 the board of finance to order at five thirty four. And the first item on the agenda is the agenda. Is there a motion to adopt the agenda? Thank you. Is there a second? President Paul? And any discussion? All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion carries. Is there anyone who would like to speak to public forum? Sharon Busherwood? Sharon, I have enabled you to speak. Thank you so much. When you get to item, I don't know what the item number is, but it has to do with the side path for Queen City Park. I'm not sure I'm orienting myself, and I didn't see a map that went with that. And I just, I know it talked about the businesses, the industrial businesses making that request also. So I just wanted to make sure I knew where this was. And if there was a map attached, I missed it. So my apologies, but that's my only request. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not seeing any other members of the public. I am going to go ahead and close the public forum. And move on to item number three, the consent agenda. Those of you who are regular members or attendees of board of finance, which is pretty much everyone in this room will notice that we are utilizing the consent agenda a little more. Item 3.02 is a grant, and it is an amendment to a grant, but since it was only an amendment for $12,000, we put that on consent. Also, every year, we accept what VTrand has put forward for mileage reimbursement. And since that is not something over which we have control, I also put that on the consent agenda. So those are the other two items in addition to our meeting minutes. Do I have a motion on the consent agenda? I would make a motion to announce the consent agenda. Thank you. Councilor McGee, is there a second? Second. Great. President Paul, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion carries. And the mayor has arrived just in time for item number four, communication. And we have Director Oliswari here to talk about it. If you want to kick us off, Kara. Sure. Good evening, everyone. This is a communication, as you can see from my memo related to a resolution passed during our budget resolution for this fiscal year. It involves the dispersal of a million dollars from our ARPA funds, the American Rescue Plan Act funds. I outlined the process we went through. I see Director Pine is also in the room, so Director Pine was deeply involved. So if he wants to jump in, he may. We made the application as low barrier as possible. We had many applicants. We convened a review committee with members from REIB, CEDO, my department, City Council, as well as the Howard Center, who was not an applicant. We met several times at the end of last year and several times at the beginning of this year. And you'll see on the second page of the memo are the award amounts and the awardees listed in alphabetical order. And this is something we're very pleased about. It was a very robust process with lots of discussion. We feel the funds are well distributed to a variety of nonprofits serving different sectors in our city. I'm here to take any questions if you like. Otherwise, this is simply a communication. I'll just maybe comment. Thank you so much. I think two organizations did reach out to say what they have to see from the city. And I think one question came up from them. One of the organizations is asking, okay, what they submitted as a proposal. Is there a way for them to change the scope, for example? And if so, what would be the process to request a change? Someone else had reached out to me. What I will say is not every awardee was awarded the full amount they requested, which means that they will need to tailor their applications or the projects that they had proposed to fit within the funding if they do not have supplemental funding to augment whatever program or proposal they put forth. So I have already emailed a few of those awardees to discuss that with them. And that would simply be working through me because I'll be managing this grant. And then I will be touching base with them quarterly as they do the quarterly reporting. Wonderful. And I mean, just appreciative of the amount of work that you have done to make this happen. And thank you. Thank you. I just have one question. Kara, you had said that you say that you will, you'll keep in touch with these organizations that they will or that they will submit quarterly reports. So if you don't receive a quarterly report, you will follow up? Yes, I will follow up. I have everyone's email. I've emailed them all directly with their award letters. Contracts will go out next week and then funds will be dispersed shortly thereafter. Because I work with a member of our Clerk Treasurer's Office who's doing the quarterly reporting to the U.S. Treasury on these funds, it'll be a flow of information. So I expect I'll be in contact with all of them regularly. And then the other question is there's no is there, I shouldn't say, ask it like that. Is there any requirement at all that, for example, if you get, you know, $20,000 that you're spending $5,000 a quarter? No. It really depends because each program was really varied. You know, some of them are going for staff costs and some of them are going to purchase an item, for example. So no. As soon as the funds have all been utilized, they don't need any more quarterly reporting. Most of them felt they would use the funds within a 12-month period. And my last question is I don't know. There's an awful lot of, you know, there's a lot of organizations. You know, I'm thinking that there are a number of city counselors