 Yes. Visual audio. Thank you. Mr. President, I'm going to be the one which stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This is the meeting of order baller, then more Monday, November 18, 1985. The first order of business since the President was laid in stealth attacks tonight will be the election for temporary chair. The floor is open for nomination. All in the gear. Are there further nominations? Are there further nominations? The motion is made and seconded. The department has one ballot for all in the year as temporary chair. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Post? First name on the agenda is public hearing. First name is the agenda. Are there any changes? Seeing none, second things. Public hearing proposed ballot question for December 10, 1980 by a special meeting. $6 million on the waterfront public comment. If you didn't mind with the use of that visual aid, it may take about four minutes of your time to run up to the board and put it in the public. So you got revised plan for the waterfront development, which has been prepared by the online waterfront corporation. I'd like to just briefly point out how the $4.8 million of public improvements will be utilized within this project here. Again, the total bond issue is $6 million. Some of that money is for the cost of issuing the bond and for capitalized interest. It will be actually $4.8 million of construction work under state. First of all, along the entire length of the project, there will be a lake or a promenade that will be constructed. This will be a brick promenade, at least 50 feet in width. This will be a property which will be conveyed to the city of Burlington by the online waterfront corporations. Also, with the bond issue proceeds, the shoreline will be protected and elevated above the flood plain. This here is currently the site of the U.S. Naval Reserve property. As you know, we are working to relocate the Naval Reserve. A portion of the bond proceeds will facilitate the relocation of the Naval Reserve to also allow for the improvements of this property. In addition to the approximate 1.2 acres of Naval Reserve property, all of them will also donate to the city about 1.2 acres of property which will bet that the total 2.5 acre park at this site. The bond issue will also allow for the improvements to what has been identified as Island Park. It's actually an island park. It's through here where there will either be a bridge or some sort of covert type to allow for the flow of water for waterfront purposes. This is the existing switch at the foot of College Street. It will be enlarged. And on this property will be constructed the community boat house. This will be a very significant structure. It's depicted here in these sketches which will serve for a focal point in the center for a range of community activities year round, by skating during the winter time and affordable rental of boats and canoes and so forth in the summer time. Also, as the board is aware, it will be necessary to relocate current Lake Street. One of the primary purposes for this relocation is currently Lake Street cuts up through here. In order to allow for public access to the property and to allow for the construction amount, ultimately a thousand parking space here will be necessary to relocate Lake Street slightly to the west. And associated with the relocation of Lake Street will be the relocation of the major utilities. This is an appointment which has been raised by some folks as why is the city providing utilities through and water lines to be all the project? Well, in fact, we're not. All the utilities, the service line, which will be required to serve the commercial and private development, will be financed by the development. So in essence, those are the major improvements which will be undertaken. Just briefly, this will become the site of a children's playground. Union station and subsequent phases of the project is proposed for the Waterfront Heritage Center. This is the island park. This would be a cool and happy park. This is an area which is proposed ultimately for the retail pavilion on an interim basis. It would be green open space. This would, on an interim basis, would be surface parking. In the future, it would be a site of the parking facility and office buildings. This is the existing Hague Mell in the Kensington building which will soon be under construction. This is a site for the 200-room lakeside end. The bicycle path will tow through the project. The bicycle path is also one component of the project which will be funded with bondage and proceeds. And this is a future site for housing. Within this area, to the earliest basis, we constructed 150 units of housing. This plan here depicts the profile of the development. And as you can see, it's been designed to ensure the preservation of views to the lake. The largest building would be the lakeside hotel. It would be five, six stories high, approximately 72 feet at its highest point. Even that building would be below the ascertainment. The vast majority of the buildings would be of three-story construction. Just very briefly, the project will be financed with taxing from the financing. The current taxing from the financing district as revised by the Board of Olives is 25 acres, which is either owned or controlled by the Aldenwater Corporation. Currently, within that 25 acres, there's $80,000 per year of taxes which are regenerated. Now under this plan, that becomes the frozen tax phase. And I say that, the $7 million of assessed value becomes the frozen tax phase. As taxes increase, it will do as a result of increase in taxing. That phase will also increase upwards. But the tax increment is that development which will occur as a result of the public improvements on that property. Now it's projected that that development will generate over a 10-year period an additional $1.4 million in taxes of a total of $62 million in private development. A portion of this tax increment will be consumed by the debt. It varies in the first couple of years, but it levels out to be about $700,000 a year in the later years of the project. That will be the principal in interest on the $6 million bond. That will totally be paid for by taxes generated by the Alderman-Waterford Project. So it's assured and it's guaranteed that there won't be no risk to the tax fare. The tax fare will not be paid for these improvements. These improvements will be paid for by taxes generated by the project itself. As early as 1990, it's generated that there will be about a $300,000 surplus. In other words, after the principal in interest on the bond is paid off, it will be $300,000 which would be available for distribution to the city and to the school district