had a great deal of difficulty smoking I smoking quitting smoking many years ago so if anyone empathizes with smokers and what they go through I think it's myself on the other hand it's already indicated they are frankly in the minority the majority 83% are non smokers with all the sympathy that has been expressed toward towards smokers which I don't disagree with I've heard nothing so far about the effect on non smokers people like me who have developed an acute allergy after I stopped smoking to smoking the remarkable number of asthma sufferers who signed this petition it was greatly surprising and also the number of parents who said they are shopping less during peak hours in Montpelier because they don't want their children exposed to smoke those of you who got my email this is redundant I'm sure for all of you so I'm sorry if it's been a little poor or repetitious thank you I'm Anne Gilbert and I'm the director of central Vermont new directions which is a substance abuse prevention coalition here in Montpelier but we cover all of Washington County and we've been in existence since 1998 and I want to say thank you to Ron who's been our key volunteer who has really gone above and beyond on this project so the butt litter has been a real issue in Montpelier that came up as a concern in the past and we've been addressing it with these sidewalk butlers which we purchased and the trash tramps have been a great partner now they are cleaning up but litter every Tuesday afternoon for one hour and in that amount of time we thought it was still the old number of 2,000 butts each week but it's now closer to 4,000 cigarette butts each week so in a one hour time they're cleaning them up and then within another week they're accumulating again this yes can you give me a sense of how long that change took from 2,000 a week to 4,000 a week when did you start measuring well I was still going with the old numbers that I had gotten a year and a half ago but there's been an increase in the number of smoking now we've also increased the number of the sidewalk butlers they could emptied once a month and since more have been added the number of butts in them has tripled but they're not as full as the sidewalks the tree grates the streets and so we're really concerned about a number of environmental issues one is the sidewalks in the streets going into the river there's no filter there that filters them out if they go down a storm drain they're going into the water and and then the second hand smoke which Matt talked about in Jenny as well 7,000 chemicals and 70 of them have are known to cause cancer there are so many fine particles from the mainstream mainstream smoke that's being inhaled by a smoker and then exhaled and even more off of the side stream smoke that comes off the burning end of a cigarette and so we're worried about that we already have a number of places that are smoke free and so with Parklitz and parks and the statehouse lawn and around the school and areas around the municipal buildings we'd really like to be able to have families be able to breathe clean air and navigate the whole downtown going from one place to another without having to go through a cloud whether it's small or large however many people are congregating there and so that's why we're really proposing you know the downtown area of State Street and Main Street and then especially around the library now Jenny had offered a suggestion that some places are increasing the perimeter around the parks that they already have in place the town of Springfield Vermont has increased the distance around their library because there's so many children there and families there and so they've allowed 175 foot perimeter extension along the sidewalk on either side of their library and any churches and retailers can also contact city council and say we'd like to put up a sign that includes the front of our building so that increases the area so there's a more of a lane for people to be able to navigate their downtown you know I forgot something just to close sort of ceremonial I hear my perspective thanks Ron yeah and we were at the mountaineer's game last night raising awareness of the dangers of second hand smoke and there were even a few more people who signed it including a couple of nuns a couple of smokers so it is a little bit more yeah so we work closely with the Vermont Department of Health and our job is really to raise public awareness and community education about public health issues around all substances and tobacco is certainly a very difficult substance it's highly addictive and so we're bringing you this information so that we can be a community partner we can help with signage a model ordinances on communication to the public when this happened at the church Street Marketplace it was you know a real team effort and they have a lot of flags and signage up and they're not it's not about issuing tickets it's just about raising awareness about how how to be how to how would it allow everybody to be able to breathe clean air thanks sorry she does remind me of a point that I was in touch with the police department at and Burlington and they sent me a report over a nearly three-year period indicated in three years they issued a total of 26 summons which is a little just slightly more than eight per year which is doesn't not seem very much at all so the enforceability issue on that basis does not seem like would be so serious okay so at this point if there are members of the public who would like to come up and comment so if you would come up and say your name your street where you where you live and and try to keep it to two minutes or less and Donna you're gonna help us with timing is and Donna you're good to help us with timing great thank you so much hi my name is Lauren Seiler I'm a community advocate as well as a community producer for our committee of my wife and I television program for people with special needs called Ableton on air and sit on and can you guys hear me now and new directions who I'm here supporting tonight was on that on my television program which can be seen on orca media net but the reason why I'm here as a community advocate I live at Pioneer Apartments on Main Street with my wife and it's gonna be smoke-free soon but my wife being in asthma sufferer is extremely important for this to pass as well as smoking can cause birth defects which is extremely bad and it needs I mean if we can make all of Vermont smoke-free you know that would be the ultimate goal or the entire world but hopefully we can start with this thank you thank you didn't want to bump somebody but my name is Susan Abdul Banfield and I just want to tell you a little story happened last Saturday so it's very recent so it was one of my I don't go to the the farmers market every Saturday but I decided it was a beautiful day so I went to the farmers market just as I was walking into the farmers market there was a person sitting on a bench with a cigarette and I saw a waf of smoke just go I was able to move out of the way but a small child that was probably between the ages of one and a half and two and a half I would guess could not walk out of the way and so I saw that that little cloud of smoke land on that child and so I am here today because I think that one of the most honorable missions of our government is to take care of our most vulnerable citizens and that little child is a citizen and that little child deserves to grow up without smoke around I don't know if it was a boy or girl really but around that child thank you thank you hi my name is Mary Rose Dorothee and I'm advise on the advisory board for Central Vermont new directions coalition and some of the points that have already been made I'm going to state again and basically I became aware of the second hand smoke dangers about eight years ago when I was taking a class through CCV passive smoking causes cancer in non smokers as has been stated there is at least 70 chemicals in second hand smoking that caused cancer 12 cancers have been identified to cause cancer in adults and in children and there's no safe level of exposure for second hand smoke and just anecdotally I know for myself I haven't been diagnosed but anytime I pass someone who has been smoking on the street and it's just those seconds when you're in passing I feel the effects of the second hand smoke so people with allergies active intolerance or asthma are smoke are suffering from the just in passing and another point that I wanted to mention when Anne was speaking she brought up some of the effects of the presence of these butts and I read something recently so I looked it up again it takes from 18 months to 10 years for cigarettes to decompose in the environment so they're also affecting it's also affecting our environment so that the health of our mother earth thank you thank you hi my name is Ian Quinlan while I admire all the actions that all of you take I do want to make aware that while very scary sounding many of the facts that are being presented about the negativity of second hand smoke are Bradley's greatly exaggerated there is no conclusive scientific study outside of people with intolerance asthma or other conditions that may affect their public health that affects that any amount of cigarettes by a second-hand smoke in open air poses any significant risk to the public any more so than the cars that we allow to drive and park here in town this is really about civil liberties and while as a smoker I do have concerns of the environment I do have concerns about the health and wellness of our public but I do encourage that we work together rather than opposed so that we can come up with some very common sense and equitable ways of dealing with this problem in a way that doesn't affect civil liberties and the rights of people because this is a very slippery slope that we have and if we start legislating behavior and choices that we are allowed to make as citizens of this country then we really turn a corner into some very dark paths that could be opened up for others to impose things upon you which may you might not enjoy I do think that we are people who are civil who are able to work together who can be adults and work out common sense solution to these problems thank you my name is Linda Quinlan and to me this is an issue more of civil liberties than smoking or non-smoking I find that the left uses this the way the right uses this and my feeling is that you know the right uses abortion and they wanted they can't get rid of it so they limit limit limit limit limit until virtually nobody can get an abortion and I find that the left uses this for the same reason limit limit limit if you don't want smoking make it illegal if you can't pass an abortion you know make it illegal don't try to limit people's civil rights and I also you know I just feel like you know I'm allergic to perfume I'm allergic to deodorant are we going to stop people from wearing deodorant downtown or eating a peanut butter sandwich because someone is allergic to peanut butter I just think this is a civil liberties issue and that's all I have to say thank you my name is Sam Markowitz and I'm at 147 Berlin Street first thing I want to say is I believe that you're all probably aware as people involved in legislation that almost all legislation as well as almost all court precedents are regarding legislating human behavior so please don't fall for that argument it's always a balance of whether the human behavior does harm or not cigarette smoke does harm to the majority of people I have a lot of empathy for cigarette smokers and nothing against them I will just tell you as somebody who doesn't have a car and rides my bike or runs or walks everywhere that I hold my breath for about three quarters of the time that I'm out in Montpelier I do not like that and it brings me back to the 1980s when I was in Manhattan and did that the other thing that I would like to talk about is the responsibility that I see for government is a fiscal responsibility is a big part of this and cigarette smoke has been widely shown to be one of the top health issues in our country so as a fiscal responsibility please consider that you could have a great benefit to public health issues and finally I would like to advocate also I'm a business coach and I cannot see how you could enact this without allowing Charlie O's to have smokers outside because it would seriously impact their business and I'm not speaking on behalf of them I just want to put that out there but other than that I think it's a very good proposal and it would help in a harm reduction way too because it would allow for there to be defined areas where people were smoking where they could get information about quitting and help with quitting so I don't really advocate it as far as the enforcement side of giving tickets or something like that but there's an opportunity certainly to talk to many of the smokers who want help with smoking to quit just like any other drug thank you my name is Yvonne Bob I live in Montpelier and I own a business on Langdon Street but my statement by saying that I think smoking is one of the stupidest things that human beings do to themselves I've had multiple relatives get sick and die from cancer related smoking related diseases that said as a business owner in town I am opposed to this ban I think it would be bad for businesses we're hopefully going to have a new hotel in town soon and what are the chances some some of those people are going to say well we can't smoke downtown like that's something against coming to Montpelier it doesn't feel welcoming it feels alienating there's also somebody said just said about charliots there are there are restaurants and bars I'm surprised to see none of those owners here to say this is how is this going to affect our business because people are going to drink and then go outside to have a smoke and also I noticed in our smoking area does not include Langdon Street where my business is so am I going to have everybody from three penny coming around the corner smoking on my street that right now the amount of smoke there is minimal I can deal with it the guys across the street at Langdon Street Tavern sometimes it blows into my door in the summer I don't like it but it's a little bit I grew up in a smoking household the first 19 years of my life I worked in restaurants for years when snow smoking was still legal in restaurants my lungs are in pretty good shape you know I know secondhand smoke is not good but it's not the same as being a smoker but I really think that this is a bad precedent descent from Montpelier when there are a lot of people who already see Montpelier is kind of this elitist town and I think that that as a business owner sends a really bad message good evening hi I'm jessa Barnard and this is Skyler and we live on Bailey Avenue and Skyler just finished first grade at Union and I am here we are here because of Skyler's interest in this issue we got a message sent to the parents at Union and I told Skyler about it and every couple days after that he was asking what this meeting was and if we could come he decided he wanted me to share his his thoughts on it which are that he thinks this should be approved because he doesn't like seeing the cigarette butts on the streets and because it's not healthy to be smoking or around cigarette smoke and because he has asthma and when he is around cigarette smoke it makes it worse for him we were actually just eating dinner outside a couple nights ago and somebody sat down and started smoking a few feet away from him just as he was getting over a cold and it made him cough more and so we both are here in support and that's what we wanted to share thank you I'm just down here because I don't want this to be seen in any kind of way in my official capacity I've done this before so just really briefly I was I have not always been the the middle-class Vermont family man that you all see before you actually what 45 years ago I was a working-class Kentucky hillbilly of course in Kentucky smoking as a sacrament so having said that I'm gonna I know I'm gonna get misunderstood for what I'm about to say and what I want to say is not in opposition or for or against to this particular issue I trust you all to make the right decision I love you you're great but I just hope