who probably would be interested to know, you know, what these organizations are doing with these funds, but not in a way that we're going to take, you know, lots and lots of time to go through it one by one. I don't know how long these quarterly reports are going to be. I mean, they could be one page, they could be five. If they're five, that's a lot of pages. But if it turns out that they are fairly short, maybe, you know, maybe in some way, you can submit them for a consent agenda so that if there is an interest, you know, people can see how the funds are being spent. And it's also a great way to know what organizations are doing. So I'll leave that to you. If we can do that, it's a lot of organization. So I'll leave it to you. It is, but we have, as part of the process with the committee, I do have a synopsis of each proposal. So I can probably put something together that would inform Board of Finance and Council what types of projects these funds are going towards. All right. Well, there's 25 of them. So, you know, whatever you feel is best and not an overburden, you know, overly burdensome. Of course, sure. Thanks very much. And my pleasure. Councilor Zhang, thank you so much for your work on this. Thanks. Okay. If there's no further questions, I think it makes sense to accept the communication with us on file. Okay. Thank you, Councilor McGee. It's second by Councilor Zhang. Any further discussion before going to vote? Let me also echo the thanks to Kara and the team that worked on this. This was a big undertaking and sustained effort over a long period of time. Thank you for bringing it to conclusion and getting this money out into the community. With that, I'll vote on the motion to accept the communication. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Okay. Now we move to 5.01, which is another American Rescue Plan item. This is a budget neutral adjustment related to a variety of the homeless crisis budget lines that was adopted by the council about a year ago. You guys want to come on up? It's exciting to have you. We've had, you know, take a lot of actions at this board and at the council on various contracts and elements of the Elmwood Shelter over the recent months. It's great to have you guys here with it actually operating. You know, I'm not sure you really prepared a full update, but you want to say a couple words about where we stand with the project and this initiative. I'll throw it on a high level. Yeah, I can fill in the details for what you're being asked. Essentially the shelter opened the first week of February and we had a gradual moving in of people who were deemed through the outreach team from the various organizations into outreach to folks experiencing homelessness. And we have 35 folks were selected with the 35 beds to be moved in, you know, and in stages if you will. I think the take home was both heartening and disheartening at the same time that we had not only 35 who were admitted, but another 40 or so who did not or not admitted at that time. Doesn't mean they won't have a chance down the road. If successful folks will be transitioning from shelter to housing, it's the whole goal here. But the need is enormous and there were some in the community who had doubts about whether this would be something that folks would choose to to stay in. And I think we proved that in fact as an alternative to what folks are enduring outdoors, which is where folks are coming from. This is a far better more dignified humane way. So far so good. It's fully staffed and operating and there's been already some pretty, I'd say, positive outcomes from the project. I want to thank Samantha for the development of it and Sarah for pulling together extensive services that I think will serve as a model that we'll look back on and say that that approach is the right one. I'll just add actually I'm going to jump in out of turn, but I'm really excited to share this. We had our first exit to permanent housing this week. So someone who was just in shelter a short period of time who was chronically homeless and has moved into permanent supportive housing. So that's we have we've already opened another another bed available to someone else on the waitlist. Well, thanks for sharing that Sarah. That's great. And yes, thank you to Sarah and Samantha for leading this enormous effort to get us to this point. And it's exciting to have seen that kind of positive outcome already. What would you like to say about this budget? Just let me have to take that. Yeah, I think as you mentioned, it's a budget neutral adjustment. A year ago, we had authorization from city council for the 2.975 million to address the cute homelessness crisis. And we had kind of a rough plan of how that money was going to be spent. And this amendment is just recognizing that developing the shelter was more expensive than we had anticipated. And so we move this is to move some of the money from operations to cover those development costs. In that time, we also are Sarah and her team were successful in getting additional funds for operating the shelter from the state. And that's what allows us to make this move. I know Marcella and Sarah also have been successful in identifying other sources of funds to operate the community resource center. I think the other thing I wanted to flag when we talked about this project a year ago, we initially thought that the community resource center and the shelter would be co-located as an efficient use of resources that I think as everyone knows is not the case. It was a request of the neighbors and honestly a