and would provide desperately needed tax relief to both the city and the school. As we get into the later years of the project, the 20-year projections are projected to be $2 million no more in taxes produced. At that time, the bond will be paid off and all of those taxes will be available for the city and the school district. This is a brief overview of what the December 10th election is about. Thank you. Is there any public comment and questions on the board? We'll do them up to the 1-6. I would like to bring up again rip-run rock. We have too many, too little water space in the accessible water area to go along the ends of the rip-run rock. I know we were misled before the other plan that appreciated this different people. There was a load of rip-run rock which is a jaguar rock which precludes entering the area taking advantage of water, water and sanitation. I wanted to know where in this plan they can use rip-run rock and how much of it. We should stick to breaching the kingdom. If I go over here, there are two kinds of that. One is sheep pines, similar to what's in front of the egg. Here, that is sheep pines right there. From here to here will be sheep pines. From here to here will be rip-run. The rip-run that we're talking about, I think probably the closest example, if you go to the, I think it's called the Champlain Mill in Wanuski, on the Wanuski River, there's a small part just on the bridge side of that Champlain Mill. The rip-run stone comes from the quarry of Wanuski and it's a large red stone about that size. I agree with you in terms of the rip-rap that you've seen where the rip-rap is dumped and you get these jagged points. What we've done in Wanuski is we place the stone, we don't dump it, we place the stone with a crane so basically you have a flat surface and where you have the voids between the stones, what's called chinking, you put smaller stones in there. The rip-rap then would have a much smoother face to it than the jagged stone. The importance about the incline plane of the rip-rap is that as the water raises and lowers, most of you know that the water fluctuation is about 8 to 10 feet, not in one year, but over a period of years from high water to low water. This allows access to the water. The vertical edge where the navy is does not allow you access to the water, the vertical edge. In that area we have a vertical edge, where you can walk below the vertical edge that would be at the water level so you'd be able to walk on the promenade and go down and walk on the boardwalk where the rip-rap is where you'd be able to negotiate down. It wouldn't be like the railroad track crossings where you dump the stone, it would be set in place similar to the park in Wanuski. That's the best explanation I can give. Any other public comments? Rick Sharp, Board 2. As you know I've all commented on this. That's a number already. I would like to go over the main points regarding the most important questions regarding this plan. I think there are basically pre-iterated questions that have to be resolved. The first is who owns the film ad in the Greenland Department? The second is what do we want on our waterfront? And the third is is this a good deal for the city from an economic standpoint? Regarding the first issue we have a trust doctor now for approximately two and a half years and still has no resolution of that issue at this time. I've put out a memorandum already that relies on two Supreme Court things, one from the U.S. Supreme Court the other from the Vermont State Supreme Court. Both of those foldings are that this film ad in the Greenland Department must be used for public use if it cannot be put to private use. I would argue very strongly that what the city of Maryland should do is very similar to what was done in the city of Chicago. And that is that this film ad will be reclaimed by the state of Vermont and held in front of all the teams by the state and that more of that land can preserve more public access along the way. The city of Chicago currently has a wide open waterfront as a result of the 1892 decision of Illinois Central versus the state of Illinois I think is that same type of procedure could be done in the state of Vermont. We can preserve a lot more of this space for public access. We will not have a hotel building located within 25 feet of the lake set. I think that much more of that can be preserved for public use. We had quite a good discussion about whether or not the public trust document exists. I have put out a document saying what my authorities are and I would like to have anyone who is opposed to that position who says that this film ad can be used for hotel and condominium to put out a legal document which cites to their authorities as to why those kind of facilities can in fact be located on that project. I think that we've heard Peter Kodawa and other people talking about this project refer to the fact that a stadium was located on the metal lands in New Jersey. I would agree that a stadium is in fact a public use that is permitted on such filled lands. I would also say that a civic center could be located on this filled land possibly even in a retail pavilion which would be open to the public. Certainly, fairy dots, railroad uses, sewers, a sewer treatment plan, a water facility, those were all public uses to which this land can be put. But I'm not aware of a single case in the United States which says that filled land can be devoted to public use and private hotel. I think those are perfectly private uses which a public trust document cannot be stretched to that extent to say that they can be located on that land. I don't think that we're getting into the field and the project in terms of the mix of public space is going to be left open to the public and that space is going to be brought to private use. We had quite a bit of discussion as to how much space is going to be left open to the public. From my calculation it looks like the net that we are getting based upon the skin and J which I presented to you at the last Alderman's meeting at which I spoke seems to indicate that there's a net approximately one and a half, two acres that we are in fact getting from the Alderman Corporation. I don't think that that's sufficient when you realize that we have a legal plan for these 12 or 13 acres on this waterfront and I don't think that's what the people of the city of Vermont have said that they want it in the past and I don't think that's what they want today. That gets to the second question of what we want on our waterfront. The group which I work with has proposed a plan which would include a waterfront part from one end of the city to the other which we would like to see to be wide enough to accommodate