folks will bear in mind that you know we just closed down or not we but just across the street the ball redemption place just closed down we're talking about and I'm feeling are likely to approve you know smoke ban downtown as we've heard these are both things that disproportionately effect working-class people and I just want urge folks to be cognizant that there could be a message being sent that could be that could hit people kind of hard and I hope whatever you do now they'll be there'll be a redoubled commitment to making sure that Montpelier is very clearly made open to folks from all socioeconomic strata and so that I can feel that you know here I raise my kids great weather raise my kids I want to make sure that the five year old Kentucky hillbilly kid that I was but also be very clear to be may I respond to very briefly and then I would like to have a council oriented discussion unless there's more comes from the public very brief you want to okay there are two things that I would appreciate your opportunity to respond to one is what John Odom just said I would remind you that this is a very small area that we're requesting it's only four streets and they're not very long streets so whether that would be perceived just because of the small area as being not not welcoming I'm not sure somebody mentioned about tourists coming and they may not come as much as as they did in the past if they know it's no smoking I am a volunteer tour guide at the state house during the tourist season so thinking about this I decided to count the exact number of visitors that we had last year and the number from Quebec because Quebec has been cited as a place where a lot of tourists come and almost all of them smoke the figures are as such the total number for the entire season was 10,970 of those the people from Quebec was 185 that's 1.68% of people coming from Quebec whereas I said they do have a high rate of smoking most of those people after they finish the tours asked me if there is someplace they could eat and I told them so it's not just that they're coming to the state house and they're not going to other parts of Montpelier so in terms of Quebec is one example and I think that might be indicative of other places where people smoke more than others it does not seem to have that great an effect so I'd love to hear some comments from the council about what your desire is to do now so one possibility is that we you know move forward with the proposal as set forward before us if that's not what you all want to do then I would love to not get into great detail about you know if it's if it's not this proposal I would love to maybe lay out options and then turn it either back over to this group or to you know if there's members of the council or of the public that would like to to continue to work on this and hammer out something to come back that's fine but again I want to avoid like trying to iron out all the nitty-gritty here in during this meeting does that sound like an okay plan team okay so first of all where are you at what are you thinking oh I just want to clarify one thing that was said earlier which was that the cigarette butts go into our storm drains and directly into the river and I know from our tour of the wastewater treatment or wastewater recovery facility that actually because we have this combined sewer overflow system unless there's a massive massive rainstorm all of that water in the storm drains is actually going to the city treatment plant and getting treated so I just wanted to correct that misperception before we move to any further and I'm not correct you're giving me a wince sort of some you do have separated storm drains that go direct to the city but so those that go and some go to the river some don't so some all right yes Ashley so I met with a couple of folks and in principle I agree and I think I raised some of the very issues that a few folks here hit on not so much from a civil liberties perspective but more so from an equity perspective and one of the things is I'm sorry Ashley I'm trying to enter can you agree with what I agree in principle with not allowing smoking in certain areas but it's more of an equity concern for me that this dish disproportionately impacts many of our downtown workers and I and I raised these very issues so it gets cold in the wintertime it rains a whole bunch here and there's no place where someone could go that is close within reason that is sheltered to smoke and that's one of the things that I had raised so that I don't think this is anything that that I'm surprising anyone with that I that I met with and so I guess I'd like to see a plan for that and and as it as it is I don't feel comfortable with it as a council member I fear the message that that sends to a lot of people about Montpelier I think Montpelier has a little bit of work to do to be very welcoming to everyone who lives here and and I think that there are ways that we could enact a policy like this I just don't see right now sort of saying well you can just go elsewhere and be unsheltered and you know whether it's winter spring summer or fall that just falls a little flat to me so if we could find a way to address that I might be more willing to support it. There is a plan in progress I can give you details if you're interested and it's also in the email that I sent you. I did see it in the email but no it didn't come up here and I feel as a council member it's incumbent upon me to raise my issue so that the community knows where the council is at and what the city is doing to address this. And we have been thinking about that and talking about that but I will point out that currently there are no sheltered places it's the sidewalks and the benches which are also not sheltered. Well you can be under under awnings for example on sidewalks in certain businesses outside of bars things like that and charliots we did receive the council I believe all of us received an email from three penny Yvonne mentioned Langdon Street Tavern and a couple of other places I know Langdon Street Tavern is not covered by this but it would seem that a blanket prohibition on that would impact some local businesses that we value because I think they add a lot to our sort of downtown culture and experience. Regarding the possibility of a shelter we've been in talks with Bethany Church they were thinking about building one anyway because they said 100% of their homeless people who they had a shelter for last year smoke and the smoke comes in on the breast when they come or if the door is open the smoke comes in so they had thought before we even thought of it of building a shelter themselves I pointed out to them that if we cooperated on that we could most likely get a grant or Joy said that he could build a shelter in just one parking space it would cost about eight thousand dollars so we're a 501c we could get a grant for them so that they would not have to pay anything for the shelter the only problem is that their board of directors has not yet decided whether to renew that shelter next year and until they make that decision we can't move forward. Okay, another? I'll just check. Go ahead. I think other people are ahead and you don't know. It doesn't matter. Okay, I'll go ahead. Go ahead. Thanks Jack. I would say I'm more or less with Ashley. I want to thank all of you for the hard work that you've done because I really appreciate seeing it. My microphone's on and the speaker. I'm sorry. Oh, excuse me. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Okay, so I was saying I want to thank the people who have presented. I really appreciate the work and I think that it's been very useful all of the data and the arguments presented so far. I'm not perfectly ready to support it yet. I like the limited area that does seem like it mitigates some of the civil liberties concerns that people brought up. I also like the idea of before we move hearing more from specifically Three Penny and Charlie O's because when I sketched out my little map of the Four Streets and thought about who smokes where, I think right in front of Charlie O's and right in front of Three Penny is going to be 90% of the cigarettes. It's affected by this. So I would say I also want to appreciate the trash tramps who got brought up and the butlers. Both of those things have made a noticeable difference just while I've been here. We've been in discussion, incidentally, about the possibility of only continuing the nose smoke hearing. I'm going to interrupt you. I'm going to ask Jack to go and then you can share. I should start by saying I hate cigarettes and cigarette smoking and I hate the companies that make cigarettes. But I am very concerned about the class impacts of an ordinance prohibiting outdoor smoking downtown. It's very clear that the predominant group that smoke cigarettes in our society now are people of lower socioeconomic status. And as others have said, I think telling, passing this ordinance is telling people, we don't want you here in Montpelier. You don't belong here. And I think that's really problematic. I think there are some other issues. I think there is reason to be skeptical about the health claims about open air, secondhand smoke. I think there are some, there might be some more things we could do about smoking cessation and prevention efforts, which I would like to see. We just approved a contract for trash barrel collection for downtown and I'd be interested in seeing if it would be feasible to add the cigarette butt receptacles to that in future contracts, because it seems as though maybe we need a lot, there are 15 in downtown now, it seems like maybe we need a lot more than that. I'm concerned about enforcement and how much that would have the potential for diverting from other police activities and to the suggestion of having people get off the sidewalks and smoke in the parking lots. I have some real safety concerns about that because people drive kind of crazy in parking lots. So I think that cigarette smoking is a scourge, but I think that it's very, I'm reluctant to adopt an ordinance prohibiting it downtown. I was going to let Ron speak, did you want to jump in? Regarding Charlie O's and the other bars, there's been just some discussion among us that hasn't yet been resolved. We haven't come to any decision, but we were thinking about part of the proposal would be that after 8.30, smoking would be allowed and all these four streets that we're hoping to restrict. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead, Connor. I want to start by saying thank you to New Directions. You do such great work in the city and the county, and I think you're coming in with a lot of heart with this proposal. I'm extremely sympathetic as somebody who has asthma myself and has felt some of the effects. So there's no question how well-intended this is. I did spend a few hours over the course of the last week just doing my own survey with smokers in the community. I'd stand with them and I think I was surprised to see the level of emotion over this issue with them and the perception I got was, and it was coming from them, and I think it was genuine that this was sort of a classist proposal. There was a bit draconian and would make them feel unwelcome in their own communities. And that struck me as just something very real that needed to be addressed before going much further. I spoke to some of the business owners. There would be most affected by this, mostly the bars, and to a business, they said this would have a real and immediate impact on them and possibly create an unlevel playing field in that if you are a business like Charlie O's, you do have a smoking area in the back there where as Langdon Street Tavern would notch, you know? So that may weigh into people's decisions. As far as the enforceability, I do know our police force is at capacity, and I know this would draw a bit of a public relations campaign to it if we did pass an ordinance. I think there are other ways of raising awareness, and I personally would be willing to invest in those ways to do that. But I think at the moment I'm not quite there on this proposal, but I wouldn't want to necessarily close the door on the conversation of how we can look at ways to address this, but I do want to thank you so much. I'll try to be really brief because I'm definitely odd person out, and I think because of my age, I went through the civil rights argument when we took it out of restaurants. I heard the bars were going to just be broke because we took cigarettes out of bars, so I'm not trying to infringe on anyone's civil rights. I'm trying to improve health conditions, and I think we do have to be multi-prong to help people have alternatives to be supportive. And number one, that we are finding cigarette butts outside of the butlers. So we really got to work and say, okay, smokers, work with us. Use the butlers so then we don't have the issue not only of the smoke, but of the butts. So I would like to see us continue to work on this, even if it's not a straightforward ordinance, but to do something so that we have less cigarette butts at the very least on our streets and sidewalks and parking lots, and that we don't just push it aside, that we actually become active and do something with this information. Thank you, Dawn. Unless Rosie, you haven't gotten a chance to speak. I actually articulated my concerns really well, and it's not that I would never agree to something like this, but I think there's some real issues that I haven't seen addressed, and I want to see, where do we want people to smoke? And I don't think that that's been well articulated other than, oh, in the parking lots. And frankly, I think it's going to happen in people's cars and maybe inside. And I don't know that people surreptitiously smoking inside where they're not supposed to be or in their cars where they're exposing their children or others or themselves is potentially the best outcome. So I think that there's more work to do here in determining where do we want people to go. And I wonder if we can maybe take more of a carrot than a stick approach in terms of adding more receptacles. And I have heard from a number of folks that they feel like there aren't enough. We heard from city staff that the last one purchased cost $99. So I think that that's a thing that the city can afford to do if there aren't grant resources, and it sounds like there may very well be some more grant resources available for that. So I would like to kind of start from that perspective and move on from there and see what we can do by encouraging the places that it makes sense rather than prohibiting it everywhere. So I haven't weighed in yet. So before you go, Ashley, I'm going to take my turn. So I have five things that I want to say. So similarly to what has been said, one of the main reasons I don't support this particular proposal is that it pushes people off of Main Street. And that, to me, presents safety concerns. So if there was some proposal that didn't push people off the streets, that would be good. Well, so that's one thing. The other thing, too, that I do worry about is actually the enforceability. You mentioned there were eight tickets per year, roughly, that were cited in Burlington that, to me, actually communicates that a fair number of people are probably smoking on Church Street and don't get a ticket, which tells me that it's a really tough thing to enforce. And we have lots of ordinances that we're actually trying to go through this year to figure out, like, well, if we can't enforce them, either we got to modify them or make them enforceable or take them off the books. So that's my ideal smoking policy would be enforceable. There are a couple things about this, though, that I, well, one thing about it that I do really like is that it focused on School Street and Park Ave. And it sounded like the reason those streets were listed there is because the proximity to the elementary school, and I appreciate that. I mean, the high school has a huge buffer around it as a space where you can't smoke. Union Elementary does not have quite such a big buffer. So, you know, that's something that, like, if it was just Union, you know, I would, or I'm sorry, it was just Park Ave. I mean, that's something that I would consider because of the proximity to school. There are hundreds