requirement of Champlain Housing Trust for taking on the operations of the shelter that just felt like that would be too many people on the site. So I just wanted to flag that because it's a change from how this budget was initially approved. It was great to write this memo realize that Omen opened exactly one year after that approval. So in addition to Omen opening, I just there were other goals identified in this plan. The first was to hire the position that Sarah is filling. I think everyone can recognize how much of a success that has been and then operating the continuing to operate the community resource center and to make investments in the coordinated entry program. So we've made progress, as is mentioned in this memo, on all of the goals identified for this funding a year ago. It's just we've got a room at making a request to move some of the money around. Thanks worth knowing you. The community resource center continues to be a very significant resource during during this period. Actually visited the center last week and spoke to a number of folks there and I think the reports are they're seeing as many as 150 people a day that are using the center at this point. So it's really important the city's been able to continue to support really be a driving force behind this. I mean, we're not operating it, but I don't think the center would be happening had a team and cars team but push for this over the last year. So with that floors open for questions, discussion, motion. Yeah, I'm happy to make the motion as indicated on board up. Great. Thank you, Councilor Jang, seconded by President Paul. Further discussion? Yes. And I was just wondering about the waitlist and also the profile of people who are utilizing the services right now. Are we talking about, you know, parents in it? Are those beds occupied by two? A couple or elderly? So basically the profile of people who are being housed right now and also a little bit about the waitlist. How many people are on the waitlist? Sarah knows more, but I'm going to add that the number of couples that saw this shelter was a bit surprising. It shouldn't perhaps be surprising because in traditional shelters you can't be together as a couple. So perhaps that shouldn't have been a surprise, but we have seen more demand for people wanting to be together than we had envisioned. And the site, I'm going to let Sarah answer the question about profile. The site was designed with five shelters being able to accommodate two people upon their request. So that's the maximum right now at the site. But as as Brian mentioned, there has been more demand than anticipated for those W units. Yeah. And in terms of the sort of profile, so that I was part of the referral team that reviewed the folks who were interested in moving there. And we did prioritize people who are unsheltered. So there were, there have to date have been about 80 referrals that have been sent for the Elmwood shelter. Some of those folks are in motels or in other shelters right now and wanting to move somewhere in congregate shelter settings that would prefer to be in a non or semi non congregate setting have their own shelter unit. But we did prioritize people who were unsheltered. Doesn't mean that somebody who is in shelter wouldn't be eligible, but that was our priority that was set by AHS regarding our funding. And we the site does not accommodate children. So anyone over the age of 18 is allowed on site. We do not. I don't believe that we have any parents. They wouldn't be parenting at the time parents. We did, I think, have one person who has shared custody of a child or well, I guess, visitation of a child who's not within her custody. So, but other than that, they're single individuals or couples, adult couples. Thank you. That's very helpful. And no elderlies over 65 years old being house there right now. That's a good question. I'm not sure that I remember necessarily looking at age range. But just based off of my observations, having been at the shelter a few times, I know that there's that there's at least one person who I would assume is over the age of 60. Generally, we don't see a high number of senior citizens who are unsheltered. But I wanted to visit. Well, I guess reach out to you to say, hey, can you bring me I want to meet the people and see how it's going. Well, that that's also a really good question and something that we would have to talk about. We're really bound by confidentiality and wanting to maintain confidentiality on the site. So, typically, we're not open to visitors. But we could certainly we were hoping to set up some meal trains or have, you know, volunteers from the community to come in and serve a meal to folks. And if that's something that you're interested in, we can certainly follow up around that. Ali, I'd like to talk to you about that more. Okay, wonderful. Thank you guys. President Paul, go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that I understood your answer to counselor Chang's question. You had mentioned the number 80, Sarah. Did you mean 80 on the wait list? In addition to the people that are now currently housed there. So that wasn't the total number that came to you. That's the number over and above what you could house. Is that right? Well, that is true. So there are we received 80 referrals total that numbers likely higher at this point. But something I did want to mention is that related to the extreme cold weather shelter. I checked in everyone who came to that shelter at the Miller Center. And then cross checked that to the best of my memory with the