both the bicycle path an area for people who want to sit on the lake's edge and not be disturbed by bicycle and something that could be trees to be planted in we could have what we would call a maple gateway part between the city. We feel that this is in fact what the people of Burlington want that that is more in keeping with our unique Vermont environment and that's what should be located on this land all along the lake's edge and that's why we supported a bicycle path and worked so hard to create that public space all along the lake's edge. I came back to Burlington, Vermont at the completion of the law school because I didn't want to live in a state like New Jersey or a state like Florida where condominiums and hotels are located within 25, 65 feet of the lake's edge and the public is routinely excluded from the water's edge. I want Vermont to feel like Vermont I want it to be a unique place I want it to be a park space like that. I want to preserve this land for that park space for my children and generations to come and I've got to say that I don't see anything different between this project and those projects which are being built routinely in Florida and New Jersey and other areas of the country. The third question is whether or not this is economically a good deal for the city of Burlington. I think that we started out with the idea that we were going to get a UDAD grant and we'll come into the city and do something in excess of $30 million when that UDAD grant came back over the four-year period that was projected for. At the same time, we would begin to receive tax dollars from this project from the first date in which the new building was assessed at the school economic value. I would point out that the right-of-the-hotel right now is constructing an addition to this building and the people when that building is complete and the new tax assessment is made they will begin to take tax dollars and come into the city to offer in order to decorate school expenses and other city expenses from the day that they start to use that building. What we are back doing here if we okay this bond issue and if just tax and mental financing goes through is we are declaring the 24 of the most valuable acres in our entire city to be a tax exempt zone for a period of approximately 20 years. I think that's exactly the opposite of what our tax policy has been in the past. I think I've heard many members of this board talk about how much tax exempt property there is in the city. The UDM doesn't take taxes, the fiscal diet and many other properties in the city are not in the tax role if they use public services such as police and fire services and they're not adding anything to our tax base. What you are in fact doing by approving this bond is you are creating a tax bed zone for the next 20 years you are guaranteeing that we will not receive any income from this project other than those increments that are projected to begin possibly as early as 1999. I don't think that we will in fact see that by 1990 but in fact it will be a much later day where this can go through. My opinion is that the development will occur on the water right whether or not this bond issue goes through and that by approving the bond issue we are in fact guaranteeing that those funds will not come into city property instead of guaranteeing that we won't back that additional tax revenue. One of the major reasons for building this as I understand it is tax revenues that we will get from it. Under the current plan we will be giving up those tax revenues for up to 20 years and I take exception to the flyers passed out this week I think it's highly I think it's highly susceptible in saying that this project will not cost city taxpayers a penny that is not in fact the case will cost city taxpayers $13 million in tax revenues that we will give up over the next 20 years of this site. For all of those reasons and for the technical reasons that are in fact some serious problems with the legislation passed it seems to indicate to me that the tax incremental district would have to return the funds to pay off that bond that has to be in a period of 10 years not 20 years projected by the administration at this point I also think that there is a problem there in terms of whether or not any of these funds can be shared with the city with the whole department as well and then the third is the lack of this agreement is that whether or not the city could in fact use any of those funds in the fifth year and later years if there were any excess funds to in fact go to the schools and go into city coffers none of those things are left in this legislation I would ask that you postpone the decision on this issue we've had time to go back to the legislature to make this legislation straightened out so we're putting the force before the car instead of the other way around there are also a couple of other technical problems in terms of the schedule in jail which is attached to the development agreement does not include a right of way for the bicycle path although we hear in all the literature that we're going to have a bicycle path on this there's in fact only a 60 foot wide right I think that the development agreement should be changed or amended to include at a minimum an inclusion of the bicycle path we're going to guarantee right of way the final thing that I see along with the development agreement is that unlike what the city administration is telling us now that all this in fact is guaranteeing the repayment of this bond I don't see anything in that development agreement that says that all this is going to guarantee that all the investments can say that the city and all the agreed to a later time to attach the arrangement which would allow the repayment of that bond I don't see any guarantee in that agreement this time although there is an agreement to agree on a later date for all those reasons the public should turn down this bond vote and we should attempt to get more public space on the length that you can have a lower cost thank you very much don't leave yet Rick I just wanted to if I was creating a 25 acre tax free zone tax exemption to explain that to you what I'm talking about is that although this project will in fact pay taxes those taxes will not come into the city so instead go paying off that bond the effect which we're doing is the same thing as UDM and all the other tax exemption properties in the city we do not generate any money from those acreage that adds to our general revenues from the school and in the city itself to be able to pay for the services that are in those areas which is released from the fire department and the school and don't just even though they are paying taxes we are creating