 I'd like to officially call the South Burlington City Council meeting of Tuesday, February 16th, 2021. Call it to order. Welcome, everyone. And for the second agenda item, are there any additions, deletions? Conference will now be recorded. Are there any deletions, additions or changes in order of agenda items? We'll move on to announcements. What's an announcement? Comments from the public. Oh, I'm sorry. Geez, I do that all the time, don't I? Okay, I'm sorry. Comments and questions from the public, not related to the agenda. Okay, Megan has arrived. Good. Okay, seeing none, then we'll move on to announcements in the city manager's report. Are there any announcements? Tom? I had a resident that lives in Stonehenge reach out to me and you really can't win. It's a pendulum, but their comment was that the city is not towing cars enough and that it's very difficult and hard to get by when there's a lot of snow. So I told him it's a balance. We're constantly striking. We don't want to frustrate residents when we tow too frequently, when there's not enough snow to justify it. But he asked me to raise with the council, more precisely with Kevin Dorn tonight at the meeting, that it seems like Stonehenge has some impassable roadways as we politely buried cars that have been permanently on the road for long periods of time. Well, you are right. It is no win. Yeah. Thanks for having us, Noah. Yeah. Is Justin still on the call? Yeah, have you had very many towings? So we fixed a similar issue on East Terrace and I actually asked Chief Burke whether we guard was to do a sweep of East Terrace there. 24-7, whatever winter's version of 365 is in terms of overnight parking. So we have both residents and staff have mentioned it. I haven't heard about Stonehenge yet so thanks for passing it along. We'll drive through and if we find it's excessive and it's impairing the public's ability just to get to and fro as well as our ability to routinely do our job and also to note to Chief Burke asking them to do enforcement. Okay, that sounds fair. Tim. Just to note that I haven't seen any warning or ticket enforcement on my street at all and I've seen numerous cars parked overnight since December 1st. If the warning pending a snowstorm, yes. I mean, you can park on the street if there's no snow predicted. No, you're not supposed to park from midnight till 8 a.m., right? Thanks, Tim. Thanks for the feedback on that. You know, we will keep that in mind but the ordinance says you can't park overnight on any of the streets during this period of time. Oh, I stand corrected. So it doesn't have to be pending. But as Councilor Chittenden mentioned, it's a pendulum and a few years ago people complained to the council when we were towing and enforcing the ordinance on non-snowing nights. So here we are tonight. And so we set the policy. The ordinance is tow. When we do it is another issue. We could just leave it at that if we could. Okay. Are there any other announcements? I have one and it's not really an announcement. It just is a something that I will first, I want to officially recognize the contributions of Elizabeth Fitzgerald and Martin Lund for all their work on the, for years and years on the school board. And it's a, sometimes I think this is a thankless job but I think that really is a thankless job because you never seem to get it right. And we, at least we can as a city council get a few things right. But they have been really have dedicated a lot of time and energy and brain power in really working with the schools and maybe they didn't get everything right and we're still have some challenges ahead of us but that's kind of a constant. But I do want to recognize them and thank them for their work. Martin of course is going to continue representing South Burlington as a legislator. So he's still working for us. And Elizabeth is going to get a break that she sorely deserves and probably needs. So just on behalf of the council, I want to thank them. And there is a more formal recognition. I think it's tomorrow night if they're meeting but I just, I wanted to get in early and make sure they knew that the council and the other side of the street appreciate their efforts. And the other thing is I wanted to clarify the process of the city's COVID response. I think it's been brought up many times in different comments by the public, by candidates as well as their supporters. And I think the information is erroneous and I just wanted to set the record straight about the process that we use because I think as a community and certainly as a council and the city administration, I think we did a stellar job and really working with the community and our staff and carefully shutting down the city when the governor asked us to do that. And the bottom line for us always was the safety first. We wanted to make sure that the employees of the city were safe and one of the, and then of course going to remote which was a whole learning curve for many people and it wasn't perfect at first. But there's been some comments that we kind of pathetically closed down the city and refused to have any committees meet. And while we did ask them not to meet, I think the public needs to know how that was generated and it was a unanimous decision by the council and I think a very thoughtful process by Kevin and either Kevin or I contacted every single committee chair and explained to them the dilemma before us, the fact that city employees were furloughed or were working from home and we were trying to maintain city services at a time when it was very difficult and a challenge and a lot of changes in order to do that properly. And every single chair of every committee with the exception of the DRB said that they were fine with taking a break. And I think one of the issues that did trouble me was the suggestion by a community member that we purposefully slowed down IZ by not having the planning commission meet. And I just wanna make it clear that our conversation that we had with Jessica and Paul Connors for that matter, I think in terms of when we, she was very confident with taking some time away because the, Ellen, I can't hear you, Ellen, we can't hear you. The committee had reached a lot of agreement and Paul was very clear about St. Paul Connors that he really understood where the go. And my conversation with Jessica was, well, maybe this was really good. The planning commission or the plan parties on the issues that they had talked about and be able to bring back some specific recommendations once they could meet again. Now, little did ever imagine that last March that this would be a 12 month program of COVID and meeting electronically. So I wanna put that out there. I think we had the best intentions. I think in terms of IZ, it worked out quite well because there was time to develop things. And every other committee said that they could wait until there were staff available to assist them. Affordable housing opted to go it alone because they weren't using city staff. And that was great. But I just didn't want this council and our management team to be criticized for doing something that I thought was really important and worked well. So that is my comment. Kevin, would you like to give the manager's report? And I'm gonna turn off my, I'm sorry, Megan, I'm sorry, did you have something? Excuse me. Yeah, I was just curious. It was something that I had noted too when we were going over the budget with regard to the maintenance of our parks and very little of the budget was used. And I had a conversation with you, Helen. Maybe, Kevin, you just addressed that. I know that it was marked that it was because of COVID, but I would just, I think it's important for the public to know the impact on all kinds of projects of the city. And I'm sorry. Can people hear me? I hear you. Okay, cause I just got one of those messages that I think Tim has that he turned off the video. So you can hear. So this will make it work. All right, well, maybe I'll try turning the camera back on and seeing if that works. I can't see anyone now. We can see you and we can hear you. All right, well, I can't see you. So, but I can hear you. But we'll leave it at that, I guess. And if this gets too hard, Megan, I may ask you to chair the meeting. Just cause it's, or at least let me know who wants to talk. So if there's no other announcements by council members, I'll ask, I'm sorry, there is. There was a question, yeah, with regard to the parks. It's something that I had noted when we were going over the budget, but I've also heard community members talk about the maintenance of our parks. And I don't know if Kevin's better placed in order to perhaps discuss that, the impact of having fewer employees that were able to be the liaison to our committees, perhaps also had impacts on other areas of the city government and the ongoing projects that there might be other impacts. So really good question, Megan, and really important point to make. Yes, the COVID-19 response and the furloughing of employees did have a pretty significant impact on the non-essential areas of city government. So as we all know, the police department, fire department and the water quality division of public works are all essential services that continued 24-7, 365, just as they always do. And I might add working through some pretty difficult situations, both for in their professional roles. And of course they've got families now and having to deal with the threat of COVID-19 and exposure, but they've done an extraordinary job. On the non-essential side, I say non-essential, but extremely important. Like all of our folks are extremely important. There were areas like in parks, at the library, some of our planning, of course, also affected by personnel changes that were absolutely affected. One of the worst things that came out of the COVID and so emblematic of what it's done is to communities is the inability of us to have the Sobu night out last summer. And that was a heavy lift for our staff, but it was such a huge return on investment for the community. In the parks, not only was COVID a factor, but we also had a couple of our lead people in Justin's department who went through some health related issues. Actually, who's been trying to program the parks has come up with some very creative ideas around virtual tours and that sort of thing, but there's no question that our COVID response did reduce our ability to program in the parks, do some maintenance in the parks. And we're hoping to catch, our park maintenance staff is pretty minimal to start with. And we often also rely on the Youth Conservation Corps, which they were unable to work this year too. So long and short of it is, the resident is correct that we did have to reduce our maintenance in our parks, in our program in our parks. We also had to reduce our programming in the library and in City Hall, but those were responses. The flip side of that is because of the furloughs, I will say to you because of the furloughs the fact that the federal government stepped up to help out with that, we ended unaudited, we ended fiscal 20 in the black. Tom can talk about that more, but other communities around our area were not able to do that. And so we sacrificed some of the services that the community expects from us based upon our fiscal predictions, which turned out to be reasonably correct. So I hope that answers your question, Megan, and the residents and we're looking forward to having a much more robust summer for everybody this year. Do you have another question, Megan? Oh, no, no, I was about fingers crossed. Oh, oh. Yeah, fingers crossed, not, yeah. On the 31st of March, the managers, the group of managers who I work most with, the same, pretty much the community outreach managers and select board chairs and city council chairs and others under the organizational, the immense organizational capacity of Charlie Baker and the CCRPC are gonna hold a round table discussion on next steps toward consolidating and sharing additional services. As you know, we are moving toward consolidated dispatch. Of course, we all benefit from Champlain Water District from the solid waste district from Green Mountain Transit and others, but we need to be thinking longer term about what are the next services that we might be able to share or consolidate between committees, communities, that'll be on the 31st in the morning. Also, next Monday, the 22nd, we're gonna also host a round table for legislators and policymakers on some areas of mental health where people are falling between the crack in services. Cracks, I should say, in services. Some of this involves people who have both displaying mental health and addiction issues. Some has to deal with just the lack of a place for people to go. That's kind of a multi-purpose place as opposed to dedicated to one malady or another. And again, people are falling