people who were on the referral list or moving into or who had been accepted into Elmwood or who were waiting on that referral list. And I think there was one or two couples and two or three individuals who were either moving into Elmwood or who were on that referral list, which said to me that there's, you know, potentially a large number of people who are on sheltered or minimum housing insecure who have not who are who are not interested in moving to Elmwood disconnected from the system, you know, either by choice or barrier. So we we saw almost 60 people at the extreme cold weather shelter just for comparison sake. Okay. All right. Thanks so much. Thank you for all of this. Good. Echo. Thanks for all the work that you've done to get us to this point of having folks move into the shelter community and work and standing up the extreme cold weather shelter. I know that that was on the consent agenda, but I just wanted to say thank you. I know that that was a challenging four days and deeply appreciate the work that went into that. And so thank you. Without the mayor's leadership and the council support, none of this is going to happen. Thank you. So well, thank you to the board for for this discussion. I do think we we need a recommendation for the full council on this. I think we're I don't think we've got a motion on this yet. Yeah, you do. Do we have a question? Okay. Sorry. We're ready for a vote. All those in favor of a motion, please say aye. All right. Aye. All right. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you. Brian Smith. That's Sarah. More to come soon. Yes. This brings us to five point. Still we're still on that shelter, right? To update contracts for the Elmwood emergency shelter community. We're going to say a little more. Sure. I think this is also a budget neutral amendment again as we were in a flurry of working to get the shelter open as quickly as possible. We move some of the scope from KBS builders to our local contractor on site. Second Gen, which requires increasing the guaranteed or the maximum limiting amount of their contract. So that's what this request is. Great. Support clearing this. Sorry. Ready for a motion? Yes, we can. I'd be happy to make the motion. It's recommended on board folks. Okay. Great. Thank you for working flexibly to make this, make this happen. Indication that, you know, was, was not easy to get the final details in place. So thank you, Smith. If there's no further discussion, we'll go to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Great. Thank you. Thanks again. All right. 5.03, Queen City Park Road, side path, each strands grant on permit agreement. This is a TPW. I am welcome. City Engineer, Norm Baldwin. Norm, you want to kick this off? Yep. So we have tonight, our client that has three different elements to the request that are in the packet. Effectively is authorization for the director to execute the program for 1.03 million, along with City Council recommending accepting our commission, a capital committee to advance the funding for the project. In addition to request council authorized use at the ready consultant to support the product as well. So we have tonight Laura Wheelock and Philip Peterson, who are both managing the project. And maybe they can speak more directly to some of the questions I think Sharon had in terms of location. And I believe Laura can probably pull up a map that shows and indicates where the limits are. So I'll hand it over to Laura. I'd like Philip speak as the project manager. Sure. No problem. Yeah. Thank you so much, everyone for letting me speak. Philip Peterson of TPW. So Sharon, not councillor. I'm sure there's clarification where the path will be within the segment of Queen City Park. So I can kind of answer this question and highlight that this is only one segment of five within the scoping study completed by the CCRPC. And that document is available on their website. And as Laura told me earlier, the segment is specifically between Central and Austin and mimics what is labeled as segment B within that study. I think it's important to clarify that we've been in contact with South Burlington staff and they have some intent to apply for some of their own segments to go out towards Route 7 this summer. And their hope is to pursue construction for their parts. So hopefully that kind of clarifies that question. I think the one piece just to add is that the right now they've preferred alignment as presented and accepted in the final study shows the path on the east side of the road, which is on Burton's along Burton's property. Staff has been working with Burton as they submit their redevelopment plans to ensure that there is space to collaborate with their work product as well. I would just add one more piece and that is right now we had an advisory lane within that space and there's a considerable amount of commercial traffic. And so we're trying to separate the pedestrian and bike activities from the vehicle traffic that's there. We originally thought that there was a lower volume, less exposure and challenge. And obviously as we know more about existing condition and want to advance improving that system, this is where this funding will really be kind of a huge improvement to the condition on that road. There's been a lot of conversations from the adjacent neighborhood itself, Burlington and Central Ave. So we think this will address a lot of people's concerns, at least on our segment of the roadway. The long-term goal is to really connect the Greenway, Burlington's Greenway with South Burlington's bike