of ways to slice this, and it feels like this is not quite the right way, but I agree with Donna that there may be another way to slice it that I think might make more sense. And, Ron, you even brought one up yourself, you know, about, like, what if it was just a time limit? It was between these hours that you couldn't smoke. You know, that's something to think about. Or if it was just around intake vents, or if it was not on benches, or if there were designated places where you could smoke or where you couldn't smoke. I mean, hundreds of ways to slice it. So, I also hope that we, you know, don't let this go entirely, but let's just find a different solution. And then, Ginny, you? Yeah, I totally agree that this is not the place to do the slicing. But is there a place? I don't know what committees or if there are ways that we could, you know, because we come with something, then if usually we come with something else, and I'd rather not do guests and check if we could work together to try and come up with something. Sure. Well, so one possibility is that if there's any people, anybody on the council who is interested in working with you all, we could do it that way. Another possibility is that, I mean, if you have a draft, I mean, you can send it to, you're welcome to send it to me, and I'm happy to do a little bit of, like, just, you know, like, ground true thing about, like, is this going to fly? Does this seem like it would satisfy, you know, this group? And then, you know, we can do that, just you and I mean, I'm going to volunteer myself. We can do that sort of behind the scenes, until we're at a point where I think we have something that might work. So, yeah. Something you said is actually an idea, to just make School Street and Park Avenue. That's something I would love to talk about again, let's say that for another time. Is there anybody on the council besides, I mean, I'm volunteering myself here. But anybody else up for, you know, meeting with directions? I'm looking at you, Donna, because you were... Well, but I think it's important for people who have objections to it, should be on the committee, or we keep coming back, and the same objections still appear. That's fair. I would help, but I think we have to have other people. You may have a business community, maybe a smoker. It strikes me that you need the committee on the agenda or one of the later might be... That's a good point. Since that seems to be predominantly some of the issues that... The we raised. We raised. So later on in the agenda, we're going to be talking about the creation of a committee. What are we going to call it? I think that was pulled. No. No, it's not pulled. Social and Economic Justice Committee. Inequality. Inequality. Yeah, so, yeah, that might be a group that could interface with you all. I could picture that being a topic, for sure. Okay. Great. So for now, I'm assuming no one's going to make... Would you like to make a motion? Okay. On this. You need a motion on this? No, well, I was just... That we're going to further study it? Okay. I don't think we need a motion. That's not quite what I meant. Okay. I thought you were gathering consensus. I didn't think you wanted a motion. Yeah, I know. I was... She was just opening the floor. If anyone had a motion they wanted to make. Right. Right. Okay. All right. So let's put that on... If we could put this topic on the list of things for that committee to look at. That way you have a, you know... That would be a great interface. That would be great. And I'm going to take myself off of that hot seat. And I see that there's one person from the back. If you would like to come up and comment. And then we're going to move on. Oh, actually you have to come up and speak because there's people watching on television who otherwise would not be able to hear you. Did you have a fifth thing? Oh, there was a fifth thing and I didn't say it. So I'm sorry. I'd like to the idea of more Butler receptacles. I'm going to figure out how we can make that happen. So anyway, thank you. You have to do that through transcripts. They got a grant for those. I love it. Let's see how we can support that. Oh, we did. If you would say your name and... Just to add somebody to the committee who was speaking here about the smoking and in favor of the smoking civil liberties and equity, one of those people might be added to the group. Yeah. That's a good idea. And what's your name? Emerson. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. We're going to keep going though, actually. All right. Thank you all very much. I want to appreciate that this is a complicated and... Thank you all. Important topic. So, thank you. Okay. Moving on. Can we structure this one a little differently? With council speaking first? Yes. I was actually going to suggest that. So, for this next one... So, all my computer is waking back up here. The next item is about... Code of conduct, I believe. All right. So, their recommendation for the code of conduct for dogs in Hubbard Park. So, Dada, this was a topic that you wanted to see on the agenda. So, really what... The goal of this time is to figure out what is the will of the council in terms of going back to that committee or not. So, I want to start, Dada, with you having the floor, and then I want to go to the council members and see where you are at. And depending on where we're at as a council... Actually, not depending. After the council has had an opportunity to weigh in, then we'll open it up to the public for comments. Thank you. I was concerned with the letter that was about the same as we'd gotten a year and a half, almost two years ago, from the commission. And I felt like we were asking them to do more signs and other postings and marketing without them really having the budget and personnel to do it. So, I wanted to see us to do more than just see this. Somehow, by asking it back on the agenda, people felt I was trying to change the canine code of conduct. But I've been concerned about the relationship between the council and the park commission. Councillor Krueger has got some ideas of how we could approach that quite differently than I'm open to discuss. And maybe that's the way to resolve this. I just feel that we wanted things from the park commission that really they don't have the personnel power or finances to do without us giving them that. And are you thinking specifically of signage? Well, there's signage in the parks that doesn't exist about leashing your dog. There's a fact of not having enough money and people to market and publicize and educate the public about the canine code of conduct. So, I think there's a two-edged sword. You've got to have really a person and staff and material to help really enliven it because we do keep having problems. And so, even themselves, they had six reported to the police besides others. So, I would just like us to give support to this so that it really does reach out and meet the needs of everybody using the park and feeling safe. Rosie. So, I thought this was really interesting because the council acted last fall because we had received a number of complaints from folks who felt that they didn't feel comfortable going into the park, that they didn't feel comfortable bringing their young children into the park, who had had uncomfortable interactions that they were not happy about. And so, they came to the council. And so, we requested that the Parks Commission look at this issue. Parks Commission is an elected body and that's kind of a unique situation. So, the Parks Commission looked at the issue and their letter back to us says some stuff that they're doing and says that basically they feel that the status quo is working, that they don't think that there's an issue. So, we have a situation where we've got two different elected bodies in the city of Montpelier and one was, you know, approached, we were approached by a constituent saying that there was a problem and the other elected body feels like there's not a problem. And so, I kind of thought, well, where does the buck stop here? You know, is this our responsibility if something goes wrong as a council or is it the Parks Commission's responsibility? So, I went back to the city charter and the city charter is really clear. It says the Parks Commission shall have charge of the construction, maintenance and control of all public parks within the city. The term public parks shall not be construed to include recreational fields and playgrounds. So, there's our answer. This body is not responsible for this issue, unfortunately, because we have folks coming to us to complain about it and that's what our answer has to be. We are not responsible for this. And I feel very odd as a public official passing the buck to somebody else. I want to be able to solve this issue, but it is clearly in our city charter not our responsibility. There is a conflict with that. Well, and I wanted to continue on because the next part of this is that the city council is responsible for funding the parks and we have appropriation responsibility. We have two city-employed staff members who report to the city manager who are paid out of city funds who are responsible for taking care of the parks and sort of carrying out the Parks Commission's directives. And so this to me just seems like this is sort of an awkward situation where we're responsible for paying for the maintenance and the control and whatever this a lot of the elected body wants to do without having the authority according to the charter. And I don't feel comfortable as a counselor fully suggesting that the two options here that I see to deal with that one of which is that we give the Parks Commission the city vote to amend the charter to give the Parks Commission statutory authority to levy funds to bond just as the other elected city body, the Cemetery Commission they have their ability to bond. So when they decide they're going to do something they can figure out how to fund it. Parks Commission doesn't have that. We have to do that. So that's one option is that we figure out a way to amend the city charter to give them that. The other option is to amend the charter so that the Parks Commission was no longer an elected body and just like all our other city committees was appointed by this council. Again, I don't feel comfortable in my position suggesting taking away the authority of another elected body but I want to put that out there to the public that these are two ways of resolving that issue and those are the only two ways that I can see right now of resolving that perhaps there are others. So I'm not going to suggest that we really take any action tonight other than that funding piece. And Donna has pointed out that there is a piece missing here and that's the signage. And we can pay for signage in Hubbard Park displaying the canine code of conduct more prominently as well as in all our other public areas, our sidewalks all the areas that were affected by the recent ordinance change those are not yet signed, our recreation fields, etc. And so the bike path and north branch are not yet signed so we can take some action there and I would suggest that we go ahead and do that and put that signage in place there. So that was my kind of reconciling with this issue and how to respond. Ashley. So I am not saying that this is a proposal that I am making but I am wondering and Bill I think I would probably defer to you on this if the city has the ability to fund the parks which is what my understanding is the city does have the authority to do there is always the option and I am not advocating for this but putting it out there as another possible way like the federal government did with speed limits by saying you can do like we're going to fund you if you do X and I think for me I would want signage. I mean that to me is at least the thing that seems to be the most lacking and I'm a little disappointed because we had asked that we get some signage to I just I thought that's where we left it was that we were asking for signs and that didn't happen but that is another potential way to go about addressing this issue of like how do we make this happen as the council when the authority is delegated to the parks not saying I'm advocating for that but it's an option Can I just weigh in? Yes please. Not for or against the proposal but there is one other piece which is that only the council can enact an ordinance so even though the parks commission has the control of the parks they can only make rules which aren't necessarily enforceable by any way other than saying you're breaking a rule or you're being so that's really where I think this is where this came up before the parks said here's our rules and then it was well if it's going to become a city ordinance it's the council so that they don't have ordinance making authority so that's one other area that even though they have this thing so I think that so either you know do your idea maybe we could delegate the ordinance making authority for the parks to them or conversely that's the way this body keeps the final control so that's just one other angle but certainly signage is something we can do and it just also just quickly we have ordered signs for downtown and those kind of things so they're coming. What was that Bill? I just said we have ordered signs for like the streets and not to reflect the new so I'm surprised they're not up already. Do we know when those are going to I'm surprised they're not here now and maybe they're here just having a chance to put up I don't know. Do we know that there is signage at every entrance to the park? Oh this was the signs for the actual must be on leash for the streets and sidewalks and bike path this wasn't about the code of conduct. Not the code of conduct. Is there a signage about the code of conduct? They're supposed to remain at every entrance. At every entrance? Yep. Great, thank you. Yeah, okay. Other thoughts or comments? So it sounds like we're getting signs. For downtown, for the other park, the non-hubbard park? The non-hubbard park. Non-park portion of the ordinance, yes. Yes, Jack. I've gotten more e-mail about this particular topic than anything else since I've been here and it tells us something about how strongly people feel about this and I'm really only hearing from people who own dogs who feel that their ability to use Hubbard Park in a way that they think they want to is under threat and I'm struck that these two items that we're talking about, the downtown smoking item and this one are both have sort of the same flavor of conflicts between groups of people who have arguably legitimate ways of which they want to use our public space and people who want to have their dogs run free in the park. I think it makes a lot of sense for the park for this city to make some provision to enable people to do that. For people who want to be able to walk by themselves and with their children and with their dogs and not have them or their children be under threat from other dogs. I think that's also a totally legitimate desire. I have a hard time believing that because there are only six reported incidents that that means the status quo is fine because I know I talk to people and people say well my kids have been knocked over, my kids are scared of the dogs in the park, my dogs have been attacked, I don't go to Hubbard Park anymore because of other dogs that people do not control even though they think they're controlling them. And so I don't think the status quo is working for the community as a whole. I'm not sure what the right solution is but I think there should be at least some provision for people to have their dogs loose and I think there should be opportunities for people to use the parks without being afraid of encountering dogs that might pose a threat to them because you don't know, you're out in public, you see a dog that's not on a leash. No matter what the owner thinks about that dog, you do not know if you're not the owner of that dog whether that dog is going to attack you or not. You don't know if that dog is a threat or not and no amount of the owner saying oh don't worry, she wouldn't hurt a fly is going to help. And so I think we need to keep working on this and working on providing a way to give both people a reasonable, both interests a reasonable opportunity to get what they