between the cracks. And so I think we've done an enormous amount with the council support, with the other community support in getting community outreach out there. They're having an enormous impact, but there still are people falling between the cracks. And I think it's important for a government to recognize that and to try to do something about that. That'll be at 4.30 on next Monday. Thursday at noon, staff liaisons are all meeting to compare notes about how we're doing in staffing our committees, what things we might need to do by way of technology or by way of shared spaces on our website where we can improve our service to our committees and help them to be more efficient. We don't anticipate getting out of this this kind of online environment for quite some time. And so we'll be sharing ideas on Thursday. The school district tomorrow night, along with their time to talk with Elizabeth and... Geez. Elizabeth and Martin, the other school board member, Martin and Martin. I'm sorry, Martin. They've got a nice time set up for Elizabeth and Martin, but they're also gonna be talking about school impact fees tomorrow with the same consultant we use for transportation impact fees. Paul's gonna sit in and help with that tomorrow night. The budget video and the Garden Street video should both be up on our website and got pushed out on city news. We'll be pushing those out more. I think Tom did an outstanding job in presenting the budget in a video. And I struggled through some background noise to get the word out on Garden Street tiff vote. So we had an employee town hall meeting last week to bring all of our employees up to date with our thinking about when public buildings are gonna reopen. I've told them that it will not happen before March 15th and that we would get back to them in early March and see if March 15th is still even a realistic date return. And finally, I just wanna point out we have 127 residents at the Holiday Inn as of today. The funding for those programs is starting to run out. And so the state is working on some very preliminary ideas around how to support that population, that community of people. When the funding runs out, this has been a long standing problem in the state of Vermont helping people who are homeless or have other needs that are going unmet. While COVID was here and federal money was here, a lot of support could be provided. But when that goes away, if it goes away, the state needs to work with local communities to find ways to help support that community of people. So that's my report. Is that a budget adjustment issue or is that the big budget? Do you know, Kevin or Tom? It's federal money, Helen, coming through the state. It's the original CARES Act. It's the CARES Act money coming through the state. As you know, the homeless population has been very challenging to support with budget restrictions at the state level. On cold nights, many of our homeless population have been supported in hotels, but it hasn't been consistent. It's been very expensive. The problem is what happens now that when we've been able to do this through COVID, what happens if the federal money runs out? And so there are a lot of people, smart people in the state looking at this issue. Good. Thanks. Okay. Well, thank you. Reports from counselors on committee assignments. Have any committees met? Airport meets tomorrow. So I don't have anything new there. No? Okay. Moving on to then item six, the consent agenda. We have four items. The disbursements, approving a grant application for a VTrans 2021 small scale bicycle and pedestrian grants, a roadway impact fee of in-kind credit request for 324 Garden Street, and then authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute a contract for furniture for the South Burlington Public Library. I would entertain a move. Yeah, I'll move to approve the consent agenda. And I do have a question though. Okay. Zero second? Second. Okay. Thank you. Your question, Megan. Yeah. And I'm just looking, Justin's still here. So I am glad to see that there are gonna be improvements for pedestrians on Kennedy Drive. My only question is, is that the speed is still 40 miles per hour. And I wanted us to at least hear from you, just perhaps on the safety considerations around that decision to have that crosswalk on a 40 mile per hour road. That's possible. Yeah, sure. So the level of treatment necessary at the location, whether it's the flashing crosswalks that you see or if it becomes the second installation in Chittenden County, of what is technically referred to as a hawk signal. The only other one is over on route 15, where you can cross from Fannie Allen over to the Cumberland Farm Duncan Donuts. I'm sure most of us have, it's been there for about five years. So as we advance through final design, Megan, V-Trans has very specific, frankly, a matrix. It's kind of like an if then, based on the speed limit, the volume, site distances, both horizontal and vertical, that leads us to a final design solution, which we will then implement. That doesn't mean on a separate track and perhaps concurrently, if the council chooses to direct management to conduct a speed limit reevaluation of that area. But so that's how we would move forward absent any other changes in speed limit. Okay, thank you. I'm just glad that it was reviewed. And we're not here to talk about speed limits, but my motion stands. Thank you. Okay, any other questions or comments? Are you ready? I'll call the roll. Tom Chittenden? Aye. David Kaufman? Aye. Megan Emory? Aye. And Barrett? Aye. And the chair votes aye. So we have agreed to the consent agenda 5-0. Moving on to item seven, update and discussion on the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission Interstate 89 Corridor Study. And we have Charlie Baker with us. Welcome. And you sent us quite a bit of reading material, didn't you? Some of it was a little small, but. Apologize, I'll apologize more than once probably. I was hoping to review the PowerPoint, the presentation that I sent you tonight, not really for you to fully digest it or for any members of the public that are here tonight or watching remotely, but just to introduce it, we're really looking for feedback over the next four to six weeks. So if I can, if I'm able to share my screen, can someone enable that possibility? You're the new presenter, right? All right, thank you very much. And sorry, let me just make sure I can see you a little bit. So you can see my screen. I'm gonna walk you through this really quick. As you said, you've got this in your packet. There's a couple other attachments that are in the packet for anyone watching this remotely. You can get it on either South Burlington, obviously so council website or on the project website, which I'll introduce at the end of this. So if you remember after we did our last, well, let me just, sorry, I won't jump ahead. What I wanna go through tonight is a little bit of background just to kind of remind ourselves about the project. Review the latest concept plans for interchanges. And then what we're at the stage of seeking input on how we measure, how well the projects meet our project goals. And ultimately, hopefully in the May time, I'm sorry, in the April timeframe, we'd like to get some feedback and direction on which interchange investment should we keep alive. So all of these have a significant impact on South Burlington and the future of South Burlington in the longterm. And the study is about much more than the interchanges, but the interchanges can be significant, you know, either if or when they happen. And then we'll talk a little bit about the notion that comes after the interchanges, which is bundles. And so here's the background. Just to remind, we are dealing with a situation where we are looking at some modest or moderate growth projected in Jitman County out to 2050, 14% increase in population, 35% increase in employment and 25% increase in housing. So one thing you take away from that two things, I guess one household size continues to decrease. So housing demand is outpacing population growth. And also if we do get this, not many more jobs, we're also gonna be an employee importer. So we're creating, there will be more challenges for affordable housing or housing that's affordable within Jitman County. And people are probably gonna be driving further to get to jobs here in Jitman County. We looked at all these issues back a few years ago when we did our ECOS plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan part of it. Just to refresh, most of transportation funding goes into preserving the system. There's a land use component of trying to get more growth in our already built areas, which South Burlington has a good chunk of safety projects, not gonna review all these, at the bottom analysis, only investing in capacity expansion, only if everything else doesn't work, right? Also talked a lot in that plan about expanding transit service. This is almost a doubling of transit was in our current long range plan. And then we identified this need for this study, a concern that I-89 gets over capacity between 14 and 15. And that combined that problem spot also, what can we do for exit 14? Which is not really anything we've looked at real deeply before to come up with a solution. The MTP does result in some decrease in miles of travel and hours of travel, compared to not making all those improvements around the previous slide. We get an increase in non-automobile mode share. 90% of fleet electrification is part of the plan and a 77% reduction in fuel consumption. So our plan is designed to meet the state's energy and climate change goals. So that's just an important foundation, want to make sure you all had, and that is our intention still with this 89 study. We're not trying to undermine our ability to meet the energy and climate goals of the state. This is a slide just kind of putting this on a map where you can see the segment, even after we do all these improvements in technology and transit and carpooling, biking, walking, we still end up with this segment of 89. Sorry for those of you, this is the 89 corridor. There's 189 going over Shelburne Road. And you can see these segments in red with over 90 to 100% capacity. And that's really a concern that we're trying to address in this study. We're a part of it. The study is looking at the entire corridor within Chittenden County, from Franklin County to Washington County, 37 miles. Carly? Yes. The second to last slide or first to last slide. I was really curious as to there, yeah. Why that one, which is a new, it's a new suggestion there that on 189 there, why is it red already? Isn't that a new suggested construction? No, this is the existing network. Yeah, that's the morning rush hour coming down to Shelburne Road. Yeah, so that's, I mean, but again, this is forecast out 25 to 30 years with that additional population and employment growth, right? So this is a long range. And kind of building on the trends you see today, as Tim just mentioned, there is some peak hour congestion there now with more growth that gets more severe unless we do things to mitigate it. Thank you for clarifying. Sorry for stopping that. Could you just define for me what severe congestion means? Yeah, so you may be familiar with terms like level of service, where we put a letter of grade, which we typically talked about like seconds of delay at intersections. Okay. In this case, kind of the latest metric that's being used is called volume to capacity. So we look at the capacity of that road, like on an interstate, it might be close to 2,000 vehicles an hour per lane, which is a lot more than use it right now. So this is trying to indicate that there's a possibility that we could be really, actually without the mitigation efforts, without the transit, the biking, walking, all those other investments, we do go over capacity in that segment. And so I think what concerned us was we're making all these investments to try to get people to use other modes. And it still looks like we have a problem here that might require a more significant investment, but let's look at it and see what we can do to further mitigate it. So that's where we're at right now. And I think the interchange is kind of coming to that conversation. Obviously, exit 14 is the biggest and busiest and most congested location in the entire state. So we're just trying to be proactive and looking forward to seeing what can be done here. Does that help? Well, sort of, but in just in layman's terms, I mean, does that mean you did through five lights and before you can turn, is it backed up for a mile? Yeah, I just don't know how long. We're talking about the interstate here. So we're really saying it's like gridlock, like you can't move, it's over capacity. Okay. Yeah, and that's what triggered the concern. There are seven tasks to this