network that connect into the Route 7. I'm sorry. Great. The floor is open for questions or action. Councillor Dain. Yep. I would like to make the motion as indicated on the bar dock. It seems it's three different elements, making them all together. Excellent. Thank you. Councillor Dain. We have a second motion. Seconded by President Paul. Further discussion? None. We'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Great. Thank you all. Authorizations execute a lease amendment number two to the General Service Administration's lease at the airport. I see a major delegation from Burkina, America. Welcome. Do I kick it off, Nick? Absolutely. So this is a relatively simple amendment to an existing lease, specifically with the General Services Administration, who then deals directly with the Transportation Security Administration. So this is an amendment to their existing lease going from 700 square feet on the first floor up to the second floor. If you're familiar with the terminal, this is the old administration offices up on the second floor level. And they'll move there at an additional cost and additional square foot. Again, this is an amendment to the GSA that's really it. Questions for the airport? Is this office space newly created with the renovation that was done at the airport or the space that they're moving into? It is not. So this is previously existing office space. We are renovating it slightly. A couple months ago, we came to you with a small, I think, yeah, we came with a small amendment to reconstruct it, rehab, design it, and then rehabilitate it. Existing space, not new. Okay. Go ahead, President Paul. Thanks. I'll make the motion as recommended on Board Docks. Seconded by Councilor Hightar. Discussion of the motion? Seeing none, we'll go to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. This brings us to 5.05. Another air parade. Point of information, Mr. Mayor. I don't know. It may be my internet. I was out, but I wanted to ask one question, and I think it's more for you. I see, okay. Yeah. Is it better? Okay. And I was just wondering, you know, the checklist about the airport. I was just wondering what will it take to now make sure that any items from the airport will also go to TUC before it comes to border finance or before it goes to the food council to add just an element of just building relationship between the airport and a city committee. What will it take to do that? So, Mr. Jane, it's an interesting question. I mean, we do have this commission that we defer to that all. Is there any item that comes here? So maybe you can speak to Nick. I mean, I would say the route that historically most items taken would be through the commission. Very rarely do we act. I think that hasn't been reviewed and endorsed by the commission. And then if it's a financial item to the board of finance, I mean, if it was more of a policy item, I think we have had things that go to TUC. But that's, you know, I'm not sure how often that happens. Can you speak to that? Yeah, I would say it is unusual to go to TUC, but every item that comes before this board and or the full city council always goes in front of the now seven member airport commission, five members of the city of Burlington, one from Wanooski and one from the city of South Burlington. We hold monthly meetings that are much more thorough both from a financial presentation, engineering presentation, directors report as well as every action item prior to it coming to this particular board. We've gone to TUC a few times, specifically with utility or energy type. Yeah, that's what I was going to say, like when we've had climate related items, I can think of a couple, at least one or two items have gone to last six months, right? That's right. And we're scheduled for the March meeting in TUC as well. And how can you speak to, did we do that proactively or the council send it to TUC somehow? Or we just realized that that was sort of getting going kind of beyond financial issues and normal operations. So it makes sense to bring them in. Yeah, I think it's fair to say that the two committee invited the airport, specifically councillor, while all the two committee in general. I think there's a couple of citizens to that were very interested in the sustainability report specifically. Yeah. And that's one of the reasons there was a presentation attitude. So, Councilor Chang, I hope that discussion was a little, I mean, I think that's how we have done it. I would be, I think it's served us pretty well. And I haven't heard, you know, maybe your question is indication of some concern about that process. I have not been aware there's been any sense that there hasn't been that this isn't working this way. I think it would certainly be a significant administrative addition to say everything from the airport would go through TUC. I think I'd be kind of concerned about that. But I think this practice of involving TUC in climate related issues makes sense to me. And maybe there's some other kind of, you know, transportation policy related items we certainly wouldn't. You're saying that taxi issues, I mean, we're supposed to have this whole other board, right, for taxi issues. But when that's been not working well, and you have to agree that gets into broader kind of policy issues. So I think that's sort of the division, financial issues come here, climate, transportation policy issues, we try to identify them and loop TUC in as well. So does that seem like a workable system, or are you suggesting a change? Yeah, I mean, it is just that since the general aviation