want whether that's physical separation or whether it's scheduling, I think there are ways to do it and I'm not sure what they are but I think we need to keep working on this. So instinct here is that if there are, if there's others who would like to keep working on it better say so now, otherwise it seems like there's arguably no action to be taken at this point. Is that more or less agree? Anybody else want to take up? We're going to move on then. If there are people who would like to comment, now is the time, so but it looks like we're not likely to take any action tonight. So if you want to see something, please do. You've got about two minutes and Donna is going to help us with timing. My name again, Sam Markiewicz, 147 Berlin Street. City manager is here, city council is here, mayor is here, you all hold the vision. That's a big part of your job is to hold the vision for the city, the parks commission. I don't consider that to be a part of their job. I believe that the right thing for you to do having heard what you reported is to you all make the decisions and you hold the purse and you basically wear their vision questions that you should be responsible for that. And this is a major vision question for me. Having moved here three years ago from out of state and deciding with my wonderful partner, we're here for the rest of our lives. Well, when I set foot in this town, a big part of why I decided to move here is because I went for a run in Hubbard Park. It's beautiful. It's an incredible asset. And I might add that one of the best things that you all could do for this, having moved from California and gone through all of the rigmarole that took years to get multi-use trails that included horses, dogs off of leashes, mountain bikes, walkers, joggers is if you opened Hubbard Park as a multi-use place, it would be democracy and action and most of these problems would go away. And it would be one of those things that seems like it's going to be a blank storm, but it won't. Once you do it, it will be fine. And people will learn how to get along in this situation if it's multi-use and it will create a major, major asset to attract people as tourists and as people who want to move into the city more. Thank you. I moved here eight years ago from Portland, Oregon. There are a lot of parks there, a lot more parks than here. And almost every one of them has an enclosed area, quite a large area where the dogs can romp and play with other dogs. Unleashed. I love dogs. I feel very bad when I think that they have to be leashed all the time, however, I am certainly cognizant of the danger, the possible danger to children. A solution, I think there's plenty of room in Hubbard Park for at least one dog playground that would be enclosed. I used to watch the dogs there and they were having a fabulous time running around and playing with each other. That seems to me like sort of a logical solution. Thank you. Hello everyone. My name is Dan Dickerson and I'm on the Parks Commission. So I'm having trouble figuring out where I'm going to start with this. I guess from what I've heard from council members, I am very concerned. Yeah, you can take the mic off and put it on. No, next level. Sorry. So how you can do the mic drop? Would it be possible to give them a little more than two minutes just hearing from the... If you don't mind if I could sit down and that way you could bounce the question. Maybe I should have done this at the beginning. So I guess the first thing I want to say is the direction, at least my impression of the direction that was given to us, was that we were to have, you know, a discussion about canine challenges, issues, questions at Hubbard Park. It wasn't necessarily a direction to add signage or do this or do that, but to say to have a discussion of, you know, are there issues, how can we address them? And I think the letter does convey that. We came up with some sort of policy ideas that could be done by us, although I will say that we are budget challenged and that opens another bag of worms that Councilwoman Krueger brought up. But we laid out those policy provisions and at the bottom we said, you know, we would strongly urge the city council to consider the creation of a, we called them the canine recreation areas, just because, frankly, it's not something that we have the resources to manage if one is created. And, you know, there were a few of us that really weren't in favor of anything like that at all and there were a few of us that were and that was the back and forth and so we said, consider it. So that was that. So I will say that, you know, my impression was that we weren't directed to take action. We were directed to have a conversation, albeit the conversation probably took longer than it should have, because I think this was back in October. But we presented you with a letter and we are willing to act on those things and, you know, I'm perfectly willing to, you know, hear what you have to say and take it back to the parks commission of our next meeting. So I'll leave my comments at that and we'll happily take questions. What I've gathered is that our, generally speaking, our reaction to that letter is it's fine. It's great. That works. Either that's... Yeah. That's not necessarily what I got from it. My concern about it is that the council was hearing up until last fall when we asked you to do that. We were hearing complaints and the letter gave me the impression that you weren't hearing the complaints. So I want to be able to, in the future when we get the complaints, I would like to direct folks to you and if you feel like they raise to a level of a serious problem that you would then take decisive action and do something about it. Yes. I would love that. And I think maybe it's a possibility that people just don't know the parks commission exists. I think it's a very strong possibility. So I would love for all of, you know, and those of you out there, if you hear from people that are having problems with K-9s in Hubbard Park or North Branch or any of the parks, please, please communicate with the parks commission. And, you know, if we just see a landslide of people that have issues, then we will take action. What the action would be, I guess, would be up in the air, but we're not going to ignore this. Awesome. Thank you very much. I'm John Akylogic. I live on Hubbard Park Drive, which by its very name is right next to the park. And I've been a resident for since 1986. I've walked with my dog, Star, twice a day in the park. I've done so for 11 years. Lately, we've done at least two miles a day, morning and afternoon, to my mind. I have witnessed many encounters with folks in the park, both runners and other dog owners and non-dog owners. You can do the math. If I've been in the park, let's say, 350 days a year, because I do go on vacation, twice a day, that's 700 visits to the park. I'm probably going to give you an estimate of five encounters that I see that I'm participating in or visualizing other people encountering me or others each time. So that's about, let's say, 3,000. All around the town, it's 3,500. Therefore, I can tell you with certainty that the Canine Code of Conduct is working and it's working well. And the number of encounters where you have a problem out of all of those that I've seen is about 3, maybe in a year, if that may. The Canine Code of Conduct, people are paying attention to it. I have people that encounter me on the trail. My dog is up on the hillside a little bit, so she's away from me, so they don't see that I have a dog with me. I see her, but they don't see it. They immediately put their dog on a leash because they see they're coming up against a person that doesn't have a dog. It is working. It happens many times. And so I think the Park Commission should get a lot of respect and a lot of credit for this Canine Code of Conduct. It is working. It's something that's not going to be perfect. You're going to have two of those owners out there. And I wrote this in my email to all of you, but you can't treat everybody because of a few clueless types. You have to go enforce or make those people accountable. I just want to close by saying that the members of the Park Commission are basically hard-working volunteers who ran for office and were elected by the voters in the city, all the voters in the city that showed up to vote. In my estimation, having been to several monthly meetings over the years, they care deeply about Hubbard Park. Their proposal for future improvements in Hubbard Park is reasonable and it deserves your endorsement, which I think we just heard you give. They have a good track record for being fair, cognizant of all Park users and should not be second-guess. Their job, taken on the benefit of all residents in the city, is hard enough. And I thank you for your time. I'm Marilyn Mowed. I live on Summer Street. And I have done some statistics for you all, as usual, and maybe you could pass them down. Do you try to keep it to two minutes? I want to, but the walk is not an accountable. And then, by the way, dear public, I would like to move on after this. And so, I did an analysis of those incidents reported to the police. And you can see the breakdown. And there have been no reports since the first of the year in Hubbard Park. So, I would ask all of you to reread the ordinance because there already is a solution or a process to deal with naughty dogs. And there is a naughty dog panel that meets with restorative justice with the community justice team. And we get referrals from the police department. And I know the police department is going through every complaint to see if it should go to the criminal justice or the community justice team. And then there is even the doggy death panel, which deals with issues where dogs have, you know, heard another dog or heard a person. And it's very thorough. Now, I know, Donna, you're concerned that preventing the next catastrophe. Well, I'd like to know where the first catastrophe was because, I mean, this is working, folks. It really is. And as far as signage, I would encourage you to not only do dog signage, but also trail signage in the parks. And thank you very much. Thank you. And this is your last book. Okay. I also want to speak in support of the recommendations that the Park Submission has made. Oh, I'm sorry. I want to speak in support of the recommendations that the Park Submissioners have made. Oh, Dennis Riegel, I live on Townhill Road. They have been working with this issue since at least 2014. And with the establishment of the Canine Code of Conduct, things have, I mean, there have been great, vast improvements in the park. The Canine Code of Conduct took almost a year to get finalized, and it was a very, very inclusive and extraordinary process. And so these people, these parks commissioners have been dealing with this, and I think they are the ones who are closest to whatever problems might exist. And why would you try to second-guess them, actually? But I want to also say that there has now been in place this reporting system which is handled by the Montpelier Police Department. So if you have an issue, a dog issue, if you're a user at Park Submission, you have a dog issue, you make a report to the police department. The police department will then investigate it and make whatever needs to be done, you know, give a citation or dismiss it or whatever. And the beauty of that is they have a database and we are no longer, the parks commissioners or you or anyone else who cares about this issue, no longer relies on anecdotal evidence, anecdotal stories. And this is a very important point because out of the six incidents that were mentioned in the letter from the parks commission, none of them occurred in Hubbard Park, not one. And if an issue, if somebody does not report an issue, any reasonable person, you know, should come to the, I think any reasonable person would agree that then it's a rather insignificant event that happened to them. Also in terms of the funding for the park, I don't know, the idea of withdrawing city funding from the park which has been going on for years and years in order to do what in the park? To make, you know, to do what? To make some laws. To make some laws. If you would wrap it up the next little bit here. It seems so strange in some kind of blackmail. This issue has been litigated over and over. And in fact, it's been like a year, almost a year to the date, when article four, which was on the ballot, the special ballot of June 20th, 2017, put on by Donna Bate was failed. Asked if the question was whether dogs should be leased in Hubbard Park. And it failed. So, you know, I think you have to, you know, like some of you have to get on, you know, look at really what's happening because there's nothing going on in the park that's not being taken care of. I think we're, well, okay, thank you. All right. So we are going to move on. Thank you all for your thoughts and comments about that. All right. So the text stabilization application. So this is the second public hearing for the Timber Homes Vermont. Any chance of a five minute? Can we do this? Can we do this one and then take a break? Sounds good. Okay. So I'm going to open the public hearing right now if anyone has comments that they want to make about, unless, did you have something you wanted to present? I mean, this is a second public hearing. So theoretically, there shouldn't be anything new, right? There were some questions. Yes. Okay. Sorry. So I'll turn it over to you then. Great. I'll try to be very brief. Okay. Let me see if I know how to work this thing. I'll try to be low tech. It's great. You know, it's like harder because it's low tech. Oh, sure. Yep. So, yes, I'll try and be extra brief. It's really okay. Okay. It's really great. Okay. You take your time. Great. Thanks. Well, somebody just give me a little wink if I should speed up. I wanted to respond to a few of the counselor's requests for information. I also was thinking of giving a short backstory about how Timber Homes is in our connection to this land because I think I failed to do that last time, but, sure. Okay. So my name is Shannon McIntyre. I'm a partner at Timber Homes, Vermont. We are a construction company that's been in business for 12 years operating out of our shop in Versa, Vermont and a small well tent in Middlesex. Our company was founded when the two original owners partnered on a year long project teaching high school students how to Timber frame and building a three story cow barn for their school in the process. We still do a lot of teaching through workshops that we run ourselves and at building schools around New England. We are committed to high quality construction with small ecological impact. We work with local loggers and soldiers to produce buildings made of as much Vermont grown material as is reasonable and affordable. We pay all of our employees, including seasonal staff, a living wage. Our lowest paid person this year will make $18 an hour. We bought a piece of land on Route 12 two years ago. So this is a little kind of aerial view of our land. It's in between Pearl Street Motors to the north and Vermont Tree Experts to the south. It's a beautiful piece of land on Route 12. We now have zoning permission to build a timber framing shop there with an office wing. We've secured a loan from the Cooperative Loan Fund of New England. We are a worker owned co-op and because our business structure is set up this way essentially to exist in perpetuity beyond the founders, we were able to secure a loan with much longer terms than traditional banks would have given. We chose to build a Montpelier even though we paid a premium for that land and knowing that our taxes will be many times what they are at our brochure shop because of the overwhelming desire of many of our people to be here. Besides wanting to live here, we also want to build here. Having a public face for our company was another major reason to build on Route 12. Much of our work in the past has been clustered in the upper valley area around where our current shop is in Bercher and we're excited to be more involved in this community. We've made a number of efforts in the past to build for the public at reduced rates in this area just so we could make some connections with people and get our work out there. Examples include