project and I'll apologize another time for the focus on interchanges these last few months. That's just one task here. After we get through this task, we'll get more holistic and look at more programs and projects that could happen outside of the interchanges, but the interchanges are one major task here that we're trying to resolve. Charlie, sorry. Yeah, it's just, again, it's a clarification. The fleet electrification, is that on all vehicles in the state or is that just state vehicles and municipal vehicles? I was really curious on what fleet we're talking about. The entirety of all the passenger cars in the state. Okay. In this case, actually, we were talking about what we needed to do in Chittenden County to meet that 90% renewable by 2050 goal. So 90% of the cars and light trucks in Chittenden County would have to be electric. Thank you. Yeah. After, and also just clarity about expectations about this study, right? We're looking decades down the road here, two or three decades down the road. So we're gonna have probably three kinds of recommendations that come out of the study. A minor capital investments, maybe smaller projects that could be done earlier, operational investments like the ones in transit or all the types of programs to reduce traffic demand. And then a major capital investments. Anything that would be a new or updated exit or anything to the actual mainline interstate, those are gonna be much bigger and have to go through the federally required NEPA process and require an EIS after this. And so this is not the end of the process. So I'm getting a little feedback here. Oh, thank you. One note here at the bottom that the recommendations also, one of the important things coming out of the study will be a timing, a monitoring and triggering notion that let's keep track of what's happening and determine when different investments are needed. So there's nothing that when the study happens, these things all just happen. So there will be a long process that follows us. And then to get back into the study here, here's where the vision and goals currently stand. There's six major goals, safety, livability, mobility, environmental stewardship, economic access and then system preservation. And those all have some different objectives and we'll talk about the metrics of how do we measure if we're achieving these goals? And there's also a note down at the bottom here. Again, with this monitoring notion, there's a lot of uncertainty about long-term change, right? We're coming over in a COVID situation which has a lot of different issues happening right now. A lot of people are teleworking, traffic volumes are down right now. Will that continue? Will that even increase? Will people telework even more going forward? That would be great. We'll take demand off our roadways and maybe we won't need to do this. Same thing with technology. Autonomous vehicles could radically change how the system's used. Maybe in a good way if we share those vehicles, maybe in a bad way if everybody has their own and we have empty cars traveling back home after they drop you off to work. So again, this notion of monitoring what happens is a really important notion for this study. And then so we got through the goals and the last few months, you remember the last time I talked to you, we were kind of starting to narrow down the interchange investment ideas. We started off with eight interchanges that we were looking at. We're down to these three. Congratulations, they're all in South Burlington. That was a little attempt at humor. Here's, and just to get more specific, I'm going to show you what the conceptual plans look like right now at those three locations starting off with exit 12B. And so here is 89 and I'm going left to right across the screen. And this shows the consultant team spent quite a bit of time working on different options. But I came up with this one is the one that worked best with on the northbound side, on and off to Tilly Drive. So you would actually have to go through Tilly Drive to get on and off of the northbound. And then southbound, you can get on and off on the west side of Pinesburg Road. For those of you not familiar, 12B is a proposed possible interchange at Pinesburg Road and 89. And let me, I think the next slide here, oops, sorry, I thought we zoomed in a little bit. One note here is, you can see here that there's a note about 116, probably would have to be four lanes wide. So that's a significant difference in what that roadway would look like compared to today you see three traffic lights here. So some things to think about. Exit 13, one option we looked at. I showed you something similar to this last time I was in front of you. What we call the hybrid, but it's basically converting the existing half partial interchange in which you can go to 189 to the west into allowing full movements by putting in a U-turn ramp here. So if you're going southbound on 89 and you wanted to get to Kennedy Drive, you could take this U-turn ramp and end up over on Kennedy. Similarly, a move you can't do now northbound to Kennedy. This is a little ramp here merging in with the existing ramp bringing you to the door to Kennedy intersection. And another move you can't do right now is getting on northbound from Kennedy. So there's a new ramp possibility here. And then a more interesting full rehab or replacement of exit 13 with what is called a single point diamond interchange. One big idea here is it would D or that 189 would no longer be an interstate. It would be more of an arterial like Kennedy Drive connecting to Shelburne Road. And we wouldn't need this freeway that is the Southern leg of 189. And all of the movements, this is a full interchange, could be accomplished at this traffic light here. And I'll blow this up here so you can see this a little bit better. One of the things taking the interstate designation off of this road allows us to do is put a shared use path to continue the path from Kennedy through that intersection and connecting over here to Spears and probably to the path that's on Swift and over that way. So this is a little bit of a interesting design. It works pretty well. One of the big things that happens here is we take out a lot of existing infrastructure. So there's fewer bridges and culverts in this design than are in the existing. And I'll come back to that theme in a bit. We are now turning to exit 14, two options here. One is a diverging diamond, which if you're familiar with the exit 16 plan in Colchester, this will be a similar concept to that. And I'll zoom in a little bit. This would also allow shared use path on both sides, but then you could cross with a light into the center median and get from the north or south side of Williston Road much easier than you can today. And very well protected as a bicyclist or pedestrian. This brings the ramps in, so it's a tighter footprint. It is less capacity than what exists there now, right? The cloverleaf interchange is pretty much the highest amount of traffic capacity you could have at an interchange. So this is a reduction in traffic capacity by a few percent at this location. And then this one. Oh, sorry. I've never seen that before, right? Isn't there like a crisscross where the westbound traffic is going into what is currently the eastbound lane and then going back to the westbound lane? Does that exist somewhere else? I'm just, I'm sure it does. All over the country. Yeah, all over the country. There's a number of them yet. You know, probably it's been designed in the last 15 years maybe. And so it's not totally unusual. It works well when you have left turning conflicts. And so if you can think about it, like instead of driving up here, like you went to a diamond interchange where you stop at a light and then you have to cross traffic to make a left to head southbound, you're able to cross at this light earlier, then you have free flow onto the interstate as a left-hand turner here, right? So it does help with some traffic flow works operationally, certainly much better than a diamond interchange. And this is pretty much the same kind of design as being planned at exit 16. And I think maybe Tim just posted a video for exit 16. Thank you, Tim. The second option that we've come to for exit 14 is kind of tightening up the cloverleaf design so it's still a cloverleaf. We've referred to it as the enhanced cloverleaf but it brings the ramps in and signalizes them so that you don't have the quite free flow movement that create significant conflicts now between bicyclists, pedestrians and free flow traffic. And one in particular benefit is that light that you take, getting off northbound to eastbound route two, Wilston Road, right? There's that double traffic light right before Dorset. It moves out a couple hundred feet further west so it makes those signals work better together. And then this is a full signal, not just for one ramp. And still the bike pad, shared use path on each side and the other made it safety benefit, bless you for that dog. The is the notion of a collector distributor lane here which is this note here on the bottom. So one of the problems with the interchange now is the merge conflicts, right? People trying to get off the ramps while people are getting on the interstate. This would separate those emerging movements to a separate lane so you're not mixed with the main through traffic. So safety improvement, again, like I said, a little bit more capacity than the divergent diamond but still less than the clover leaf that's there now. Oh, sorry, here's a blow up of what this looks like. Sorry, this is probably, I should have pulled this up before talking about the traffic signals that you can see what that looks like. What do you mean that it's less than what there's there now? I'm sorry. I'm sorry? Less capacity than what is there now? Just a little bit, right? Mostly because the turning movements, you have to slow down more, right? And so that's gonna slow traffic so that just reduces the overall capacity of the interchange a little bit. I think it's 3%, 4%, something like that. Isn't the goal to increase capacity? No, I think our goal is to have the system work as well as it can work. So define capacity, please. Capacity is being able to have more cars go through the area, but that is not necessarily, our goal is not to increase capacity. Our goal is to have the transportation system work as well as it can. So you're trying to decrease congestion? Well, and increase safety, right? So, capacity is one thing, but safety is certainly, there's a reason we listed that as a number one goal and then we get into livability and mobility for all users. So, bikes and pads, this is, as you all know, this is a heavy bike head movement line now and desire line, so much so, right? That we've worked together on looking at a separate bridge to deal with bicycles and pedestrians. So we're really trying to figure out how to make this area work better. So capacity for cars, not for bikes or pedestrians? Typically when I say it's over capacity or reducing capacity, I'm talking about automobile traffic, that's right. Can I ask a question? It's very hard to see, all I'm seeing is tiny pictures of everybody. So, Helen, can you, is there a question of Charlie? Absolutely, yes. So, Charlie, does this consider the potential for that bike, pedestrian bridge over the interstates from Staples Plaza to University Mall property like we've been discussing for a period of time and I believe could be part of a discussion for the future of University Mall, perhaps happening sooner rather than later. Does this allow for that, I just, I can't tell. Yeah, I don't think any of these would prohibit that from happening. As a matter of fact, and I neglected to mention earlier, every one of the interchange improvements that I've mentioned so far, we tried to add more, and Megan, maybe this is what you were trying to ask me, which we're trying to add more capacity for bicyclists and pedestrians, with those shared use paths. No, I understand that. Let me finish, let me finish. Answer your question. The exit 13 hybrid is the one where we don't have a bike head path solution. So this one still, this one includes a bike head overpass, sorry, so there's a note up here on the top into U Mall there. So that bridge is specifically part of this plan. It's not necessarily, or it could be, I think we have timing issues to figure out, like maybe that bridge would be more important to do soon. And then the bigger investment in 14 might happen later. Does that help? To an extent on the Western side, where does that bridge land in Staples Plaza or south of there then? I think our intent was, it was the same kind of location that we planned together with you all. Okay, because I still think and understand that that would be important to enable people from the West side of the interstates to