issue came up like from last year over the past two years, it was very clear that there has been a disconnect between the airport and the city council. It was very obvious and everybody recognized it. And to the director's point, I think they go to TUC only when they are invited to speak about something. But my question is how do we just build a better relationship, knowing that DPW has a committee they go to, Baxenwright has a committee they go to, even though they have commissions to, but there is a disconnect between committees and the airport and how do we facilitate that? And from my perspective, adding a checklist, did they go to TUC to at least do a presentation without being invited? I think to bring some level of questions and understanding, I think it would be very beneficial because this board is more about just a finance aspect of the airport, but not about the day-to-day operation and how do we build that relationship was just my question. And to me, the checklist adding it would solve that issue. I think I understand the spirit of your suggestion. I think we can have it on the things that's considered as we're trying to make sure we have the right grab, make sure we're identifying the two connections when appropriate. Is there further, I've lost track of where we are. We have with this item, we have, we have a motion and a second or we have nine. Yeah, we don't, we're still waiting for a motion for a 5.0. We're on 5.05, 5.05. You're now on 5.05, I'm sorry, my apologies. I guess it was a little confusing. Councillor Jang kind of made a point of information as we were thinking we completed 5.04, we had the vote on it. So we've addressed that point of information. I hope this is sufficiently 5.05 is now on the floor. How would the board like to proceed with it? I'll make that. So maybe we haven't even really teed it up yet. So sorry, now we can go ahead. Yeah, why don't you teed this one up? That's a substantial financial. This is a substantial changes of substantial amendment to an existing, well, it's actually an additional grant, but it adds to an existing grant. Last August, we came to the board and the city council and the airport commission and presented a brand new grant that Larry and Marie have extensively worked on to rehabilitate one of our taxiways, which is directly adjacent our terminal building. It's a primary taxiway for the airport. We weren't 100% sure and the FAA kind of confirmed with the amount of funds that they granted us that we would get the entire grant that particular round, which we didn't, which is now why we're here today to add to that particular project and receive a second grant, which extends this particular taxiway into another taxiway into what's called Alpha Indian Charlie. This is not just a new grant. This is also an amendment to amendments to existing contracts, one with S.T. Ireland and one with McFarland Johnson, our engineering consultant firm. The only thing I would add is when we first came here, we had to remove the initial engineering for this portion of the project. We bid it with it. This allows us to recoup those monies we spent on engineering for this portion because they weren't eligible at the time because that alternate got removed. So this also allows us to recoup those and generate these. Great. Okay. Now the questions on the floor are kind of more likely to proceed. Questions? Ready for action? Present ball. Yeah. So I'll make the motion as indicated on board docs. Just to have one more question or just to reaffirm that if I made that or actually if you want to get a second and then I'll ask the question. Okay. Sure. Is there a second for the motion? Second by Councillor McGee, go ahead. Present ball. Great. Thank you. So I just wanted to make sure that none of the, although there are grants, none of the grants came with any sort of, and there are some passenger, what are those called? Silly charge. Yes, those. There are no funds that are coming out of the airport budget to fund this. Is that correct? So each one of these grants, you're correct, has a 10% local match. Those local matches are then applied in a very complex passenger facility charge program. We have to apply not just to receive them from the airlines, but also to expend them on certain projects. We just amended one about a six to eight, 12 months ago, and we're preparing to amend further PFC charges to capture all of these local fees, local charges, not just this grant, but all of our grants that we received, or most of our grants that we received. Okay. Great. Thank you. Councillor Jenner. Go ahead, Councillor Jenner. No, it seemed that we have a motion, I wanted to second it. Sorry. Okay. Great. We do actually, I know it's hard with the camera sometimes. We have it, we've been properly motioned and seconded by Councillor McGee, so we're ready for further discussion or action. Seeing no more questions, I'm going to go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. All right. I believe that leaves us with just one final item, which is the Board of Finance approval only because it's an item of less than $100,000. And I think this is an item that our councillors are going to be happy to see. We have been talking about this for quite some time and pursuing RFP for this in recent months. And I see that Charles Dillard is here to speak to us. Charles, do you want to kick this off? Sure. I do. Thanks, Mayor. Yes, this is a request to authorize execution of the contract for the amount stated with Nelson Nygaard, a consultant out of Boston, actually a national firm, to lead this