the sign of the capital city Grange, which was just a donation, design and construction help on the new tuning fork stage in Hubbard Park and part of the North Branch Nature Center. The porch there was a project of ours and we donated a part of that labor. So anyway, just to point out that we really want to see beautiful infrastructure in this city because this is our home. And so I was thinking of just going through the criteria for tax stabilization and sort of checking out the boxes and letting you know that we qualify. Is that a thing that would be useful? Or should I just respond to, there were questions about public amenities. I think you need to go through the checking the boxes. Unless there's, you've seen the report we wrote, it feels something that you think you want to make a case for that's different that I think you ought to call that out. Okay. Great. Well maybe I will just pick out the pieces that I think answer questions that counselors had from the last meeting and mention a few other things. So let's see. All of the level one stuff I think is pretty straightforward. So I think the questions that counselors had were both on criteria for level two tax stabilization. I answered but wanted to clarify the employment question. So just to be totally crystal clear, there will be seven new jobs in Montpelier. We had three jobs in Middlesex, so arguably that is only four jobs for the Montpelier area. But it's seven new jobs in Montpelier and it's a net four new year-round positions in Vermont because we're a number of advertiser people are moving to Montpelier. But we're replacing all those jobs with people who have roots in that sort of local area. We're trying to keep people where they really want to be. And it's also because of this new infrastructure we have the capacity to hire six seasonal people. So the sort of like net new jobs in Vermont is for year-round positions and six seasonal jobs. And then the public benefits and amenities question that Councillor Krueger brought up is the way I'd like to answer that is I have sort of a list of things that Timberhums has discussed doing that benefit the public. And I don't have a fully laid out plan for any of these things. But some of them we've just been like they're sort of givens. We're going to do this because it makes sense where this piece of land is and who we are as a part of them we are interested in doing but might need to sort of partner with other groups on. So here's my little list. Our land will be unposted so it's open to public fishing. Let me just switch. Drawings here. So that's a quick view of our shop design. Very exciting. Intersecting eagle. And then here is just a depiction of what we have zoning permission for. So we have this. There's a big knoll in the middle of our property. This is Route 12. And the back four or five acres of this land is all in the flood zone. So that will be left undeveloped because we are not allowed to develop back there. So there are all sorts of things that we could do with this piece of land. Public to fish along the river. I'm not quite sure what that looks like in terms of posting welcoming people but that's an intention. There has been talk of a carry-in canoe launch. That's something again that I really don't have a fully laid out plan for but it would be a great spot as Councillor Kruger pointed out to connect to another launch at that park. That's right next to Birchburg. A couple of other things. We will definitely be raising one of, we have sort of a ready to buy off the shelf product called a picnic shelter. That's a picnic table with a little roof. And we'll be building one of those that is accessible by bikers because there's a bike lane that runs right by where our shop will be. We're interested in hosting community based learning students from the high school and potentially connecting with Barry's tech program to host interns. We've talked about having electric vehicle charging station. And the last one is that we've heard talk of a path for bikers and walkers along the river that heads to the mountaineers field. I don't really know much about that but we would love to participate in it if anybody's going to make it happen. So that's a list of public benefits and amenities and the last thing I want to say is that criteria for level three there's actually a potential that we meet these criteria so I will quickly describe that one of the criteria is that the project will result in a net increase in residential units within the city. I cannot fully commit to this but I can 90% commit to our plan is to also build two houses on this piece of land. Don't mean to like throw a wrench into the discussion but there's that. And then the second criteria is that the project exceeds $500,000 or the assessed value which is also a wrench because the assessed value of our shop project that we have permission for is $490,000 but any house we would build would be much above $10,000. So I think that's a good idea. So I think that's a good idea. And then to close I just want to speak to the but for clause does that is that term makes sense to everybody. So we would certainly be building the shop whether we got tax stabilization or not. So I can't. We don't qualify for that part that criteria. But I don't think anybody who is requesting tax stabilization could meet that criteria. It's well let me just give you my little spiel. So we've been a fiscally conservative company that grew very slowly during our first decade. We have never taken out a bank loan before this and we were able to stay profitable with a small crew and bare bones infrastructure. Our work pipeline and our crew outgrew our facilities years ago and building the shop is clearly the right move for us and we're ready for this radical change but it's a big financial leap. While we adjust to making large loan payments and figuring out how best to function in our new space being able to add a couple thousand dollars to our bottom line would be a huge leap to our business while still providing a big leap in what we're paying in municipal taxes. It would just allow us the breathing room for these first couple of years until we can really refine our budgets to match this new business that we're growing into. So it would be a big it would be a significant benefit for us but in the context of a $650,000 construction project a couple thousand dollars is not a make or break thing. So that's it. Thank you. Okay, comments from the council. So I've been consistent in my no votes on all of these. I just I think that there are better ways that the city can support businesses coming to our community. And I think I mentioned some of these before like I would love for us as a city to invest in creating public access points to the water. For example, in partnering with businesses. That's what I think that the city should be doing with taxpayer dollars. The city should be using those taxpayer dollars to make our city work for our taxpayers. I love your plans for the facility. I think it's clearly a beautiful facility and you produce quality work. But again, I just can't I can't stand here sit here and vote to spend city tax dollars when we have residents who are looking for breathing room too. And I think that's a very apoco analogy because a lot of us are looking for breathing room and consistently the council votes to abate taxes for businesses, but does nothing hardly ever to address. Unaffordability as an issue. We just got a huge handout about Vermont being, you know, one of the most expensive places to live and you would in essence need 2.1 full time jobs to support a two bedroom apartment and I and I appreciate those struggles and I know that they're not limited to, you know, Montpelier residents and they're certainly you're a human being too, right? And you face the same challenges that everyone else faces and I am I am grateful that your business is coming to Montpelier and I would love to support your business in other ways partnering with you to address potentially, you know, an EV charging station. I think that's a great idea. I think, you know, how we can foster partnerships with schools both here and in Barry because I think we need to strengthen that relationship too. I'm just I'm a hard know on abating tax dollars for a private business project with no public benefit. I would just make the case that there may be some public benefits there but may is not is. Anyway, that's Donna. Well, we have this tax stabilization policy and I feel you meet it and not only that, but we spend a lot of time and energy to get new business in and here we have an existing business that wants to expand and get even more committed. So I support giving you the tax abatement. To me, this is a much more reasonable amount than most and I would like to see the council move forward on it and I would make a motion saying such. Is there a second? Which level are you going for? I think the recommendation 1587, the amount of money I guess I was looking at. I think it's just a level. I think the dollar amount is like estimates. I think the question was whether they meet criteria two with the amount of jobs. That was the question staff posed to the council. It's really your call. And can I make a comment on that? And the public amendment. So I think level two is the squishy one. I think that they've made a good argument that they meet the requirements for level one and so level two requires us to decide whether seven more people is a substantial amount of new employee or significant number of new employees. And then the other option under level two that they sort of tried to meet and our ordinance isn't great here. It was the public benefit. And I don't think they meet the letter on their public benefit, but because they clearly are trying to offer some public benefits, I'm willing to be more lenient on the squishy significant number of jobs for the other option for level two. So I would be willing to offer level two, but I don't know if others are. So Donna, is that your motion? I mean, she can take the motion. I was going by amount instead of criteria. I got my mind turned around. So would you like to make a motion? I guess I'm curious to see what other... Well, sure. I'll make the motion. Then we can... I'll second. For level two. Yes. Can you make a motion please? Sure. I move to offer timber homes Vermont. We have to find that they need the requirements of the... We'll draft that. Tax stabilization. Tax stabilization. At level two. At level two. And then there's a series of choices in level two. How much award? Oh, I'm sorry. I haven't... Four years up to one third for seven years or one half for four years. I've been wondering how that gets decided. We just... You're looking at it. Yeah. How... Five years. We're only saying five years. Five years. Okay. I'm hearing a suggestion for five years. I will go with that. Level two for five years. Yep. One third or one half. The only option under five years is one third. Either one third for five years or a half for four years. That's right. Which would be most helpful to your company? I think half... I think half for four years would be more helpful. It's really these early years where we're... Okay. So I would move for level two for... half for four years. Okay. I'll second that. I hope that we ask that question when we talk about raising taxes for our residents. Sorry. And I apologize. I know that that was a little underhanded, but I just... Well, so... Change your policy. I'm going to jump in and say I want to find ways that we can help our residents and particularly those who need it the most. And I hope that we... I hope that we do some thinking around that as well. So... I just... To throw it out here, I did the math at $18 an hour. And at 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that would be $37,440 pre-tax, which is still not enough for a Vermont housing wage to afford a market-rate apartment in Montpelier. Jack. I really like everything about this proposal. I like the company. I think you're going to be a great asset to the city. I do not think the but-for test is met. So I'm going to... Yes, Clint. I hear Ashley's and Jack's points. Points, I think. I want to suggest that there may be some interesting quirks of this whole setup that we should examine. I would be pretty unhappy personally if we chose Timberholm's Vermont as the first business that requests this tax stabilization that we would deny. And on the... I don't know how much of this is really necessary to say, but as far as level two requirements, a significant number of jobs in Montpelier, I'm not sure what number of jobs would not be significant. That criteria doesn't make any sense to me as written. One job is significant to me and if we want to require a certain number of jobs for this to pass, then I think we should say we need, you know, a specific number. Otherwise, as far as I can see, we are saying if you are a large corporation and you're going to add large numbers of jobs, then we will give you tax stabilization. If you're not a large corporation, then we will not. So I say that if any number of jobs is significant, then seven is. And the other question I want to ask is I believe the last group that came before us to ask for tax stabilization asked for a certain level for now and requested the ability to come back and upgrade their request. Is that correct? As to defer the benefits for a year because at that point they didn't have a tenant so they want to be able to come back and say now we meet the jobs criteria. But they also weren't going to take the benefit for a year. I see. Okay. Thank you. Connor. I voted no in the last one. I think I agree with Ashley's analysis on the $18 an hour. I don't know what the definitions of what a livable wage is and it would be different in Montpelier. That said, I do like the concept of an employee owned business and I do feel like that is the type of business. We should be looking to recruit and I think I have some confidence in you that you would take that $18 an hour and maybe look at raising that as your business becomes successful in town. So I plan to support it. Can I add a clarifying piece because it suddenly feels very important. Our seasonal workers this year are making $18 an hour. Our lowest paid long-term employee is making $20.50 an hour and has dental insurance and paid time off and a training stipend. And if we could do more we would. Our highest paid person is making $27 an hour and it's because he's very generous. He should be making a lot more. And I think I sympathize with Ashley's position and at the same time I see that even with tax stabilization our tax bill is going to I think quadruple. I'm hesitant to say that for sure because I can't crunch the numbers in my head right now. But even under tax stabilization we'll be paying a great deal more in taxes to the city because we plan to be here for a very long time and so I see that tax bill as a benefit to the city in perpetuity as long as we exist as a company. And again the bet for clause we just I just can't imagine anybody meaning it. But I would say that we knew about the possibility of tax stabilization well before we came up with any of these designs or applied for zoning permission and it sort of factored into our sense that people in the city felt very welcoming to our business so in that way I don't know if that helps you think about that much but you've been more on it or you've been a little too honest perhaps with the but for clause. Well can anybody can anybody really that construction project that's this large even if it's much smaller than this any new construction is very expensive and tax stabilization offers maybe a thousand or two thousand dollars off your tax bill. So without actually answering your question I'm just going to say that I think so it's on our list to revise the tax stabilization ordinance. Okay so technically this is a public hearing so if there's any comments from the public on this So I'm going to speak in my capacity as a business coach my company is called Downtown Up we specialize only in working with businesses that are very Vermont kinds of businesses like this and we love them. So in theory I love this and your business sounds fantastic this is a more general question and it's from reading the most recent article about this in the Argus I was surprised