be able to get to what will be, is our new Market Street, Dorset Street, city center location without having to negotiate lots of crosswalks and intersections, just a bridge that takes everybody over all that. And as long as that can still work with this, you know, it looks like a reasonable design now. Yeah, they could work together. So, again, the idea was trying to make I think 14 more livable here. Yeah, that's for sure. Can I just break in and summarize my understanding because there's a lot of chatting going on. What I understand is that this is going to increase capacity overall, but the idea is to make it much more pedestrian and bike user friendly so that the increased capacity, proportionally, we will see on the pedestrian and the cyclist side, the cars will increase, but proportionally, it will increase less than for the pedestrian and the bikes. I did not say that. Okay. That is not what I'm saying. Okay. These two exit 14 designs decrease capacity for automobiles, period. Okay. And for bikers and for pedestrians. As you said, there's a shared use path possible with not this design, but the previous design. No, with all of these except that exit 13 hybrid. So there's two 10 foot shared use paths on both sides, which is more than they have today, right? Right. Okay. So I think I did understand. Yes, but I'm concerned with the characterization. The goal of the study is not to increase capacity. The goal of the study is to address a concern that we might have more traffic than the system can handle, but that doesn't mean that widening the road is the answer. We're going through this study to try to get to a better answer than that, but we're not there yet. I understand. So that's why capacity I guess is the sticky word. Yeah. If I may. Oh, yes. Go ahead, Tom. Yeah. Charlie, this is great. And I think what you're dancing around is we're trying to better manage the traffic in one way or the other and not necessarily increase the capacity. But my, if that's the, in fact, the case, I've never heard of the notion of decertifying 189 before. That's intriguing to me. And I'm curious, A, is that really feasible? Like, can you do that? Does that do the feds get involved? I feel like every time you mess with the interstate, they get touchy. And then the second part of that same question is how does decertifying that potential fit or not fit with the Champlain Parkway that is perpetually three years away? I won't address the timing part of that, but we have had Federal Highway at the table and actually, particularly with the designs around Exit 14, both Federal Highway and VTrans were right at the table, kind of helping to come up with these concepts. So they've been involved. There's not really a barrier from Federal Highway perspective to decertifying or taking out an interstate or downgrading it, if you will, on the functional classification from interstate to boulevard or arterial. And there is actually a movement that is happening to do that around the country, typically within interstates that go through much more urban areas where the interstate's cutting through cities. They're bringing interstates instead of elevating them, bringing them down to make them boulevards and things like that. So this is not really what we're doing here, but it's a similar concept. I think I heard last week that 189 is the shortest separate desert numbered interstate in the country. So I haven't verified that, but I heard that. For this spur. Yeah. So, okay, so those are the conceptual designs and the challenge that we've had now is trying to evaluate them and kind of deciding, we really would like to just have a couple interchanges at the end of this, not five. And so that we carry forward for more analysis. And so we've developed a number of metrics and this is really what we're seeking input on is these metrics. And so there's metrics for every goal. I'm not gonna read every one of these in the hopes that you can take a look at it later and think about, are these the right metrics to measure that goal? Is there something missing? Is there a better way to measure progress towards the goal? And again, these are metrics designed just to evaluate the interchanges, not for the multimodal bundle that we'll end up with in the next stage. So this may be a starting point. And if you have ideas about metrics for measuring more robust multimodal ideas, we're happy to get those at this point too. So these are the first three set and then here are the second three sets of metrics. And so we identified some metrics with some input. We've had a bunch of meetings over the number of months, but are there any metrics that should be changed or added at this stage? I think that was a question you folks asked me a number of months ago, was how are we gonna measure it and you want some input? And then the second part is how do we score those metrics? So right now, we've been comparing the interchanges to each other. That's one way to do it, it teases out differences. Even if there's small differences, it teases out the differences between those interchanges. But maybe that's not the right basis to use. Maybe we should be comparing it. Some other metrics maybe should be compared to zero, maybe some to 2015, maybe a no-bill. So if there's a different way you think we should be evaluating metrics, let us know. And this is where I'm killing you guys. Don't expect it to read this table here, but this is just to let you know that there's a kind of the actual results are on the left. And then we've converted it to a zero to four point scale on the right. Just for an ease of comparing them to each other. So that's what we're looking for feedback on at this point. And the rest, a number of these slides here are then digging down into the metric and what the number is. I'm not gonna spend any time and then converting it to the four point scale, yes. Is four more positive and zero is less positive? Yes. Okay, thank you. Yep. And there's pretty simple math applied to this, right? So in this bullet here, kind of talk about it's zero to four. So if exit, the enhanced clover leaf at exit 14 was got the lowest value in the metric, we got a zero. And if exit 13 hybrid got the highest, they got a four. And so they were kind of put on that range zero to four and divided up into quintiles, wherever the result landed is where the result landed. It's nice and simple math, but it may not be right in terms of the big picture here. So that's what we're looking for feedback on now. The goals, each one of them is outlined here with the scores. Again, I'm not gonna read each of these, but we tried and the advisory committee has given us good feedback, trying to make sure we're considering bicyclists and pedestrians, environmental justice, and things like that. But there's more work to do. And then just to turn the page, and I apologize for taking so much time here already, we're trying to get to three bundles to look at in the next stage, but we need to make a decision on which two interchanges to carry into the next stage. And you can see, we created this table to try to indicate it's our intention that every bundle includes efforts to reduce traffic demand, transit, biking, walking, technology, and probably do some minor improvements in safety. And then we're looking at bundle two to look at an interchange that might take traffic out of 14, that would be one of the 12B or 13 options. And then eventually exit 14 is going to need to be replaced, right? It's a bridge. That bridge is gonna need to be replaced. And so then we're laying on exit 14 improvement on top of that. So this is really, how do we make the system work best? That system was designed in the 50s, right? Maybe early 60s. We're now 50, 60 years later, we can probably come up with a better way to serve our residents and users than was there now. So just to repeat, we're looking for feedback on the metrics and on the scoring of those metrics at this point over the next four to six weeks. And then in April, we'd like to come back with any edits to the scoring and have some conversation. And maybe it takes more than one month, but April, May, about which two interchanges should be carried forward. So there's kind of a bifurcated choice here. Which of the two exit 14 interchanges looks best in terms of meeting the city's goals and the residents. And then which of 12B, 13 hybrid or 13 single point diamond interchange looks best if there was investing in another interchange outside 14 made sense. And then anything else that should be included in bundles. Okay, so Charlie, I'm sorry. Yeah, this is just really dense material. So I know you're trying to get through it really quickly, but it's really dense, at least for me. I'm dense. Bundles. So the bundles, could you please tell me a little bit more about what those bundles mean? Yeah, so the notion here is to, I think this goes back to what I was indicating earlier, Megan, like can we do something like bundle one where we're not investing so much in cars and still deal with all the transportation demands on the system? So can we reduce the demand on the system enough where we don't need to do any big exit interchange investments? So that's kind of the notion of bundle one. And then at the other end of the spectrum, bundle three, what does it look like if we wanted to do investments in both interchanges, and that both being 14 and one of the other ones, 12 or 13. You know, and obviously those have big implications on the plans or the future of the city. I guess I'll put it that way. And, you know, both there are gonna be trade-offs in that. So, you know, we wanna try to work with you all. And I mean that in the broadest sense possible, city council, the residents, committees and commissions in the city that try to think about how should we look? And that's why I'm really asking about the metrics. What should we be looking at to determine impact to help you evaluate ideas or decisions about coming in April or May? Which interchanges should we continue to look at? That doesn't mean that there's a commitment to do any of them, but which should we continue to evaluate in this process? Is that helpful? So since I didn't understand capacity, I just wanna confirm that I'm understanding. So bundle one is all of the words that are in black. Yeah. Bundle two is all the words that are in black plus either exit 12B, exit 13 hybrid or exit 13 single point. And bundle three is everything. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. That's the initial concept. I mean, this is just an initial concept. So I don't, I don't want anybody to feel like this is you should pay the most initial draft are two very important words at the beginning there. This was just kind of a starting place that we thought might be helpful. And really we're trying to get a range of multimodal investments to look at in the next stage. All right. I think that this is very dense information. And I strive to read most of it by, you know, enlarging it and then scooting it along. And I found that challenging. But I also think what you're asking us to provide and feedback Charlie is a pretty in-depth look as a council on all this information. So I'm kind of rolling around in my head exactly how we might do that and in what format to frankly make it big enough so we could follow along and speak with each other about, you know, I have a small computer. I don't have a big screen. I need a, you know, a five foot TV to put this up there so I can read it. So, you know, if you have any thoughts about that or if Kevin or someone, Paul Connors or someone or anyone in the council, I would appreciate that. Cause it seems as if our contemplation of this can't be we just leave this today and then never really look at it again and come back and have a conversation or even I can't even have the conversation tonight cause I don't understand it all. Although you've helped with the bundling and then how do you engage the public on this kind of stuff is a challenge in my mind. So I would appreciate any thoughts anyone has cause, you know, maybe we need a couple of hours some evening to just focus on this and think about it cause you got a lot of competing interests as well as an overlay of what do we do about the different bundles. Yep. And I think part of, and I again apologize for the denseness of this. We're very self-aware of how painful this is having lived through the pain multiple times myself last weeks and months. And I think anything we can do to come to smaller group settings, I'm happy to have conversations with any group or any person frankly that wants to just try to dig in and understand a little bit more happy to do that. And Elaine and my email is at the end just email either one of us at any time. And I'm sorry, David, see your hand raised. Yeah, I just, I was going to say it is, it's a lot. And I think in order to