a tax exemption because we do not get the money the same effect as tax exemption properties like UDM to take as no tax if there's a surplus over the municipal interest payment which there's a projected to be by the year 5 the city wouldn't be sharing that that money would be directed to the federal fund well I think the projections from what Mr. Klovala said are not entirely reliable they are merely projections at this point Mr. Klovala said this is a highly speculative venture and that it is not certain what the outcome of this will be at all I would be willing to wait for you right now that in tax year 1989 it says in your flyer we will not have $300,000 available for two reasons one is that I think it will longer get the permitting process done but it won't come in in tax year 1989 if it does come so what I want to clarify this is not a tax issue what you said earlier that they will not be paying any taxes that's not quite accurate the effect of this is the same as exempting UDM that's right because the tax they are not coming into to see the tax profits be paid they are in fact going to pay off $30 million would go to pay off the improvements they are putting thank you city attorney if I may if I may Mr. President just a couple of times I would be holding that if I was the tax payer I would consider it not the taxes in the zone if I had to pay taxes in this situation the tax payer will have to pay taxes no more or any less than they would pay if they were any other taxable properties in the city so the legislation controls the use of those funds to pay off the bonds but the tax payer will have to pay the tax there is no exemption whatsoever as it applies to the tax payer secondly it's somewhat different from the UDM example for a bond issue the city issues general obligation bonds and wants to have them paid off UDM does not pay nickel towards the payment of that bond because UDM is tax exempt the tax payer would have the obligation to pay in revenues in normal tax revenues to cover the debt secondly the the ten year limit for issuing the debt the ten year limit as discussed in the legislation simply indicates that the city will have a ten year period from the time that the district is created to determine whether it wishes to issue debt for public improvements once that debt is issued the district stays in effect until the debt is amortized, fully amortized so the 20 year period is perfectly within the concept of the statute third one on a plug-in basis just to read into the back of the letter which I will read from the Attorney General's office today that I can quote this letter to confirm that Attorney General Amistoy, as we do, would quote a stipulation in his last call the Central Vermont Railway that strongly supports its terms as you know the effect of the so-called public trust doctrine quotes on this project has been the subject of extensive research by our respective offices over the past 18 months the stipulation in draft the last call was the product of negotiations in which the primary goal was to ensure that the public's interest pursuant to the public trust since the Vermont Legislature in the 1874 conveyed the title of the land which was built in the nation defined by no roads public trust issue not so much the question of ownership of land as it is of use it is clear that the Legislature intended to convey titles to the railroad what is less clear is whether the conveyance was to be simple, absolute or whether the Legislature intended that public trust on the occasion to be the run of the land this is a legal debate that holds no certain result because of this continuing uncertainty as to whether the public trust doctrine applies at all to the built land the question continues to be our position that the proposed use of the property should be reduced closer we have satisfied ourselves that regardless of whether the public trust doctrine applies to this land the provisions in the stipulation is satisfactory for the viewer that the public interest has been protected and even enhanced we have proposed the stipulation to be presented to the Chittenden Superior Court for final approval J. Wall's Alley Union but this is the status of that stipulation the stipulation will be presented to the court forthwith it is not now before the court but it will be before the court quite promptly and it has been approved by all three by the city approved by the state not yet then executed by all that and the reason they have yet executed it is because I understand that they are working out some of the contractual details that they have interested in the point I'm sorry I don't have a document that you passed that you restricted an alternative to the older plan my memory is correct one of the points that you made in criticizing the city's position that we're not getting a terribly good deal in your opinion on the waterfront regarding our relation to Alley you had a better suggestion I'm paraphrasing but I think I have it right but your thought is that under the public trust doctrine essentially the legislature has the power to seize the olden without compensation and turn it over to people in the state of Vermont as a public public as a socialist actually I find this an interesting concept but I wonder certainly for this to happen with the majority of members of the Vermont State Legislature in support of the government in support of the state senate now can you tell me who you have spoken to in the Vermont State Legislature if you spoke to the governor Cunin and when you expect them to be seizing this plan without compensation I have spoken with a few legislators about this issue the issue it really doesn't receive I don't think it receives the public attention that it needs to receive until we get into this situation where it's necessary to resolve it I would hope that your administration and other people that are the progressives in this town that would like to see more public access what have taken this issue to the legislature two years ago when John Frank first found out about the public trust and I'm pointing to him when he says that legal purposes, the filiband is the same as the late part of the south belongs to the people of the state of Vermont we are in three weeks going to bring a proposition before the people some of us think that it's the best proposal and in fact that we're not successful but we think that we're not successful what's going to come down the pipe would be sufficiently worse you are urging people to vote for government and you are proposing an alternative I am suggesting to you that I would like to hear you in front of the people that you have absolutely no support for your proposal because there may not be one out of 180 