study, which will be, I would say, an overhaul and an update of the city's TDM policies and regulations. Nelson Nygaard is a national leader in TDM work. We are really happy that they ended up responding to the RFP. This study, as you said, Mayor, really was catalyzed by a council resolution in 2021 that calls for the study that will involve a review of existing policies and regulations, a review of best practices from around the country and the globe, in fact, and then a public engagement effort and, finally, implementation plan to get a new TDM program in Burlington. I'm happy to take any other specific questions if you have them. Thank you for that, Charles. President Paul. Thanks. I have a question. I didn't see it on that contract memo, and perhaps I missed it. About what the project timeline is. Yeah, it wasn't included in the memo. The project is slated to be just under a year at this point. We would be targeting December completion, I think. We were hoping to have it done by November. We've been pushed back a few weeks, though, so definitely by the end of the year. All right. So you think that the report that we would get would come to, I mean, could come to the City Council by December of 2023? Yeah, I think so. That's our goal. Okay. All right. I mean, I'm happy to make, if someone else wants to, please go ahead. If not, I'm happy to make the motion as recommended on Board Docs. I'll accept that as a motion. Do we have a second? Second by Councillor Jang, further discussion? Okay. Seeing none, let me just say thank you, Charles, for advancing this. I think this is a very helpful policy document of when it's done. I look forward to that and to, I will say we used, for people who haven't been around for as long as, I have at this point announced that my guard was, effectively, they advise the City on some of our early parking changes back around 2013, 2014. So I welcome them being involved again. I think that they will, they've been an effective consultant for us in the past. Councillor Hightower. Yeah, sorry. I realized that I did have a question on this, which was in the list of the City's priorities on this, and maybe, yeah, I thought it didn't have reduction of vehicle miles traveled or carbon emissions, which I thought maybe before we do the contract, we should add those two things. It should be obvious, but I think we have a long list of things and those two things aren't on there. So, or at least it wasn't in the RFP. Indeed. So the reduction of VMT vehicle miles traveled is really one of the underlying concepts here and oversight and that not being included. That's definitely one of the primary objectives here. Reducing emissions as well. That is, we did include that in the RFP, the statement that the Council has declared a climate emergency and definitely requested responses from consultants and asked questions about their approach to reducing emissions. And again, do you think the consultant we have selected has demonstrated some good work on both of those fronts? And so we'll definitely make sure that those are covered in great detail in the work and ultimately implemented in the plan. Great. Thank you. I was just remembering I glanced over the scope of work and was like, oh, that's not on the list. Thanks, Charles. Yeah. That's a genuine. Yeah. Thank you. Can you please speak a little bit about the past because it seemed the scope of work is very significantly big, right? And was wondering what the other RFP, were they more expensive, less expensive a little bit? Yeah. So as the memo states, initially the department had budgeted $75,000 for this. Nelson Nygaard did propose an optional task of about $19,000 that entails studying downtown and downtown parking and curb management policies and strategies. Some of that work has been done and is being done in support of the Great Streets Main Street project. And so we proposed back to them that Nelson Nygaard could augment that work that's being done to study the sort of greater downtown area and then some of the primary gateway corridors into and out of the city. In terms of comparison with the others, the middles that we received, the base fee was similar. But I think Nelson Nygaard, this consultant made a very strong case for why this optional task and better understanding parking and curb management strategies would be essential to making the TDM plan ultimately successful. And the only other thing I will say is that the department does have money as the memo states to cover that added cost. You know, I really do appreciate the scope around equitable community engagement because it goes beyond just the policy, the studies, but how do we also engage the constituents? I think it is key. Thank you. Okay, I believe we've got a motion on until we're ready for action. There's no further discussion. We will go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. All those opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you again, Charles. And thank you all. That I'm pretty sure we have the agenda and therefore if there's no objection, we will adjourn the Board of Finance at 626 p.m. And we'll see everyone, I guess in a couple weeks, right? Yes. Now we have no meetings next week. We have a free Monday. Public information meeting on Wednesday. March 1. Public information meeting on Wednesday, but no Board of Finance or City Council meeting next Monday on the eve of Town Meeting Day. For example, it's free Monday. We're back for City Council the 13th and Board of Finance the 20th. Thank you. Have a good evening. That we're adjourned. Thanks, everybody.