understand, I understand and have learned a lot just in this 40 minutes but in order to get a more in-depth understanding if we as a city need to make some very impactful decisions at some point here, we do need to sit down for a lengthy period to review this in much more detail. And it's what I would suggest is we need a workshop or something somewhere along the way probably midday not in the evening and sitting down like around your big table at your offices, for example, or at our offices once we can meet again, if possible. And that way we can have big maps in front of us and understand it better. I don't think it's moving that quickly but we need a workshop or something because it's just too much here. I love to see bike head improvements, all of that. But Doug on it, as you said, it's an awful lot to absorb and we're not going to absorb it fast. So we need a workshop somewhere along the way. Yeah, we're trying to be considerate of that. And again, Ben in touch with your planning commission and Economic Development Committee. If there's other committees, please send them my way to this, send our contact information. I can pet, I would think. Yeah, bike pad, yep. And so, and we are also reaching out to underrepresented communities. There's a new transportation equity coalition that started up in the county. We're bouncing off of them and other groups. So anybody that you would like us to meet with or certainly over the next four, six weeks, eight weeks, 12 weeks, please let us know. Happy to do it at any time. And just email me, we'll set something up. And we're hoping to then, but we'd love to get to closure on which of these interchanges to report by the May timeframe, but understand it may take a little bit more time than that and we're open to what's needed. We're trying to wrap this up effort up in the winter time. And here's the contact information and all these documents. I know it may have been a little challenging to see our on this web link at the bottom here. And here are emails, if you'd like to get a presentation or discussion at an individual group or even an individual happy to talk to you in more detail. Okay. I would also encourage, since I see, you know, there's some competing interests like Helen said, where we have the Economic Development Committee clearly interested and with good reason according to what we see here, but then we also see the impact on natural habitats. So, you know, I think the Natural Resources Committee should at least have their say, you know, so yeah, I think. There's a couple of technical memos. There's two attachments that you got sent. One was like the evaluation. Right. And some maps that showed you how like traffic delay and things like that. Look, the second attachment had technical memos. One of the, one part of those dealt with cost. Another one dealt with secondary growth. So that was something that, you know, we know is important that we have to deal with. Is this attracting growth? And is that a good or a bad thing? You know, those are all policy discussions that need to happen. And there are trade offs for sure. So we really thank you for your patience in this conversation. And let me know how I can help with next steps. Hey, Charlie, I'm sorry, Kevin. Charlie, do you know when, might be helpful to know when the 14, exit 14 bridges and the exit 13 bridge need to be replaced? It's not anytime soon, Kevin. So, you know, there's no, they're not, you know, if you asked me to guess, I would literally be guessing, you know, might be 20, 30 years away. Well, the state is taking on a couple of interstate highway bridges every year. And these must be in queue someplace. If it was 10 years from now, that may make this decision somewhat easier to make because I assume if the bridges are replaced, that's the time to do this work. Yeah, exit 17 is one of those. My understanding and Elayne and Dave, I think you're out here somewhere or Justin, if you guys have a better answer than the one I just gave, please give it. I have not heard these particular bridges as being in the near term, is that like 10 year timeframe, Kevin? Okay. Thanks. Well, I also want to thank you. This is a lot of information. And I read through most of it. And it was really helpful. I just personally find it, I guess I'm more of, I need five screens or I need a bunch of pieces of paper that I can move around and look at. And you have cut things into chunks. And I appreciate that. I got caught up looking at the huge one and trying to read that and didn't really, I didn't scroll ahead to find a thing. You already done that for me, if only, but I think there's a lot of information here. And I think we really do need to dig in and understand it. So I appreciate your offers of help and we will take you up on them. Tim Barrett? Just a quick comment, Charlie, thank you for the presentation. And this type of planning is really important because like Kevin asked, and I was going to ask too, when does the infrastructure need to be replaced? When it does need to be replaced, there's no sense in just replacing it as is. There are always improvements in traffic control, technology, traffic design, technology, and that would be the time to implement a diverging diamond or an SDI or whatever it is to make those interchanges more efficient and safer and if possible conducive to bike and ped crossovers. So this is the path that we have to take. And I think they're all really cool designs. The question is, how much will they cost us and when, right? So that's part of the process. So I appreciate the work. Well, I also think we have, I agree. We have lots of committees who would like to focus in certainly bike and ped is ready to get at this. I just, we just had a chat and I'm sure natural resources and the economic development committee and probably with all the stuff you have about how many people are gonna be moving in. There's the housing committee for affordable housing. So there's lots of groups, active participants who can focus a little more, focus more. I think our challenge as a council is gonna take all that advice and try to put it into some conclusion. Yeah, we're right there with you. So you're not alone, we're there with you and even the advisory committee, which is a diverse group. You know, I think has a lot of different perspectives at that table too. And so, you know, we'll try to get to the right place. You know, nobody will get everything they want probably but we'll get to a better place than where we are today. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your patience. Thank you. No, it was good. Thank you. So moving on to item, let's see, eight is an update on the status of the PUD, Natural Resources Work of the Planning Commission. Jessica Luizos is the chair. We'll be joining us and Paul Conner, Director of Planning. So, I see Paul and there's Jessica. Well, welcome. Thanks for having us. Should I just jump right in, Helen? Please do, yes. Okay, so you last saw Paul and I, we were here beginning of December and gave an update on the environmental protection land development regulations, including their status. We went through mapping and what the various protections are and at that time there was a small package of LDR amendments, including the Urban Design District. So, this is an update since that point. We have in the meantime completed a thorough review of Article 10 items, which is the flood plain and the river, sorry, the flood plain and the river corridor overly districts as well as Article 12, which is the environmental protection standards. So, some details about kind of what went into those sections in the meantime. So, with help from the Chinning County Regional Planning Commission, we tightened language, tried to simplify it and reviewed for state and legal items. We added additional protections for the 500-year flood plain with some differences distinguished between the built-up areas of the city and unbuilt areas. We reviewed buffer widths for various water resources and changed some to be more stringent for the Class 1 and Class 2 wetlands, including being more stringent on encroachment that would be potentially allowed as well as widening those buffers and rural areas of the city. We consolidated the river corridor and stream buffer standards, noting that we were proposing very similar protections in both of those areas that would be a simplification for use. We worked with the City Stormwater Department to see how water quality improvement projects would fit with resources, as well as provided a series of comments to staff with instructions to compile all those changes for a version that would be released for public comment. So that was kind of a summary of the Oracle 10 and 12 items we've been working on. So we also have received a complete working draft of the land development regulation changes along with status updates on each of the major changes and remaining review items. So with that, we've reviewed the complete draft of the planned unit development general standards, one of the neighborhood PUD types, the traditional neighborhood development standards, and have provided feedback on the conservation PUD questions. Some of the other major components, the subdivision and the master plan standards were previously reviewed. And so those are some of the specific work items, and I know some of your questions probably have to do with our timeline. So at our next meeting, we're going to be reviewing how all these different changes in the structure of the development areas would relate to our current system of density. One of the things that we've talked about in the past with you was moving away from a strict density calculation to a new calculation that's really based more on building types. So what does that actually look like? So working on some visualizations of development areas with some examples of areas that are similar. Then we also have to continue the review of all the sections that are focused on and impacted by the PUDs, a series of public comment hearing on the changes and some review and feedback. So we're making a big push to wrap this up. This winter might drag into spring. So I think one thing we were thinking was we could come back and do another update in early April to kind of let you see what we've accomplished and where we're at if that's something that you would like. Okay. Another thing along the timeline, one thing that you had specifically asked in December that I wanted to just touch on was whether or not portions of our work could be completed ahead of others. Specifically, would the environmental protection standards be able to be adopted ahead of the other work? And Helen, I know that you and I had both received multiple public comments asking for the Article 12 to be adopted ahead of the end of interim zoning, which is partially why I wanted to just up front mention this. So the commission has generally been reluctant to separate out the Chapter 10 and 12 from the rest of the changes because there's really a balance between all of the changes we're working on. And if separated, there's some kind of messiness between where the new protections kind of fit into the existing LERs, as well as all the extra work with doing two different packages and warnings and hearings and edits. There could be some confusion to the public if we kind of separate things out. So we have not had a detailed discussion as a commission about changing that track of kind of keeping everything all as one package. But I and staff have talked about how we really want to evaluate in the next few meetings if that approach is still the path that we want to continue to recommend to you. So I think that was an overview. If there's any questions or comments, we welcome them. I don't know if there's anything else you'd like to add. No, okay. I think that's a good overview. So what I understand is it sounds as if you, the commission would prefer continuing with working on both the PUDs and the congruent LDRs that go along with that, as well as the Article 10 and 12 of the natural resources definitions. And is that right rather than separating? Yeah. And every time we've talked about it, that's been the case. We have, it's not like last week we reaffirmed that, but we've been moving along as though it's all one package. You know, our complete draft does include all of those things, all as one complete draft red line. Okay. And then the other item is just to summarize, you believe that you would be in a good place in the beginning of April to give us an update date that might even say we're ready to go to press, or we still have two areas that are, you know, in conflict and we're still working on them. Yeah. And I can't promise we have a complete draft by April, but we'll at least be able to give you a really good idea of where we're at. So, okay. And, you know, our plan is to really do a