members of the Vermont state legislature nor the governor but the legislature will be ceasing without compensation point of order I think this is important I think it's not inappropriate to ask Rick a question excuse me it's in the nature of questions back and forth do you have any problem with it do you want to see everybody who wants to speak that's usually how we conduct our business we're going to get everyone to chance to speak Rick is saying to vote no because he has a better idea I am suggesting that I have not heard of one member out of 100 each members of the Vermont state legislature nor the governor who will support this idea and I think as we vote no because we think that Rick's idea is correct that particular idea will never happen so Rick I ask you again tell me if the governor or any member of the Vermont state legislature is prepared to support your proposal by a $400,000 an acre and convert it over to the people as a public part please tell me the names of the members of the legislature who will support that proposal I have not spoken with members of the legislature to a larger extent about this nor have I spoken to the governor about it I think that it's something that definitely could happen and I was certainly told that the legislature doesn't in fact take that action legislature of the state of Illinois did that how do I know the legislature of Illinois did that 90 years ago on more particularly peculiar circumstances having to do with a lot of grant or relationship with their railroad once again I ask you you are asking people to vote no you have every right in the world to do that I don't mean to be caught up here now but what you are suggesting to my mind has absolutely no support from anybody in the legislature in fact will have to act in that direction because this administration had gone forward to my opinion to ask them to seize the property where $400,000 a year I mentioned to you that this administration has gone down to my opinion and asked them to pass charter changes overwhelmingly passed by the people of Burlington and they wouldn't support that so my immediate focus not to ask them to seize the property presently held in private hands to make it a public part I did not think that my efforts if you have had more success please tell us about it because if the people follow your advice they are going to want to see your leadership and get your idea prepared I suggest that there is not one member of the legislature and certainly not the governor who supports your idea and if we went in that direction it would be a public success I think if we get a fair public debate on the issue and the people who know about the public trust doctor that they may very well decide to exercise their rights in that land which belongs to them I would suggest a little wager you suggest a little wager about what the revenue coming into the city would be I don't give you right now a hundred to one or a thousand to one that the legislature and the governor of the state of Vermont will never support that proposal I'll take you upon that Of course I may be governor but that would be the problem but I will tell you that I have a lot of consideration and a lot of concerns about that plan and I'll tell you my opinion about everything that I see immediately wrong just from the position of you are asking the citizens of Maryland to be going to business for $6 million on a land front and you're asking them to refrain from gathering any of that money for at least 20 years there are no guarantees I heard Fred say if there was more money in 5 years if is a very large community and if I were in business and that were my private property and a businessman came to me and said $13 million worth of public access improvements in this land so that I can have some build my economy in my hotel and in 20 years I will give you some return on that money I would tell them to go swim up a pipe there is no way that I would ever let that quality plan for a proposal that would only bring me money 20 years down the road and I cannot understand how you can say that as we're going to get the auto corporation to get 25% of relief and then anything above that that the city will get the benefits of what guarantee you have that the auto corporation is going to reinvest that money above and beyond into or pay off in dividends there are a lot of unanswered questions here you also have the last of which I would point out you have public access now but when you put those condominiums in there when the foreign association is strong at the lobby school that the church street marketplace association is and what guarantee we have as people that have the right to use that but they don't want me to take away the rights of that access what guarantee, we can guarantee legally we have a lawfulness in court down the road where most people own that land and our private owners and our responsible tax payers citizens and then they'll turn around and decide they don't want some of the street people that we have wandering around their waterfront because that's their front yard if you go to Huntington Beach in California Walton Beach, Seal Beach any of those places the condominiums all the way back from the road you have a highway, public access highway with public parking and all that land is open to the people you don't have your glorious boat rentals but you have free land for people to come and go have their gatherings, their picnics and being together and it doesn't cost them anything to go around that land you talk about a boat rental that is affordable, what do you mean by affordable? I have one person tell me that that is going to cost you $40 an hour to run a boat and that's about $1 what do you mean by affordable they don't have any answers all I want are kids, babies and babies when, when are we going to see money what are the other guarantees be responsible or should there be no response I think it will lose I mean more than a part of the reservations there are a lot of the states I don't know we're just letting people know no I don't criticize or ask any questions okay, we'll try to provide Who wants to start answering the question? In terms of a format, Alan, I might suggest that we're going out to every neighborhood planning assembly in the city and, at this point, we're going out to wars two and wars six. But over the next, well, this Tuesday and Wednesday and two days next week, we'll be out in the other four wars. And I think this is a good opportunity to engage in a dialogue, engage in questions concerning the project. So it seems to me that it might be most appropriate tonight to hear people's comments if they want more information. We'll certainly be prepared to respond to it. I think