in there that there was nothing mentioned about profits and I I'm wondering if when a business comes and asks for this if their books get open to you all and if there's somebody who acts as a fiduciary in that capacity who looks at profits and in a situation like this where there's going to be a great a new strain on the company that's a major strain that's been identified is such looking at how their books have been and how they're going to manage that strain and also then asking the fiduciary question along the lines of what Ashley is doing but with other criteria in there because Ashley's is one criteria of well what else could we be putting this money towards and what's going to give the city the best return on its investment in you know and the best chance of getting that return. So these are more questions that I raise I think that this kind of approach to any business is essential it's good practice as a business coach I look at the books and I'm concerned with these things and there are lots of businesses I will say the majority of businesses that I see look great on the outside and business is a very sexy thing it looks great on the outside and we get excited about business it's just important to know that when you might not be news to you but when you open the books and you start looking around then things don't always look like they do on the outside so that's all I don't have an opinion about this because I haven't looked at those books or gotten to know the business but I want to put that out there as a general principle in this you know you were talking about revising these so to the extent that these issues are not in there then please put them in there because that's a great way to make decisions about businesses thank you. Thank you any other comments yeah I just I would like to apologize to council member Kruger and to the rest of you it was okay well it's not okay but it happened and I hope that you all accept my apology and I try to conduct myself in a more respectful way and just no offence was taken well and I think you know you raise a good point and I it's a perspective that we need to keep in mind and what are we doing for the people who are the most vulnerable in our community and I want to keep that question in front of us so I appreciate it and we're adding the other half of the access to our tax roll that don't exist now okay alright so I'm going to close the public hearing and I think we're really ready to vote so I'm all in favor please say aye. Aye. Post. Nay. No. Okay so motion passes thank you very much best of luck. Thank you and I think we're going to take a five minute break meeting back into order here and we're going to jump into talking about the first gosh I've lost it first time home buyer program alright I'm going to turn it over to you. Great so the first time home buyer program was is an ongoing program it's in its fifth year now and is administered by Downstreet Housing and Community Development this proposal was reviewed by the Housing Trust Fund Committee on May 20 end of May and the proposal from Downstreet is for the $60,000 in this year's allocation of the Montpelier Housing Trust Fund to provide first time home buyer grants or loans rather to first time buyers the award this time was reduced from $10,000 to $7,500 in this proposal as a way to try to capture more people the demand is high the actually the inventory of houses is low for it folks are what they can afford there's a backlog and so we wanted to find a proposal where we could increase the total number of awards and when we the folks from Downstreet came in and they felt like this would provide the assistance that was necessary and help young families get into town Comments Rosie, then Ashley living there so I will keep it brief since everyone knows my position on the first time home buyer loan program I think it's something that sounds wonderful and in actuality is not as effective as other things that we could do with this money or hasn't been shown to be as effective as we have not explored the other options and so with some I've been discussing with the housing task force I've gone to some meetings this spring and out of that discussion came the idea that the task force should survey the folks who've received the loan in the past to see if this was the best use for them. Did it make an impact? Did it actually mean the difference between buying a house in Montpelier and buying a house somewhere else and was that the most useful way to receive that kind of assistance would they have rather received a $10,000 loan afterwards for energy efficiency or $10,000 to do let-abatement or whatever else was there something else that would have been more helpful than this form of assistance and that survey I understand is still out and so at some point we will have a better data point about is this the best way to spend $60,000 to my view we have a huge as Kevin said a huge housing shortage and to me the best way to address that is to put the $60,000 towards increasing the number of units through these big projects that we've been able to do periodically and once we spend this money we'll have gone back down to zero so we'll have to start building that up again so I would prefer to see this spent a different way I voted to do that during the housing task force meeting I had to serve on that and I lost there so won't rehash that too much but just wanted to put that out there just to if I can respond to that quickly too is just one key piece which I think is important and the housing task force has asked for an increased funding for this very reason one of the section, section 106 of your housing trust fund guidelines does get priority to home ownership programs over large scale rentals when we look at this housing trust fund there are two pieces there's projects and programs this is a program you know projects which we do support we gave $175,000 to the French block you know we give it to river station and to the north branch department so it's there's no question that there's a need for program for project funds and I suspect that the housing task force will be back here to address that very issue I support this it's one of the many things that we need to do here in Montpelier the only sort of question slash general pondering is I was looking at the makeup of the housing trust fund committee and also I attended a coalition meeting although a while ago now and I'm curious if there's ever been any conversation about having someone who has received this like serve on this committee to sort of talk about some of the challenges that they experienced in looking to buy here and to sort of like have that perspective as someone who has received this and who has sort of you know added those things that we have desired to seek here in Montpelier I mean I think it would be great generally speaking with these appointments it's whoever is I feel pretty strongly that we should reach out and see if anyone is interested and willing to do that because I think it's a really valuable perspective and even just inviting people in to sort of talk about their experiences or just I just I think that's really valuable and if we as a council are going to prioritize this which I personally you know think that we should I would love to hear from people who have experienced this and have you know done what this program is intended to do yes and actually just speaking to that too we've got the survey out to about half of the folks that received it I'm still trying to get the contact information for the other half down street administers this program so I don't have everyone's contact information but I suspect by the end of the summer we'll have we're not talking about that many people so I can probably call them personally and fill out the survey if necessary and I do want to get all that information so do you have a set number of seats on that can you there is a set number of seats it's currently six we created an ex officio position that committee specifically intended to be filled by someone who a recipient trust me can we fill out that I was kind of curious how you ended up with six six is an odd number and part of it was that we had well we have two council members now and that was a function of we lost some members and council member Walsh was on it and then Gene Olson and there was a shifting question is would it make sense to have a seventh member it would actually be helpful if it's high because I can see it happening for sure a seventh member and it is someone who's who's a recipient just one yes so one possibility we can do that now another possibility is that maybe do a little work around that I'd like to do a little work I can put together a proposal task force recommend us what they think it should be more than one one of any single type is not good they should have more than one just as an aside to one of the other requests was that out of that housing trust fund meeting policy issues came up and the housing trust fund committee evaluates the proposals but it doesn't necessarily evaluate policy which is the task force's role the trust fund committee made a recommendation to ask council or is requesting from council to have the task force evaluate the housing trust fund guidelines to become more in line with our current situation so other I don't want to needlessly extend discussion I support this I think that I've heard the comments I think there are some good points that there are the need for housing in the city of Montpelier and the need for public assistance for housing the city of Montpelier is not satisfied by devoting $60,000 to it and when I was chair of the task force I was coming in here saying we need to put more money into the trust fund the needs aren't being met and that's what I think now but in this case down street heard the comments from the council when they came in here before in previous years and said people had concerns about various aspects of it and they came back and modified the program to meet some of the concerns the council had and I think it's a good thing to recognize and reward that certainly doesn't work this oh I'm sorry let's go to Donna since you're not waiting yet I'd like to make a motion and just let people then talk about it if they want to or not I would like to make a motion to approve the housing trust fund recommendation to approve the request of $60,000 for first time home buyers down payment assistant and equity building program beginning July 1, 2018 second so I just Jack is absolutely correct that they did make some changes to the program based on our feedback and I was remiss in not thanking them for doing that I do really appreciate that that it is now a payment upon sale that takes into account the likelihood that you would have gained equity over that time and I think that makes it a much more sustainable program and I appreciate that my default would be to support this but I'm also very interested in that data point because if the feedback tells us otherwise that's going to be really important and I'm very thankful that we put together that survey and I think we'll be done by the end of the summer is that something that we can put on the calendar for well yep so we actually the housing task force met on last Thursday and there was a discussion about coming to council with some of these issues and doing a presentation for some of the new members on what the task force does and what our goals are in September 12th I think was the first council meeting we were hoping to get on and do that and you could build that into that yeah we'll build that into it yeah absolutely great thank you okay so any any further discussions would you say aye? aye thank you moving right along okay social and economic equality committee I'm going to look at Ashley on this one so this is something that been on my mind for quite some while and the mayor and I met to sort of discuss and brainstorm so I apologize that I'm looking at my phone but that's where I have access to the document so and I know that Bill had reached out to me earlier and I dropped the ball on replying to him so I apologize that nobody has this also but basically what what I envisioned and working with Ann to sort of finesse those things sometimes I'm a little bombastic I know is forming a group here in Montpelier to really sort of talk about how we can promote diverse socio-economic racial cultural and gender inclusivity and awareness among the city's residents, businesses and also in our municipal affairs the group we envisioned will help make Montpelier a city that cultivates and embraces diversity the committee will also assist the city in addressing the goals laid out in the master plan and council's yearly goals as they pertain to social equity and justice that's more or less the mission of the group yes and we're hoping to be able to accomplish in through educational activities for the public specific programming and projects and advising and making recommendations to the council and or other relevant bodies and working with the city manager as well we had proposed a maximum of six members although I hear that there may be some wisdom in odd numbers so I would actually probably go for seven not five just because I think the more people we have at the table the better for talking about these really significant issues in our community I'm thinking one to two council seats and then having folks who are interested fill out the application and then having those committee applications be reviewed and then if we have any sort of specific questions potentially putting those together and then submitting those out to everyone who who put into to be part of the committee hopefully we could meet once a month it's summertime so that's a little tricky but I figure maybe we could start in August would be my sincerest hope maybe towards the end of August and some of the proposed projects and tasks that I would like us to start looking at is the feasibility of a potential living wage policy for the city and its contractors developing a babysitting availability policy for city meetings reviewing a socially responsible investing policy I know that was one thing that had been flagged by us several months ago and it's something that I don't want to lose sight of because I think it is important reviewer revised the tax stabilization policy I need not say anymore about my position on how important that is plan a civil discord and implicit bias training on both sort of the impact and ways that we can adapt our policies to be mindful of the impact that that can have and review city policies to ensure equity including in hiring practices and work with the city to review personnel policies regarding paid family leave we can add anything I'm just working with new directions in terms of absolutely and I think a sort of a broader piece of that and I've spoken with chief about this chief fecos as well really sort of focusing on ways that we can start addressing addiction generally in our community I've heard a lot of feedback from friends and friends who have become family of mine in this area who don't feel very supported by the Montpelier community in terms of being in recovery and I would really like us as the sort of leaders in our community to start tackling those really significant issues that as you all know I deal with on a day-to-day basis in my work but a friend of mine died of an overdose here in Montpelier recently a heroin and other drug related overdose and it's something that is very real and we heard tonight that you know there are community services are utilizing Narcan at least once a week so I think we have a lot of work to do as community leaders in that front as well I was hoping one of the overarching goals of this group would be to bring in experts who already exist in our community and that they would have a place holding like different organizations and including the high school the justice alliance so that there isn't just people applying that we reached out to specific organizations for specific skills and experience and I think that makes sense to reach out and see but also opening it up to everyone else as well and rather than having like I'm never quite sure if it's prescribed or proscribed I'm going to demonstrate my ignorance there but I want this to be inclusive and if we