big push on this. So I'm hopeful that we can really move forward, but, you know, we also don't want to push something through that's not ready or feels like it's not vetted. So, you know, it takes time. Yes, I appreciate that. Are there other comments or questions from the council or Paul Connor? Do you want to add anything? I think Jessica summed it up really nicely. So I have nothing to add, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Council members, anyone have a comment? Megan. What vetting has occurred thus far, Jessica? Various items have had different levels. So some pieces have gone to different committees, specifically having them review and give feedback. Other items are still in development with our consultants where we've given kind of an okay at one of our meetings for an outline and the general policy items, but, you know, some of those items, we still don't have the kind of a final language. So we have not solicited, you know, feedback on all of it from the public. Yeah. I don't know. Paul, you probably have a better way of saying that. I would just, I would add that, you know, Megan specific to the article 10 and 12, I can say that the commission itself has gone through it in close detail. So in terms of vetting it internally, as opposed to staff to saying, you know, here's a 20 page document thumbs up or thumbs down. They really looked at it closely. And just to follow up on the, and that's taking place with the PUD language generally, as well as the specific PUD types. And that's what's ongoing now. In terms of the committees, I've met fairly regularly with either the affordable housing committee or the subgroup that they've set up to look specifically. At some of the housing elements of this. And I'm scheduled in the next few weeks to meet with the recreation of parks committee and the natural resources committee to go through all this with them as well. The commission has wanted to hold off on a wide public advertising so that there isn't confusion on versions. But we're pretty much there with the natural resources standards. The commission gave the thumbs up on the for us to wrap it up. And we're working with the CCRPC to have a clean draft for everybody to be able to look at and provide feedback on. Good. Tom. Paul, I think I just heard you say it kind of addresses the comment in the chat from Karen Ryder that you're sort of lining your ducks up so that when you promote to the public, you'll be able to clearly communicate to them the implications of this. But you don't want multiple versions flying around for that public press. Is that a fair way to perceive what you just said? Yes. Thank you for saying that, Tom. When putting together sort of involved regulations that sort of cross-reference, I completely understand how this is hard for the public to follow. Because the commission might be talking about one subsection, and it seems very out of context. And it's very frustrating in my experience for community members to spend a bunch of time read through a draft, provide comments, and then be told, oh, you actually were looking on the draft from two weeks ago, and we've changed all these things. And people say, well, what's the point of my spending time on this? So that's really why the commission has really tried to come to a first complete version of this so that they can get comprehensive feedback on it. In a useful manner. That has really sort of been vetted by the commission, but the commission's also open to, you know, open to feedback at that time, too. Then can I ask, has the Affordable Housing Committee been a good way to vet some of these concepts with the development community? I mean, they're sort of hand in hand. Yes, you need to, if you want to build more housing, the people who build it are the development community. So I think, but I don't know. I'm just sure we can go through this, and then the development committee's community will come in and take their shotgun and shoot holes in everything. Right. I don't want to speak on their behalf. I will say that there is, on the Affordable Housing Committee as an active developer in the community, and he's on the subcommittee, and that's been really helpful. And I will say at the staff end, we've been in pretty active discussions with the, with various developers offline as we talk with them about the projects that they have going today. We have pretty regular discussions with them about here's where we're at. I send drafts of things to them individually so that they, to the extent that they want to be in the loop that they're in the loop on all this. Good. That's important because it's a lot of work to then have it explode at the end. So I hope they buy in if they have had that chance to articulate their concerns and feel that they've been at least partially addressed. I don't think anyone is going to believe that this makes them a lone whole, but that's kind of like legislation. It's making sausage. Other comments or thoughts? Okay. Oh, Tim, sorry. Yeah. When do we come out of IZ May? May unless you choose to extend it, May 13th, yeah. Well, that's a goal. That's your call. We're getting pretty close to that. If there's the bullseye, man, that's the bullseye is let's get this in down by May. Well, I hope so. But I also want it. I don't want it to explode at the end if you've gone too quickly. But anyway, I think that sounds good. All right. Any other comments? Don't keep on. I'm with Tim. I really hope that May is instead where we'll finally reach that marker. We crossed the finish line. Appreciate your committee's hard work and diligence. It's been a long, long trek. And hopefully the end is in sight and that would be great. May is a good target. Okay. Um, Megan and then Michael, Mitag, sorry. Another question from the public. And I think it's fair to ask our planning commissioners, and we have Jessica as well as Michael here on camera. But, you know, when we first entered IZ, the idea was that it would take nine months for these new PUD regulations. And it would be, you know, it could have been perhaps aggressive nine months, but it seemed doable at the time. Could you tell us kind of how things developed and why nine months was not realistic is, and I know that the city council added the inclusionary zoning on top of what you were already doing. So I take responsibility, but I would also just like to have kind of a, you know, some kind of, you know, explanation that I think the public deserves to hear as well. Thanks. Yeah, I can, I mean, the inclusionary zoning was a piece of it, but that was not the whole picture. I think that, you know, when we had talked at that point about the PUD project, we weren't envisioning so much time and effort involved with environmental protection regulation pieces of it. You know, I think when we were way back at the beginning of ID, talking about the PUD project, we were really talking about the PUDs, the master plan standards, and updates to the site plan regulations. So really focused on that piece. And I would say, I mean, I don't want to put a percentage on it, but a huge portion of our discussion has been about and strengthening the environmental protection standards and how to do that and how to bring in additional protections and strengthen what we have. And I don't think that I realized when we were, you know, setting that timeline at the beginning of ID that that was going to be such a large focus of our time and public comment. And, you know, as well as we did take a relatively large break at the beginning of COVID. And a big piece of that was on my recommendation. I do know that some committees, including yourselves, did continue to meet throughout that whole time period. And for quite a while, I really felt like we weren't going to have the same public participation, especially from members who didn't have the technology to participate. So, you know, I think it took us a while to really warm up to the idea of having the virtual meetings. And it has been working really well. But we did have a break in work time, you know, due to COVID. So I think those are a few things. Okay. All right, Michael, did you still need wish to make a comment? Yes. And then we'll move on if no one else wants to speak. Just a simple question. There may be several questions in the chat, which I'm wondering how they will be answered, obviously not now. But will those people get some kind of response to their questions? Well, some of it is just was answering the, I mean, several from Sandy were talking about how they interacted with the Planning Commission. I think those are most, I don't see any more questions other than, you know, Roseanne saying she agrees with the new approach. I think Karen Ryder's question was addressed. I didn't hear, I'm looking at Karen Ryder's question. And I don't think we addressed it, but I'll leave it up to you to do that. Well, I think Paul answered what we're saying in the process. They acknowledge how difficult it is if people get the wrong draft. And so they, the commission has opted to try to have a complete package or pretty much a complete package before the public is asked to come in. Is that correct, Jessica? Just to avoid that. And I think a piece of this is, you know, it's been many months since we last reviewed the building types, you know, that would be need to apply. So that's a big piece of the understanding of the building based approach. You know, we also had a large discussion about building based approach, you know, two months ago, not at the one meeting that she's referring to. So what we're actually doing at our next meeting is coming up with some of those visualizations, both in aerial format and photos of different areas to try to kind of bridge that gap between looking at a red line, talking about something that we really talked about in depth two months ago, and really having something for somebody to look at and try to understand. So that's our goal. Okay. Any other comments or thoughts? Thank you very much. And again, so, Rosanne, you're not on. Yeah, right, right. This is just a general question since I don't attend a lot of virtual meetings of the city anymore. But when we put things in the chat, my assumption was that you read those. Otherwise, we're just talking to the air. I thought that substituted for us raising our hand and speaking up. We could interject our comments. But even when Charlie Baker was speaking, there were a lot of comments in there, but I think they went nowhere. And I sense this is the same thing happening here. People are commenting. I don't know if you're reading them. So do you need us to speak up and vocalize our comments and questions? Or will it suffice if we put them in the chat? I'm thinking it's not sufficing that they're in the chat because I know you're trying to manage a meeting at the same time stuff is going on on the other. And I see now that other people are putting stuff in. It looks like Sarah wants to speak, but doesn't. Anyway, I encourage you to read the chat before you close out things because... Okay, I do sort of tool through, but it's hard for me to listen as well as read. Exactly. Exactly. But before you close down, I suggest... Okay, thank you. That's a good suggestion. Well, I got your attention. No, but I put it in the chat, but I'm going to reiterate it. It's a lot like the Charlie Baker presentation. This is so convoluted. It is so complicated. And one thing touches another thing. And if you're not conversant with how it's written, it'll go right over your head. And so that's why we're encouraging that this be put in straightforward language that you read now on your prescription bottles and stuff. LDR is for dummies kind of thing. I encourage that. Okay, thank you. I think Sarah wants to speak. Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Tom? I was just going to say, in defense of the chair, I chair some meetings, and it's impossible to stay abreast of the chat while you're also trying to manage this discussion. So I'm pretty sure, Rosanne, all the counselors and others are reading the chat. But Helen, while she's trying to conduct the meeting, I completely respect her not being on top of all the lengthy comments as we go forward. So I appreciate you piping up, but I think it's fair to say that the other counselors have been reading the chat window. And Helen, if you had a break, you want to take time and double back. That's what I do when I share all my meetings. Well, are there any in particular that people, or have we kind of addressed, I think, we've addressed most of them? And it's helpful when council members identify like both you and Megan identified comment. I mean, some comments are questions and others are just great job or whatever. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. This is Karen Ryder. Do you want to take a comment? Sure. Just a comment I want to make is I heard what Jessica said and I appreciate it. I am going to look at the next meeting and hope that I understand it better. But I have to tell you, I could barely understand what was going on. I tried. So maybe I'm a visual person, but I really appreciate that effort. And I hope that it works for me. Okay. Thank you. Well, I find it difficult too. It's much easier in person for sure with a big screen and pictures and everyone chatting and a little body language and all that. But hopefully we're making improvements every week. So thank you. So let's move on then to number nine, consider and possibly approve a one-year collective bargaining agreement with the police officers association. And Andrew, there you are. Welcome. Hello, counselors. Do we have one? Good to see you all. Well, so we Dan Boyer and I, who's actually on right now, have been working towards finalizing some of the language issues. And actually, as before you right now, we don't have a ratified agreement from the police officers association. However, I don't think that there's an issue doing this a little bit out of order this time. The key principle points have been agreed to and any sort of substance changes if they're brought up by the association, we can sort of re-ratify later on. So with that, I'll sort of outline where we sort of ended up on this contract. Similar to the collective bargaining agreement that was just ratified at the last meeting between our public works and city hall employees, we sort of went into this with a step and COLA approach. The COLA being from the August to August index, the CPIU northeast region, being about 1.1 percent for last year being exactly 1.1 percent. It doesn't quite work perfectly with the South Burlington Police Officers Association because they actually have a 2 percent step increase rather than a 1.5 percent step increase. So what we did in the alternative is we allowed, we granted a 2 percent step increase, but decreased the COLA to 0.6 percent so that the total increase is the same between city hall public works as it is with South Burlington Police Officers Association. So that's the significant change again just to reiterate for the public what we're talking about is a sort of one-year extension, both because of uncertainty right now in terms of budgeting, but also administration change with Kevin and Tom leaving, and the association was amendable to that here. So this is a much simpler, much tighter universe that we worked within in terms of amending this contract. A couple of their small changes I just want to address that are also included in this. The gent rank and file officers, as I talked about, it's a 2 percent step plus a 0.6 percent COLA. However, the civilian staff, there are several civilian staff who were still on a 1.5 percent step schedule. They got the regular 1.5 percent step with a 1.1 percent COLA just to keep it consistent. There were some language changes that were non-substitive related to sort of bringing our contract more in line with our practice on the corporal language and senior dispatcher language, as long as the employees bill of rights, the association and management, particularly the chief, had been working since our last contract to update the bill of rights to come in line with Act 56, which actually came down right in the middle of our contract negotiations last round. This is related to the way internal affairs investigations are conducted. So our bill of rights also has some edits that bring it closer in line with the statute. And the final change that we added is an extra duty rate increase of $45 an hour to $47 an hour. This was both recommended by the chief and the association as a way to keep us more in line with other communities. And this will also ultimately reduce the demand on our officers because essentially they're the cheapest in the state for this type of work, overall reducing the impact on the department. So those are sort of the main bullet points of this contract. Date changes, nonsense changes like that are the only others that I should mention. And I guess I would ask that council sort of, I guess first is are there sort of any questions around those bullet points? Okay. Are there any questions or comments? Tim Barrett. Can you just review again the difference between the patrolmen and the civilian contracts with the steps versus the COLA? I thought I heard something. I want to hear it again, please. Sure. Sure. So the officers and the civilian staff have been on separate pay schedules. The civilian staff, when we went from the 2018-21 contract, civilian staffs remained at a 1.5% step increase on their schedule. However, the officers moved from a 1.5% step to a 2% step, which the time was done to make our officers in terms of salary more competitive with other communities while at the same time gaining contributions in benefits such as healthcare and increased contributions for retirement. So to sum up, Tim, the officers have a 2% step increase and are given a 0.6% COLA in this contract. And the civilian officers get their 1.5% step increase with a 1.1% COLA, which is based on the CPIU. Okay. Do you have any questions, Tim, or is that you just want a clarification? Okay. Dan, do you want to say anything? Dan Boyer? You need to put your... Yeah, there you go. Yeah. Actually, I just received it. Andrew just sent it to me this afternoon, so I haven't had a chance to look over, make sure everything's right. But if everything is as Andrew and I have been discussing, we should have a deal. Okay. Good. Well, thank you. Tom. So I'll move to approve the contract as presented. I just... Every time I see officers in front of me, I always want to say thank you for your service, guys. You guys are doing a great job, Officer Monroe, Officer Boyer. So I appreciate everything you do day in and day out for the city of South Burlington, and I love getting the great reports of all that you do. But I'm happy to move to approve the contract as presented. Second. Okay. So it's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Okay. I will call the roll. Megan Emery. Hi. Thomas Chittenden. Hi. David Kaufman. Hi. Tim Barrett. Hi. And the chair votes aye, so we have approved the contract in its final form, I guess. Five-zero. Thank you very much for all your service as well as your good work in this collective bargaining conversation. I'm glad we could arrive at something that we all could approve and help us get through COVID and our budget crunches. I appreciate your participation and agreement with that. Alrighty. Thank you. So we'll move on to item 10, which is consider and possibly appoint a member to the design review board. We had two candidates. One has dropped out. Oh, I'm sorry. Development review board. Isn't that what I said? You said design. Design, excuse me, development review board. Pardon me. So, but we still have one candidate to interview and then we can discuss if we would like to hold off making an appointment to see if there's other people that are interested. But we have Stephanie Marie Wyman, and I think I saw her come in. No? Yes. So, Stephanie, why don't you, yes, put your, thank you. Well, welcome. So, I couldn't read all of what you wrote because some of it got knocked off at the bottom. But my understanding is you have lived here for about three and a half years. You work for VHB, which stands for what? Vanessa Hagen, Breslin. Pardon me? Vanessa Hagen and Breslin. That was the three founders of the company. Okay. And what kind of work is that? We are in engineering and environmental consulting firm. Great. Thank you. I was thinking it was Vermont housing something. Okay. So, why don't you just kind of quickly tell us what you think you'll bring to the design review, not design, development review board and what skills you think would be appropriate and why even apply? Yes. So, it was brought to my attention that there was an immediate opening on the board and it had to spend something that I had considered applying for a couple of years ago and then decided to wait just because I wasn't sure necessarily how long I would stay in South Burlington as a resident. I do live within walking distance of my office, which is fantastic. I'm here all the time. I love to recreate in the city. But I wanted to have the opportunity to kind of lend my expertise in the field and also just my vision and highlight all the things that I love about South Burlington. So, earlier we were talking about the CCRP plan and how a whole of the interchange is the designs that they're looking at for future development and where do I look at? What am I comfortable with? And so, for me, I've been working as an engineer for 10 years now and I've been working in South Burlington for three and a half years. So, I've had a lot of experience. I work in the land development group at my firm, but I've also had experience with transportation. I've had a lot of experience specifically with stormwater design. So, I'm really familiar with looking at civil engineering plans, architectural designs, working with developers, working with architects, working with landscape architects, and then also just reviewing the land regulations and making sure that design plans fall within those specifications. Okay. Other questions from members? Tim? Just a couple. Hi, Stephanie. I'm Tim Barrett. Do you have any thoughts about possible conflicts of interest working for VHB that you would encounter with various projects and do you have any knowledge? How many projects VHB works on that actually end up going through the DRB in South Burlington? I'm just curious if you have any idea. Yeah. There's definitely projects that we are working on right now that go through the process and my stance on that is I would refuse myself from any commenting or having formed an opinion on that and voting on it that would eliminate some of the conflicts of interest there. For me, in a professional standpoint, I also stand as the current president-elect for the Society of Civil Engineers for the Vermont Chapter. And that's something that we always look out for the public interest as well as the interest of all the engineers in the state. So, I'm certainly aware of that, you know, not trying to, you know, have an influence over decisions and projects that I'm directly involved with. Did anybody else have any problems with her audio? Did it break up for anybody else or was it just me? It was clear to me. You all heard her perfectly clearly? Yes. I'm sorry. It was, you got garbled and it hesitated a few times but I got the gist of what you were saying. I just have one more question for now and it's not that I'm a stalker but I look up where people live because it's on the application and 1690 Shelburne Road is like Goss Dodge. How does that turn into Europe? Where do you live? I just really, I don't understand why there's no apartment building there. Is that just a typo? No, no, there is. It's the Bartlett Brook Apartments. Oh, it's on the other side. So, I guess Google's got the wrong, you know, pin drop for where, okay, understand that. That's the closest apartment building I could think of where it was. So, all right. Yeah, I don't live in the dealership. Nice beds. Yeah, yeah. It looks like a pretty nice apartment. Heck, you know. So, I did not Google stalk you but I would say, Stephanie, I'm curious, as a president of the Association of Civil Engineers, would you possibly write us a letter of support for our bike ridge grant application to the federal government so that we can get some stabilization from the U-Mall over to Staples Plaza? If, of course, you get appointed to the DRV. Hey, you know, you can send anything our way and we can certainly provide any letters of support. Okay. Which brings me, I'm sorry, Helen, can I ask you another question? You certainly may. Great. So, I asked you if you would be cognizant of the fact that you might have conflicts of interest working for VHB, right? But on the other side of that, does your employer require you to sign any kind of an agreement with VHB about not representing VHB's interests in other, you know, situations where you should just be representing yourself? I mean, you know, sort of a public policy. Do they require that? No, they don't. But like, these are fully volunteer positions, right? So, I don't get compensated to- No, no. No, but I mean, like for example, I work at Global Foundries before I could become a city counselor. I had to sign a document saying that I would not speak in any way on behalf of Global Foundries because, you know, I'm not permitted to do that. So, I just, I'm just curious about other companies and what their requirements are for their employees when they take roles in local governmental, you know, institutions. Yeah, no, I haven't, I didn't come across that with civil engineer, ASCE. That wasn't anything that I had to do. So, I imagine that this