that this woman's testimony was really blatant with inaccuracies in the misconception that we've just spent a fair amount of this evening and I think we're at those inaccuracies. Well, let's try to help us do it. Let's try to help. I would like to go to my war two meeting. Now, I went at 7 o'clock and two each over the sleeve in my family's average. And I thought I had the wrong place. It wasn't as widely publicized as I would like to have been. I didn't come home from work and looked in the paper and saw that it was listed in the paper. Rachel was in the same problem as I didn't see a place with it. And I don't feel that, I mean, this may not be the place to get to have a discussion on the plan, but there are a few, or two, who can be reached out in their opinion or respond to them. And I think that there are a lot of people who have a lot of concerns and my questions were not, there were questions and I don't see how a question can be inaccurate. I would recommend I can fresh up to that. Do you have a question? Yes, I do. Oh, yes. If the board would like to answer a question, would you like to start with? I would like to understand for one thing, how you can sit there and guarantee this, ask the students at the school board to support this when you're saying that they may, and if there is an excess of funding, they will get some response. But what written guarantees do they have? They'll never get any money out of that project. And exactly when does all that happen? Sure, one of the information is that right now, this 25 acres produces $88,000 a year in taxes, which is probably the most taxes that's produced in the last 50 years. If this property is not developed, then we continue to produce $18,000 a year in taxes. In fact, the most deteriorating decline in areas, the tax base goes down. If this property is developed, there are no guarantees with the projections, all right, that it could be upwards of $70 million with construction that would take place, and that by the year 2005, $2 million worth of taxes could be generated. That is not a guarantee, that is a projection. What is a guarantee is there will not be one cent of money spent on this project, unless there's a guarantee that there will be taxes generated which are sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the property. You just got all the questions as well, the questions of access, how do you guarantee that? Access is guaranteed, and I've heard this before, while we'll take this Lakefront promenade put in front of condominiums and the people in condominiums will say, we don't like it, and we would say to the people in the condominium that this will be a legally binding perpetual document, that is a public thoroughfare. But once these conveyances take place, this 50-foot promenade will in fact be, we will have the same rights to that as we do to a city street. And to suggest that someone because they own a $150,000 condominium would be able to go out there and close the city streets is not the case. I think the city attorney could speak to this interview with the legal documents, but there will be perpetual public access guaranteed on this 50-foot promenade. You're all the questions. You have this much Lakefront space, and you say that you're willing to give us 50 feet of public access, and yet you can go to California with a value of properties that's sitting on high, and yet you can go onto their beaches for a lot more than a lot larger access than 50 feet. Why is it that the citizens of Burlington are only being given 50 feet of their own land? That seems to me to be an inexcusable use of city property. To first start, this is not our own land. This is land which is owned by the Center for Montereau, which Alden has under an option. They will purchase this land for upwards of $400,000 an acre. So all of them will be conveyed to the city between the promenade and the Lakefront Park close to three because of land which carries the value and access of a million dollars. It's the position of the city and the position of the Attorney General with this 50 foot dedication, which is the width of Church Street is substantial open space on the waterfront. The water space is not an awful lot of land, and $6 million is a lot of money to ask the citizens of Burlington to put up for a very little return that they'll see over a very 20 years. Can I? I don't mean to get a couple, do you mind if I ask, is it your impression that this is city land? I'm saying that my impression is that if we are not getting people to negotiate for a lot more availability, first of all, you talked to me about both of them. What can we guarantee the citizens in terms of affordable? Before we get it, I made a statement a few minutes ago. I don't know if you weren't aware of it. You said this was city land. If this was a publicly owned land, then a lot of what you're saying would be very, very valuable. This happens not to be owned by the city of Burlington. You understand? I don't understand what you're saying. Maybe let's not get into it. Ask your questions. We're trying to give you the best answer. Peter, do you want to respond if there's an impression that this land is publicly owned? The woman has a very good point. It's the land owned by the city of Burlington. Spending a year and a half is indicated by the attorney general. While I research in this issue, there's an opinion of both attorneys for the city of Burlington, as well as attorneys for the state of Vermont, that this land is not owned by the public. That this land is subject to certain public uses and that the stipulations negotiated with the All in Waterfront Corporation satisfy those public uses if in fact it was ever determined that this land is subject to the public trust doctrine. Now, in view of that settlement, this thing could be litigated for the next 40 years. Some people would like to see that happen. But in the absence of a negotiated settlement of this issue, this thing would drag on and on and on and bring sharp, but out gray hairs. The court's arguing who owns this property. I feel that $6 million that are not going to be owned by anybody other than people who can afford the kind of place for property is a lot of money to ask the citizens to put up. And what you're saying to them is you are going to put up $6 million. We have a citizen that has already got a lot of deficits that haven't had a lot of financial needs. And I don't think that children would best deal with citizens in terms of cash flow. You're more than that. Peter, if we're putting up, explain once again where the $6 million is built. Yes, the $6 million is being dedicated totally to public improvements. If I was suggesting for one minute that we spent $6 million to build