get more than to the table I'm more than willing to sort of revisit that and this is community work this is going to take shareholders from organizations and from you know our schools and from all sorts of different places so certainly we can reach out to organizations that do this work already but I also want to open it up to everyone else and hopefully we're in a position where we have far more interested persons that want to do the work than we do folks that don't so I'm using the energy committee as the model for this it feels like there's some appropriate parallels and so the energy committee at least at one point created some ex-officio positions for stakeholder organizations that we wanted intentionally to invite to the table but we already had members and so you know how are we going to get them there in any kind of official capacity so it seems like that might be an option to have an open invitation to the racial justice alliance or you know justice for all or you know whoever to be a part of it we can do that and your stakeholders may vary on the specific topic you're dealing with but especially when you get into really public awareness and workshops you really need those stakeholders I think this is great and I really appreciate Ashley for doing the brain work on this so I guess we probably need a motion to create a committee whatever make up you want and obviously direct us to advertise so I will selfishly make the motion if that's okay I would move that we create a social justice advisory committee for the city of Montpelier and I'm not clear about how specific it needs to be just form the committee and then I would say with seven members you said one to two council members that's a decision you should make so I would move then that we create the social justice advisory committee with seven members no more than two of which maybe council members I'll second because that's everything that we need for now okay great any further discussion would we then do a motion appointing two council members or wait until we have the applications that's an interesting question I guess I would in that we're creating it tonight I would want to wait on putting people on it let it read and then I guess we'll ask Jamie to put out an advertisement for this later time does that sound okay alright so yes Jack one thought I have I heard what Ashley said about the and you said about the numbers I wonder if it might be encouraging to have like nine instead of seven maybe seven plus two council members I'm not making it to like throw it out as an idea let's see if we can get seven people to the table and if it becomes clear that we have a lot of folks who are very interested and would seemingly be a good fit again with the parallel of the energy committee one of the challenges has been because it's not a committee that is prescribed or prescribed I've never I've met this for a good that's prescribed by the state or our charter we can just add seats anytime so we might as well start with seven and then if there are more people in the you know a year down the road if we're like we got some really great candidates we can always change it okay um for the discussion all in favor please say aye great thank you excellent very exciting so I assume we'll put a deadline of that of like two weeks, three weeks I don't know whatever's normal for advertising for that position okay great thank you sounds good um okay so the proposed ordinance revisions you lickity split slickity split oh my lord oh my lord oh my lord I've been here in this building since 630 oh my gosh okay this is just fixing things to sorry should we start by opening the public hearing oh is this a public hearing one first reading of an ordinance okay we're gonna open the public hearing thank you okay so yeah I had just mentioned these before this is some things that I thought were done by the council a little gazillion years ago and they weren't done they were left hanging it was my fault the changes would just before any other bigger changes you won't want to make this would just knock off a couple goopy licenses there at the end that were put on when I was more young and foolish that should never have been on there and don't make sense um and then just all the rest of them it takes away the um the costs the license fees and instead creates a decision whereby you all review the license fees every year and can make changes whatever you want and that's it what are the licenses that you're getting rid of the license is getting rid of is one that was just badly considered which was a license for uh medical marijuana dispensaries just you know there's a conversation I had with folks and it'd be like well we might want to keep an eye on that in case you know we wanted to be involved it's a terrible idea it was a $20 fee for catering for catering requests that would come in or actually it was a one-time $20 catering license fee to be a caterer in the town days after that was that was passed the state introduced one and it just seemed cruel and I thought we'd gotten rid of them so okay I'm gonna jump in here well actually I have a question um for you John so were you thinking that these are uh fees that we should just not it's not that we're taking them out of the ordinance putting them in like a different schedule it's that we're just taking them out because we shouldn't be doing them the intent is not to move them it's that they were just doing away with them well and this was originally Tom Galanca's idea he just wanted the council to have say over them without having to do the whole ordinance rigamarole I think the confusion yeah go ahead I think the confusion is you're doing two things here you're striking two licenses and you're also taking the other ones the amounts out of the ordinance so that we can review them every year yeah so there's two that we won't have anymore and then the rest will just review every year so two pieces I I'm I feel like I'm gonna be the one that makes this longer because I there are certain fees in here that I want to keep and whether we keep them in the ordinance or you know it sites a schedule and we you know we have them in the schedule that's fine I don't really care which place it is but I it makes me uncomfortable to just repeal it from here and not have it schedule elsewhere oh I think by default they would I mean because it doesn't say there's gonna be no fees it just says that the fees the council sets so I presume that the under that scenario the fees as they stand would continue until or if not we could certainly concurrently pass the schedule as it is I would rather do that that's my preference I would rather do that did you have another comment no that was my suggestion that next meeting we also adopt schedule work of the list together well I already have the list together so that we might not be doing it actually with any it's just well except for those last two catering thing and the medical marijuana dispensary those are my my recommendations where to get rid of those but you all can keep me if you want I'll be strong other comments we need to do it okay great I guess we're gonna close the public hearing then and we'll hear from you again probably at the July meeting which I will not be at I'll make sure that okay right should close first reading and set second reading for July 25th so what we're doing we don't want to get rid of the fees either we'll protect you the gas stations yep yep so we've closed the first do we need a motion to vote we always have okay by unanimous consent without objection closing the first public hearing setting the date for the next one okay and on to the strategic plan okay just vote to prove it we did send out send this out to you electronically and then I believe there's I got a hard copy did anybody else know no I thought Jamie was handing them out oh well sorry got some comments which we've incorporated from a couple of you and attempted to take the policies and priorities that you had set in our workshop and lay them out into functional work we still need to add the dates and deadlines we want to make sure it's the work that you want done this will then drive our next our agendas for the next few months those will now start showing up and I probably will be the person when new ideas come up that says that really wasn't on the the plan how do we want to fit that in but that's why we did the work up front Bill can I ask if there was any work that the city is doing right now that you had kind of taken as like of course we do this that you don't feel is represented in here and no I mean generally we didn't really list all the services we had that maintained city services but I don't know I was just I didn't feel like we were missing anything but I also wanted the advice of the manager but we also pushed the staff they were heavily involved in this too this year and so I think H.J. also really appreciated and so they tried to put forth their key issues and I think the hardest thing for us actually was you know we'd get a sort of long list of activities and for us it was really sorting through what are the real action items and what are things to consider when doing the action items some of these are just ideas like actually just one we talked about for example was about the living wage requirement the action is really bringing you a report on it but to do the report we've got to figure out what does it mean but we had our first drafts like all of those are different steps we're like no we're not going to track all those steps the step is but this notes what needs to be in there so any suggestions this will also are in Visio software and as a public dashboard so people can see progress on at least the big topics Donna well I really loved having everything in one place got lost in items no way could I edit it I'd love to have the final product in a little booklet it was really and the way you put things into charts really worked for me so I appreciated the work well it was really set up by a combination Julia Novak's firm and in Visio that they worked together to set it up and then Jamie did all the work you know the setting it up helping draft it and so it was really so I don't know if people want to sit through this I made some note I thought this was great having the work plan we actually have paper big enough at my office to in a way that it can be please just give your comments to Bill are they well no they're not some of them are kind of substantive so I'll just hit them and see how people feel about them is it just on that page because I can draw it up here it's on all the work plan pages and the way printed out I'm sorry it's not necessarily the order that we have on the plastic bag I would put other single use plastic items into that study on the question this is a technical question on using local ash trees that are being removed or energy I would like to make someone to make the determination that it's safe to do that not the effect of spreading ash faster if we do that energy prosperity I am the problem being solved is listed as lack of jobs, vacant store fronts and the shrinking grand list and I had a question is the grand list shrinking I didn't think so and probably static maybe and with regard to the store fronts vacant store fronts I don't necessarily think of that the concern is being limited to retail space I think there's probably other unused space that is worth looking at office and residential space in the downtown area so underutilized space yeah in the in the strategic outcome housing area we have a measurement of success 150 new housing units for all ranges I would I don't know if there should be a specific number but I think that we should be looking at targeting housing for low and moderate income people I just took that number straight out of them the economic development strategic plan it was the only place where we actually referenced that number doesn't I have there's no nothing to that other than that so if you guys want to change that that's fine there was no should we if we don't agree with something should we say something can we just get through your list I think I only have one other thing which is in the topic of encouraging more resident engagement with government this idea for a few years several years because my daughter-in-law participated in something like that when she lived in New Haven and I just have like a community service job fair have some kind of gathering where we actively recruit people who live in the city to come out and volunteer to be on boards city boards and non-profit boards and get all these entities and we need community volunteers together in one place and really make a push so we're not always in the position of city publishers opening there's one applicant for it and I think you know there people put in a tremendous amount of volunteer effort but I think there's probably other people who aren't the usual suspects who if they were asked would also come up I think that's my list okay comments on those any of those items yeah so in terms of the the first one I think which is right now is banned plastic bags that is my number one priority right now I'd be comfortable adding like an explore banning other single use plastics but as a sort of primary I think we were all clear that it was plastic bags I actually am so because of the process that we're likely to go through in terms of getting a charter change I think we're actually more likely to get the charter change passed if we limit our conversation to plastic bags and then once we have the charter change you know we can maybe have that conversation because I don't think the charter change is going to be just specifically about plastic bags does that make any sense maybe I'm too so I think can I read so I think maybe what Anna is saying or at least my sort of take on that is because I've thought about that too is the charter change would allow us to regulate those things right or to abolish or something maybe it would say you know maybe the charter change would say something like single use plastic or you know however we structure the language and we'd have the work done on the plastic bag piece to start the work on the rest because of what the charter change said so rather than sort of trying to do all of those different things that once focus our efforts on one thing the charter change will allow for in theory would allow for all of those things to be examined and for the city to potentially regulate and then maybe on any notes we could consider other single use that's fair and in terms of the number of units comment I had a meeting with Harry who came and presented to us and it sounds like there's actually a pretty compelling argument to create market rate units as well and so I just I want to be mindful of that and I don't want in any way like I just don't want to signal to anyone that we're not exploring market rate housing so I agree that we need to focus a lot of effort on low and moderate income housing but I also think that there is a demand for market rate housing and I just don't want to write that out of our housing and that was actually if you look at the initiative above that you came up with it said develop a strategy to address housing shortage and ensure housing for all incomes and stages of life so that was the goal we were trying to hit was on Jax I'm going to assume that silence is okay so I had a couple things that I wanted to comment on as it references the net zero energy goals it doesn't actually say what the net zero energy goal is which is well to be producing as much as we consume renewably in the city of Montpelier on free major transportation there are three major energy sectors by 2030 so I just wanted to make sure that somewhere we say that so that's one thing there was a section about communication I would just love to suggest as an action item that we explore the pros and cons of the app known as C-Click Vex which is something that Burlington has where you can geotag pot bowls or graffiti or whatever it's expensive and it would probably require staff time to be monitoring it so I'm not necessarily convinced that that's something that we need but I would love to have a conversation like how far out of our range is that or is it something that's so valuable that we should step up and do that Bill there is something