would be the same. Okay. Have you been to some DRB meetings yet? So, not as, I guess, a resident. I've attended for, you know, for work, certainly, and other cities, but not as a resident. So, just a follow-up. So, you're aware of the amount of work it takes to be an active member? Yes. That was something that I actually did, kind of held me back originally. I was, I was looking at it as, okay, you know, it's, it's twice a month for meetings, of course, but then you're also receiving all the application materials that you have to review ahead of time and, and totally be prepared to provide feedback and ask questions. So, yes, that's something that I'm aware of. And one of the things that I did, I noticed in the posting that I kind of liked was that this is until June of this year. And then there's the opportunity to, to reapply for the three-year term. So, I think that's okay. You're filling out welcomes, yeah. So, you know, for me, that was a great opportunity just to see, okay, is this something I really can commit to for three years beyond this term? And I think it gives everyone the opportunity also to see, is this a good fact? Great. Well, I have to say, both my grandfathers and my father were civil engineers. So, they pulled a, you know, special place in my heart. Any other questions? Well, it sounds, yes, hi. I'm sorry. So, you understand the DRB is a quasi judicial board, right? And their decisions are tied very closely to the land development regulations, right? So, sometimes the DRB doesn't have a lot of leeway for their decisions, but they get an opportunity to nuance certain aspects of projects with the applicant, you know, sometimes during the DRB process itself and sometimes, you know, with planning and zoning. Usually with planning and zoning goes worse than it comes with the DRB. So, I mean, and I really appreciate the expertise that you could be bringing to this position. I think that's really great. But what, do you have an opinion about those instances where, you know, there's something that you think is not correct with the design and you think that the LDRs or that the applicant has misinterpreted? I mean, how would you approach that with the DRB if you were to have a physician there? Yeah, I mean, I would look at it and say, okay, you know, what am I seeing from a design standpoint? And then how does it fit in with the current regulation and try to have an open conversation about it and try to come to the best solution? Okay. So, there is some room for discretion. And I know, Tim, you've shared some stories about how you encourage, you know, the placement of a sidewalk or, so there is some room for discretion as well. And I think, you know, Stephanie, you should certainly feel comfortable saying this could work better this way. You know, how could this work for you? Yeah, I think that, is that what you're getting at, Tim? Yeah, I mean, so that the DRB is constrained, but it really is the last chance for design to reach its optimum position before it's frozen and then implemented in concrete steel and brick and wood and whatnot. So, you are taking the interests of the Planning Commission's regulations that they created that the City Council approved and applying them to a design, but at the same time, you're also a citizen of the city, right? And you also have your own design interpretive skills. And so, you really need to try and, this is my opinion, right, is to, within the boundaries that you're allowed, push the designs to be what's the best for the city. And that might mean for, you know, for the residents, you know, for people that want to rent, for, you know, people that want to travel, whatever all of the considerations are, traffic, aesthetics, design, functionality, energy efficiency, that kind of stuff, right? So, it's the last attempt where the rubber meets the road and, you know, you're one of the seven people that vote on that final design. So, I just want to impress upon you that. Okay. Do you have any questions for us, Stephanie? No, I think I'm, thank you for your time. I really appreciate having this opportunity. And yeah, I was just here to answer any questions that you might have. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Megan, were you gonna say something? Just thanking her for stepping up and for this is, this is the, you know, an important commitment that we have given to several members of the public who have given hours and hours of their time. And you seem to have the background for it and the willingness. And that's just a great thing for the city. So, thank you. Okay. Tom. The person you see, you might be filling, has the best light show, a Christmas holiday light show in the whole region. So, we hope that you can do that tradition and be sure to decorate some part of South. Okay. So, our process, Stephanie, we have a executive session at the end of this meeting where we can discuss you. I think one of the options we, the council needs to discuss is if we want to seek some additional candidates or if you're the one, if you're the one, we'll let you know, we'll come back into session and announce that and we will let you know. And as soon as possible, you'll be able to join the development review committee or board. Great. And I think you do get paid a stipend, but it's not, I mean, you can't live on it. It definitely would help pay for that back room at the auto dealership. Yeah, the lights and electricity bills. Yeah. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your interest. You certainly have, I think, good background for this kind of work. And as always, we appreciate our citizens who come forward to volunteer. Generally, I mean, basically volunteering their experience and offering their expertise. So, thank you. Have a good evening. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Okay, gang. It's January financials from Tom Hubbard. Hey, Tom. Hey, Helen. Good to see everyone. I'm anxious to update you on the local options tax, which I will do tonight since we just received those. But just to kind of give you perspective where 58% through the fiscal year, seven months out of the 12, at this point, the revenues and the general fund, about 64% expenses, about 50%. Not a lot to talk about in the way of expenses as we still have the budget freeze on. But there is one item in expenses under the fire department for furniture and equipment that involves the fit up of station two that we receive FEMA money for. So, it shows as a huge over expenditure in that line item. It's the third one from the bottom in the fire department budget. But I just wanted to assure you that that's all being reimbursed through FEMA. Currently, we had curtains that divided the bedrooms in station two between firefighters. And now there's actual walls. The sprinkler system has been installed. And I'm sure the chief would love to take you down and give you a tour of the fit up down there. It's looking really nice. Kevin's actually seen it as well. So, that's one item in expenses I wanted to point out. In the revenues, on the good side, the property taxes already come in at 75%. And we still have one collection in the middle of March to complete. And the city clerk recording fees continues to amaze both Donna and myself. She had projected a substantial increase in this year's budget, which she's already exceeded. And to the tone of about $24,000 a month. So, that's going to help us with some of the shortfall and other revenue areas that we are projecting, which we continue to watch. I've mentioned to you before our building and sign permits are down. The fire inspection revenue, electrical inspection revenue are both down. Ambulance billings coming in a little bit slower than we wanted to. The road opening permits are down and the interest on our investments are down. So, those are all things that we continue to watch. But the big item that I really wanted to share with you is local options, taxes, and where we're currently at with that. So, rooms and meals. Right now, we came in, let's see, at $169,000 for the period of November to February. February 8th is the cutoff that the state has given us here. The same period of time from August to November was $175,000. So, a little bit less still in the rooms and meals coming in. The sales tax, on the other hand, performed better. We had collected $723,000 from August to November and from November to February were at $852,000. So, that was significant. It is even more than we collected last year at this time in the sales tax even before COVID hit. So, that was encouraging that our sales tax, which is the bigger amount of the local options tax money that we collect, is still pretty much on track. It's going to be the rooms and meals that's going to hurt us. And we're still kind of on track for about a $500,000 to $600,000 shortfall and what we anticipate by the end of the year total in our local options taxes. So, that's kind of where we're at at this point. Not surprising, but I was encouraged by the sales tax numbers and hopeful that the rooms and meals will eventually start to pick up. Happy to respond to any questions. Are there any questions? David? When you say the end of the year on rooms and meals, do you mean the end of the fiscal year or the end of the calendar year? End of the fiscal year day. Yeah, end of June. And we don't know what the beginning of next fiscal year will look like either. So, I think once things settle down and most people are vaccinated, I think Vermont is going to be a very popular destination and we'll recover and pick back up to where we need to be, but we're never going to recover what we've lost. So, what it is. Okay. Any other questions or comments? All right. We can't figure out, you know, if Amazon was this and now Amazon is this, right, you just can't get any of that information from the state, you know. We can't, but I got to believe just with the numbers that are reflected here. I mean, that's a significant increase even over last year. So, I got to believe some of that just through the internet sales for sure. We'll keep working on trying to get that information. Which is good. So, it either means that Amazon is forcing more of its third parties to collect, right, and then, you know, send the money or else they're just getting really good about sending the money. I don't know what it is, right? Either people are spending more, I mean, people are probably spending more online, right, and so, and that money's being forwarded. So, that's good. But a room's tax, right, I mean, the hotels cannot be doing that much business right now. I mean, it's probably picked up a little bit, right? Do you have any indication of that? Well, we're actually down from what we were in the fall when we collected. So, not substantially, but the numbers were lower than what we collected in the fall. So, still struggling there. I think it's more of the hotels than the meals. Yeah, right. Yeah. Well, certainly people are not flying here. I mean, we have the lowest count in the nation for the airport. So, at least that was true last month. I'll find out where we stand tomorrow. But, yeah. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Tom. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to item 12, which is possible executive session for the purpose of hearing a grievance filed in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the City of South Burlington and the City of South Burlington Police Officers Association. And I have a motion to read if you'd like to. Yeah, and possibly to discuss appointments to this city. Okay. Yeah. So, I move that the council make a specific finding that premature general public knowledge of the grievance hearing and the information presented therein would clearly place the city and the grievance at a substantial disadvantage. So, we have a motion. Do we have a second? A second. Okay. All in favor? Signify, put a thumbs up. I think we can, okay. All in favor? And then a second motion. And so, having so found, I now move that the council enter into executive session for the purpose of hearing a grievance inviting in Colin McNeil, Andrew Bulldog, Kevin Doran, Chief Sean Burke, Tom Horgan, and Sergeant Dave McDonough. And a second? Second. Second by Megan. All in favor? Thumbs up. Hi. I have entered executive session. So, Andrew, what? Sorry, I was just going to say, I believe there are a couple other union members that would like to be invited in as well. Oh, Daniel Boyer would like to join and Kelsey Monroe. Okay. Can we amend that? I'd like to amend the motion to include Daniel Boyer and Kelsey Monroe. Okay. And a second, Megan? Okay. Again, all in favor? We still have Barb's service. If somebody, if Barb, it could leave. Right. I was just, the next one is to ask Sue. So, Kevin, I think can ask people to leave. Town meeting needs to leave. Sheila. Sheila. No, town meeting hasn't yet.