condos for a hotel, I think that I ought to be fired every morning. But that's not the case. The $6 million is to provide perpetual public access and is to provide part space on the Burlington Waterfront. It is not to build or subsidize the construction of condominiums or private development. But it ends up being the same thing. And do we have anyone else who would like to comment? Thank you. I'm treating this as a public forum, not a public debate. I'm hoping that we can have a public debate. I want to make it very clear from the outset that I'm not speaking tonight as chairman of the city democratic committee. The city democratic committee has not taken a position on this. And when we do, we will vote on it at an open meeting of city democrats. I understand that some democrats may not understand that some democrats oppose it. Some republicans may not. But even some socialists may not oppose it. We could use that to be a little bit greater. Today I just got the choir that purports to explain this to the others. And that's what bothers me really more than anything. I'm bothered by this because of the information or perhaps the lack of information in this. To the question, when will the school department in the city start setting tax revenues for this project beginning in 1990? That's not true. I think, Joe, you were talking through word last week. And the official would be able to tell me if I'm wrong. The way that the law of current understands as I understand it is that nobody, from the tax-improvement part of the situation, can go to the schools for the city and provide payoffs, is that correct? There are two separate portions of that legislation. One which indicates that, one that indicates that after you pay the debt service, you can't use it to appropriate it for other governmental purposes. But we advise the school department and the CEDO office was that it would be prudent to get the legislation clarified to make sure that you can do what seems to event the intent of the legislation, not as to allow payments for normal appropriation sources so long as you've currently debt service. As I understand it, there certainly is a question for the current legislation on how to cancel the schools in the city. Well, as I indicated, there are two sections. One indicated that I don't want to repeat myself. There are two distinct changes in law. Yes. And it bothers me that it's presented here as if there is no change in the law needed. A lot of the information in here I think is vague, vague to the point of not really giving the people all of the information they need. This is a very important bond issue. It's as important as not more important. That's a bond issue that I worked very hard on in the city with the marketplace. In that case, we were getting several million dollars from the federal government. And even then, we know that there are some aspects of that project as it turned out that the wetland to see difference. But I am concerned, very much concerned about the people who are not told. And I think my request to you, to challenge you in the interest of open government because I think the open government is more than praise, I really believe in it. I think my challenge to you is to tell the people the truth. Tell them all the facts completely. Don't say it's a people-oriented waterfront. That's a vague, meaningless buzzword. People-oriented waterfront could be anything. Of course it's going to be people-oriented. You're not building it for paying your rooms. Obviously it's going to be people-oriented. But what do we really mean by that? What are the costs of the condominium, for example? Why does this not tell people growing for the cost of condominium to between $200,000 and $300,000? Why does this not tell the people growing? That there's a five, six, or seven story hotel dinners. Be honest with the people, be upfront with them. And if you've got a good project, and if you trust the people, I think you can expect their trust to return. I think another thing that's completely left out here is Ward 3. I'm very surprised about that. According to the CEO director, and I think according to anybody that knows what happens when there were major developments in any particular area, there's going to be a spin off of that and property values are going to rise tremendously. What is in place for people at Ward 3? They are in the immediate area. The CEO director has said property values will rise in the immediate area. What is the plan? There's been a hint about some plan, but you've got to tell the people what to play an edge. You can't give them a press conference a week before the election and say, we're going to take care of it all. You've got to let them know what it is. Other aspects of what I got today bother me because there were phrases in there that I don't think really gain an accurate picture. It says that it's low density. Well, what is low density? Relatively low density to another project that hadn't been proposed there, but it's not low density if you understand low density in the city of Berlin. The low density is R6, maybe R15. What is the density of that? I think we have to know. I think we have to know about the Moran Plan. That has been mentioned in here. What is going on with the Moran Plan? How much money do schools lose when the Moran Plan is closed as part of the free development agreement? That has to be told. I think we're talking about thousands and thousands of dollars there, payment and loan taxes. I don't think that you can tell people that it won't cost more penny if it's going to really cost them $6 million in deferred taxes or more. Tell them that it's deferred taxes. Tell them it's millions of dollars in deferred taxes. Tell them people the truth. I don't think that you can give the people sort of a gloss over and expect their trust. Give them a fact sheet. Tell them that $758,000, this $6 million of cost is for underground wire. Include them. That's very important. I guess on behalf of the public, as a parent, as a taxpayer, I'm demanding that these questions be addressed, that these questions be faced honestly and openly, and that the public gets the information they have everybody to know. Thank you, sir. It's nice to see you back, by the way. Thank you, sir. I have, as you know, along with Gary and George who worked quite a bit, Gary and I, so they have a long time on the water with me. Just a general observation could be slightly offended by the fact that I am now engaging in some sort of a massive case of deception on the people who go into it. Well, maybe you'll be clear for that. No, I... This is a very good piece of advertising. It's not a good faction, but I think the people grow up. I think all the fans, if you take the