that D-P-W has the pedestrians were using it the bicyclists were going to start using it to report well if they get a call someone calls they record they have a system where they enter the complaint and keep track of it this was electronic and I can't remember the terms I'm sorry about it they were trying it out and they were going to start with the pedestrians before they I'll check with them but I think under the notes it wasn't as expensive more resident engagement explore C-Click Vex I think there was a section I'm not looking at it too many tabs open but there was a section on parking so I just want to put out there I would love to see this might be a bigger ask than making it sound right now but I would love to put out on the action items something about reverse angle parking explore reverse angle parking or find an opportunity to try it or what's your thought about that Bill I don't have any problem with that but in fact the two areas that you identified as top priorities were dealing with the loss of parking during the construction and basically dealing with the parking garage so we didn't talk about other exploration so I don't know where that falls we have talked about wandering off the path here too far with the union elementary school playground construction and we've talked about okay well should we redo that road well we'll be hearing about possibly closing it for a period of time so it can be used as a playground and when it's done it used to be a two way street we've made it one way it's still too wide for one way so people don't always follow it so could we narrow the street up or could we put more angle parking because there's such a parking crunch there so that could just be let's try it and I would love that and I want to make sure that it's supported if it does take public education and a little bit of FTE time it did come up in the main street scoping it is one of the suggestions to try on main street so I'm trying to think if there's any better place that that fits under complete streets yeah that's true fit it there that's great and one other actually a couple other things one is I mean we had something about expanding recreational areas I just want to put forward the idea that the river itself may constitute a recreational area and I don't know how to say that exactly in here but I just want to recognize that that may be an opportunity for expanding recreational opportunities and also just as a part of that I just want to also make a note that I think the river conservancy has a I mean we had from the river conservancy here a few weeks ago talking about the facing the river approach to development and I would I would just love to engage them somehow in a way of like maybe doing a little thinking or a little visioning about what we could be doing so I just want to sort of seed that idea right now see where that goes okay so I have one we do have as an action item which we probably would engage someone like the river conservancy develop a plan to improve existing riverfront access from Gateway, MHS, bike path, rec field etc well maybe that's already covered that sounds good to me you know there is I'm sort of intrigued by this idea that came up during our conversation with the rec department and the senior censor in talking about working through the non-recreation needs of non-seniors and so what do non-seniors need that is outside of the scope of the rec department and I didn't know where to put that I mean I know we're doing this feasibility study about the rec building or updating the rec building and so like it's sort of inherent in that like what are the needs of the community but it sort of felt like maybe that could be an action step in terms of thinking through those needs when you're saying non-recreation needs are you talking about non-exercise right well just whatever would be not falling under the rec department right now so what might that be it might be easier to think of I'm having trouble imagining what you mean so I mean it just has some examples I mean I think of needs that say young adults in our community might need around like financial literacy or like the educational needs of like young mothers as they're like trying to figure out what that is or single parents even or I mean it's something that we've talked before like what are the community needs community needs are like affordable childcare of families you know like there's a whole bunch of things that I can just imagine might be appropriate for our community services department that are not recreation what are the gaps in community services and not specific to seniors and I don't know that we can depend on the feasibility today to do that for us that's about a building right it's perfect for the social equity community right but actually though I just want to put in one more plug for like I would love to maybe this is a social equity thing as well but like thinking through how are we addressing energy issues for renters yes whether there's a split incentive or not a split incentive but we can come up with a program with green power great if not can we look at tax did that get a lot of dots not get a lot of dots bring it up again get a lot of dots maybe I'll just like really get that hopefully into the committee just saying still in my radar that was fine I just wanted to say it out you're sneaking it in the back just pushing on it if you're going to do that then I want my tag sale what's that I'm so in favor of tag sale I think it's great I don't get dots I don't know thank you for enduring my comments I'm off to thoughts or comments on objections silence is implicitness so I think if that's the case then with those changes you should formally adopt it so then we'll give you a cleanup version but you should adopt it because then that becomes the policy of the council and further any other people just one final thought is that as we did all these tours we all kind of made this discussion about like wouldn't it be nice to have a Montpelier day where everybody got to see all the services that the city provides and I don't know that it's a high priority to do but I would sort of it seems like it's feasible in the next year to do something like that so I would just like to mention that as something that we might support I love the idea of like a Montpelier day where we're featuring city departments where maybe this is also we can combine that with like the job fair community service fair community services fair where we're like you're the committees that exist and maybe we can do a tax maybe we can have a tax with your councillors and coffee with your councillors sure anyway open to that idea I don't know how much but I also realize that this is our work plan for the next year and we didn't want to lose that because it just seemed like something we all really so what I thought was that Council Member Krueger would head that up I don't know right we can plan it for next spring we'll keep yeah we can keep talking about it we should schedule among the construction as sort of a good feeling day that's my top of the year yeah after closed down construction I mean there's no further comments so you want a motion to that would be good do you want approved or adopted I just say that you adopt it as part of the changes discussed tonight so my motion would be that the council adopt the strategic outcome and priority activities as edited second hi great thank you all thank you for doing the process and going through this great this is a great list I'm excited about it okay so I think that is the end of our regular business year the one here is not an exact process it is nevermind okay council reports let's start with Donna I would like to announce that the complete street committee is inviting all citizens of Montpelier and nearby friends and neighbors to rename the popular recreation path that travels along the Winooski river from Granite Street to Junction Dog River Road open July 1 and go through September 3 there are going to be forms online as well as distributed there is going to be a box in City Hall to put your form in and there is going to be a $100 gift certificate from Onion River Outdoors so look for name the path contest sheet or go online and find it after July 1 can we get a link to that on our main page to make that easy is there is no criteria or limits or off limits it is all in this sheet it is a wonderful form that Jamie worked with Gary and the committee to put together and just the other thing I have a granddaughter that I have to pick up from a babysitter and I am going to be hard pressed to be here much after 1030 okay I don't know if it is totally appropriate I would like to express disgust for the U.S. Supreme Court decision today Janice versus AFSCME which effectively makes Vermont a right to work for less states and I think it is appropriate just to show some appreciation for our public employee unions here in the city they make our city a better place I will be at Baguitos again tomorrow morning 830-930 to show up and talk I have continued to enjoy and learn from that experience I also want to mention that because I know not everyone is a breakfast sort of person and because a lot of this really is for me to figure this job out eventually I am trying to find people to take a walk with at some other point I have walked with my friend John Snell not too long ago and also with a couple of other folks whose names are escaping me because it is too late but I will be looking for people to have conversations with about how I can do this job better how Montpelier can be a better place and if you think you have ideas come find me be careful including you John anytime you were the one with people I forgot sorry Kyle so I hope to see lots of folks out at our parade for anyone who has ever joined me in the parade for city council on parade day it is the most fun thing ever and I am assuming we will be in the same place that we were last year I think I still have the banner from last year so I hope that there are other council members who are planning on joining us in the parade because truly a hill takes parade seriously so I hope to see lots of folks out on the streets that day and there is lots of other activities going on that day too I think there is stuff going on at the state house and there is plenty of things going on here in town so hopefully everybody can get out and see the things that we are doing here in town I made my family delay leaving for a vacation so I could be in the parade oh yes it is a great experience it is it is so fun I have been in the parade so many times but this is a new thing for me as a council member I had two things one is that I am hearing some comments about proposed route changes for green mountain transit and obviously my pillar city council does not get to tell green mountain transit what to do but I wonder if there is some role to be had and at least ask them to come and talk to us about it and then the other thing is a comment directed to anyone who is still at home watching the meeting which is that there is a phenomenon that I have noticed that if very often someone comes to the city council meeting to talk about a specific item and once they are here they realize that there might be two or three other items on the agenda that they are interested in that they also step forth and address the council about and that makes me say folks come out to your meetings and because we want to hear from you they are even more interesting if you are here in person if you are watching online on TV I wanted to thank Jamie Granfield for putting up the new committee application online she has made some revisions to that folks information is going to be a little more private their personal contact information and I really appreciate her quick turnaround on that while we still get all the information that we need to make good decisions so I think this is great progress there is something else I wanted to thank Jamie for and I don't remember so I will send her an email I also wanted to say that since school is out this is a really hard time a year for kids who rely on school meals for multiple meals a day so I noticed that Jess Basics put out a call for food pantry donations because they do see increased need at this time of year and then I also wanted to point folks to USDA's Summer Food Rocks website which is a finder for a summer meal site nearest you and I know folks in the city have been working really hard to make sure that the meal site here in Montpelier happens again this year and it seems like hopefully fingers crossed it is going to happen but it's I just want to bear in mind that this is a hard time a year for those families and to make that resource available I think that's it So I want to say a quick congratulations to the Steeble Montpelier Coalition as well as the Vermont River Conservancy they just got a gigantic grant a candidate foundation so they can be empowered to do a lot of work soon I'm so grateful the candidate foundation seeing fits a invest in our community and just a reminder that I will not be here at the July meeting so I may weigh in early on some things that I know are going to be on that agenda so there's that and then just on a other more general no I just want to say the news lately has been so difficult and so bad that I mean we all deal with it in different ways and so just a reminder I have grace for each other as we all deal with difficult news and I just want to say that I'm so thankful for all of you I mean one of my ways of coping with difficulty in other political arenas is through focusing on what we do have control of and that is in our city in our community so thank you for all of you and I'm thankful for this city and we don't always agree all the time but I appreciate that we can have such direct interactions that change here thank you for being a part of that just to note that early voting for the August 14th primary actually began this afternoon I took my first vote so that's happening overseas request should be on the way by Friday deadline also the sort of ad hoc non-citizen voting working group met last week and came up with a rough draft of a possible charter change we bounced it over to Dan Richardson to lawyerize and there's going to be another I haven't put this out there yet but there'll be the next big community meeting will be 6.30 on Tuesday July 24th and yeah I'm clearly in an advocacy position so if it does get on the ballot I will recuse myself from certifying the final vote just a couple of things before we have anything we do have tomorrow is our TIF application before Vamont Economic Progress Council it's a fairly lengthy day the mayor is spending most of it Sue and I will be involved in it most of the day any of you are welcome to come in especially the afternoon part there's no formal role for you it's not points against us or you if you don't come but it's open and if you'd like to see what's going on that's that we have a group to talk about some of the parking pressures and I think even some root stuff Ken Jones resident but also state official has been kind of leading it it includes someone from national life people from the downtown people from GMT city of course state BGS about the short term crunch that we have but also what some of the changes are going to be and we are looking at there's a good possibility of at least one not too remote lot being secured in fact we're in final stages with that I can't really announce it yet but it's close and then how can we use maybe reroute the shuttles the schools are involved in this as well they're talking about maybe using some public transit to meet some of their older kid transportation needs so could routes be set to coordinate looking at how could the circulator fit into this the capital shuttle how could all that be done and are there other strategies that can be used so it's coming together we've been meeting about once a month and I think every meeting progress has been made and there's actually actions have been like I said securing the spot for example have been so we're finding our way through okay so we need to go into executive session this is one of the ones we need to find no I move pursuant to one VSA section 313A2 we're going to executive session is there a second? second you say aye aye we will not be returning