time to get them, are readily available, they are readily available in either the pre-development agreement or in that faction there. But to merely state a blanket statement that we are attempting to deceive the public and we are breaking our backs to try to get this information out in many forms as possible, I take it as an insult. Now, if you have a list of specific questions, not vague generalities, what we're talking about here is a very unique situation where the private sector and the public sector are coming together to develop a waterfront. I'm not ashamed to say that I don't know the size of the ashtrays in hotels today. I'm not afraid to say that I don't know what color of the rooms are gonna depend on the condominium. But I'm sick, but I think the things that are concerning to the people of Burlington have been addressed and have been answered. But if you have further questions, specific questions that you want to address from my committee, I'm more than willing to look at them. All I do is vague, vague questions you throw off that maybe you're not just gonna cross with the mayor's tax revenues and not $199. Many of these things have been thoroughly researched by my committee, or as well as the CEDA office, and I feel very confident in bringing this to the voters. And I don't, and I, like I say, I take offense at the fact that you're suggesting that we may be doing this underhanded. I think this proposal sells itself. I don't think it is necessary to try to deceive or keep this information from public. But if you have a specific set of questions, you're more than willing to answer them at any time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I've just raised several specific questions. I'll raise one more. We're talking about the keystone of the park area as being the Naval Reserve Station. What does your committee have, what does Mr. Pavell have, what does Mr. Sanders have from the Naval Reserve, saying that we're going to have that in 1986 or 8,790 cents? What do you have? Have you anything to write into that? Mr. Pavell. We have an act of Congress which suggests that the Naval Reserve find a new location. What date and when does the United States Navy say that it will vacate that particular spot? So what do we have? It's not dates specific, but I'd be glad to share that with the Congress with you, which was adopted in a long session. I'd also be glad to sit down and spend a couple of hours in sharing factual information with you so that some of these misconceptions that you have that certainly won't try to correct them. Mr. Chairman, I take offense that every time a member of the public has a question with the CEDA office, when the administration, they are misinformed and they have misconceptions. I take great offense in that. Sure. You began your presentation by making, I think, a reasonable point about this. How do you define the people who are in the project? Honestly, people can disagree. You were on the board before I was made and you are aware of previous work and development projects that have come down to that. My memory is correct in fact, you even voted for one. Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman. But now I finish my statement, please. Please. It can't be. You're the light. This representative, yeah. But you was right. I'll finish and you will get a chance to respond, okay? Now, my memory is, I may be wrong, but my memory is that before I was made, I believe in 1979, the Board of Aldermen, I believe unanimously, voted to approve a UDAG grant for a waterfront development project which, to the best of my memory, would have allowed for one ache up underlying, one ache up of public park and the debate that took place at that time was whether that public park would close at 9 p.m. will be open later than that. That was the waterfront development project that was existing in 1979. I'm not here to argue whether that was good or bad, but I just wonder who you claim to be going down and discussing this people-oriented project. Tell me how this project compares to that project that's unanimously approved by the Board of Aldermen with my belief I make you want this. Your vote. Would you like to do that, Mr. Rossi? You know how slowly I did those stuff, player games. One, I did vote for that. Two, $3 million was coming into the city of Berlin, but not $6 million of local property tax dollars going into the project, okay? And three, the major item that you keep on bidding on this is the fact that the city of Berlin, and for $1, it was working on a deal just about at the deal seal in the Department of Transportation to get the old union station, a deal that you voted, by the way. That's not right. But wait a minute, you didn't answer the question. I don't want a debate, which is a fair debate. If we look at the financial resources of how can you bring in the most tax revenue for the waterfront? That's an interesting debate. You used the word people-oriented waterfront. And I ask you to tell me yes or no, is that not this project in terms of accessibility and openness in terms of public parks, community boat house, bike path, bullet pool, fossil fuel, fossil fuel, in terms of accessibility to the people that the project that you voted for six years ago. It is not a good couple of components. One, the union station, but the major component is the financial resources. But you're not talking about whether it's accessible to the people or not. I will not argue. You may be right. You may be wrong. I don't want to argue the rational aspect, Morris. Is this a more people-oriented project in terms of accessibility to the people? And I think the answer is very clear. This is a far better project in terms of openness and generosity and public access. Well, it's hard to say. The problems are double or triple in price. So it's really hard to say. Well, I think any reasonable person would find that this is a far more general-oriented project. General? I don't know. I think we, I take the blame for letting the public hearing degenerate in a way that they led us up. Let's have a time-�-in recess, come back to the public hearing and make it a statement as function public. And then, Mr. Chairman, before we break, I'd like to introduce the two hydrologists you lied after. They'll be leaving at nine o'clock. And I'd like the board to at least get to know who they are and that they're here. Jenny Savich and Sean Dampere from sixth grade Lawrence Farm School and they're part of the shout-out program. It's the second year that it's been an operation and they have a chance to witness the public hearing today. Why don't you call me in there? Welcome. Thank you. Hey, I don't know. Why not? It's got to be important. Wonderful. Let's just talk.