 you all right well at 6 30 and I would like to call to order the South Burlington City Council meeting of Tuesday February 21st 2023 and we'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance and maybe our former legislators would like to start it you just have to say aye I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you ladies okay instructions on exiting the building in case of emergency great thanks so for those in the room if there's emergency you can go out either side of the rear of the auditorium and then turn left and right and go outside for those joining us remotely if you'd like to comment on agenda item please turn your camera on and the chair will call on you you can also indicate your interest in the chat and I will have the chair call on you we are not monitoring the chat for content thank you okay just so you know Councillor Chittenden cannot be here tonight and I am anticipating Councillor Emory item 3 the agenda review are there any additions deletions or changes in the order of anything okay are there any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda none sitting here I take it any online councilor's announcements and reports on committee assignments in the city managers report so Tim do you want to start sure so I attended the some comp plan feedback meetings from the community for the Economic Development Committee and also I was triple booked on Thursday with the debate which I was only able to see part of the candidates debate and then I had to run over the the BCA which I went to and then I went upstairs to another comprehensive plan neighborhood feedback meeting so busy week thank you for attending those oh yeah I was triple booked and then forgot one thing and then got delayed so I did two of four things well so one small thing at the BCA I reminded the new JPs that one of the cardinal rules on election day is not to put the aye vote stickers on the same platform where the people put their their ballots into the machine otherwise if it gets sucked in it'll it'll jam it right well don't you know that night I went home and watched the NBC news and they were they had a segment about voting and they showed one of our machines but not in South Burlington but that same machine and the people had all these aye vote stickers on top of it so I stopped took a screenshot sent it to Donna and said what's wrong with this picture so there you go so we have to educate other people as well yeah you have to remind them right okay Matt yeah I attended the SBBA meeting that was hosted by city manager Jesse Baker this morning right here so I was was here at 7 a.m. and up be here till 10 p.m. but excellent job Jesse as usual in the entire team who came out to help tell us what's on the ballot and what's going on in City Hall we had a GMTA meeting I can't stress this enough one of the big challenges facing public bus service yes funding yes all these technical issues but one of the biggest challenges finding people who want to drive buses that problem has not gone away and excellent salaries excellent benefits but in order to provide adequate bus service we need people to see it as a viable profession which it is so that was the discussion that we had at our last meeting finally thank you chair really for giving me an opportunity for 30 seconds to say thank you to all of you this is my last meeting as a city counselor it was about 10 years ago when I moved to South Burlington and thought gee I'd like to get involved somehow and my neighbor Tim Barrett said well there's this thing called the DRB used to be on the planning commission in your little town of Plainfield you might know something about this and and I said yeah sure I'll try it and it was Tim who was the model for me to eventually become chair and I truly appreciate all the things that you've taught me whether you realize you're teaching me or not so I appreciate that Megan I know we haven't agreed on some things but there's one thing that I think we can agree on which is we both care passionately about our community and that's what matters right chair really you have been so kind to me over the last two years and yes races can be contentious but you never held a grudge you always helped me in my process even though we didn't agree on many things and I appreciate that genuinely Jesse you just do a fantastic job and I think the city of South Burlington is very fortunate to have such a professional leading our staff but none of this can happen as all you don't know without the people at home that are never in the audience and sometimes watching on videotape but my wife Sarah my son Davis my daughter Molly they I wouldn't be able to do this if they didn't support and I know that's the same thing for all of you who volunteer countless hours of time we couldn't do it without support back home so thank you to Davis Molly and Sarah thank you well thank you those were very sweet words Megan do you have any my husband and daughter to my husband and daughter are definitely part of this you know commitment that I've made and I just want to thank you for your service but you counselor Kota and it is you you know it in the two years you've served it's a it's a big commitment and it's an important commitment one that has real meaning and so I hope that it gave you meaning it was a short two years but I would have to say that you have also contributed I think to kind of the tenor of our discussions and and I think in spite of some of our disagreements I think sometimes I was I was pleased to see that we agreed on quite a lot so I just wanted to say that as well and wish you well in your in your ventures thank you very much and I should say for the record thank you to Thomas Chittenden as well I'll see you work tomorrow yes he's busy tonight triple book he said well I've been busy this week Jesse and I met with the school leadership for the first time in quite a while and we had a a good meeting and talked about a whole host of things some of it focused on how perhaps we can better communicate with the school board get to know them and use each other's talents perhaps to have a fuller discussion of some of the issues that face the city certainly education is a big one for all of us it's not really our purview but whatever is decided it would be good if we could all work toward the same end and so and probably and I or Dr. Childs and I agreed that we would try to work on something after the election to see if we could get together for I don't know a meal or something and meet potentially some new school board members although I don't know and certainly we'll have two council members and I think that would would be really helpful in the long haul for everyone so that was a good meeting I went to Jesse's I'm orient not orientation but informational meeting with all the candidates and my contribution was to really let them know in a sense how much work this is when when my husband convinced me to run he said a Helen it's two meetings a month not a big deal and then we went into the first interim zoning so we were hearing all the cases that normally went for the DRB and it's it's grown from there and then partway through my first year I realized that oh I'm on the BCA I kept getting the announcements no one ever told me that as a counselor you're a member of the BCA I had no idea and I thought oh isn't this nice they keep us informed of when they have all their meetings and then I had a conversation I guess with Donna and she said well you're a member so there was a whole host of other duties along with you know as we know we and I think it's good for the city to have the council liaisons to our committees and but but so I laid that out so they all knew that this is more than two meetings a month on Mondays unless it's a national holiday forget the liquor board oh well yeah but that's sort of incorporated in our meetings that is in a separate meeting and then I I did attend part of the council debate and prior to that I was interviewed by a student at Jordan Butterfield and he wanted he had talked to I think Tom D. Pietro maybe Paul Connor I don't know but anyway he wanted to talk about the bond issue for the wastewater so and that was that was fun he was putting together some kind of video educational thing about city government and the and decisions that we make and you know wanted me to describe what a bond was and you know that whole process so so that was that was fun and I do I want to thank you also Matt for showing up and being here and sharing sometimes different perspectives but not always different you just added to the texture I guess of our conversations coming from perhaps a different place than I but it's always helpful to hear what you had to say and I think I agree with Megan there were far more times when we all agreed on the substance of something anyway or might work to make something better and the really important things like the budget and those kinds of things decisions about city center that we all agreed on and so thank you for your short stint but you were on DRB for a while too so you have contributed mightily to the city thank you and I really wish you well on your new adventure yeah okay Jesse thanks well Matt's been on council the entire time here so for me it's a very long time thank you for your service and I'm sure we will be talking again so city updates thanks also to the SBBA for the invitation to speak with them this morning we had a great event here first thing this morning with the leadership team and many members of the business community going over what's on the ballot as well as lots of different municipal projects that are underway so really great event thank them for the invitation just a reminder for the community and the council that on our website is all of our information about town meeting day so you can go to our website black slash TMD town meeting day 2023 and all of the information is organized there we will have one more public forum on February 28th at 6 o'clock and then of course on March 6th the night before town meeting day we'll have our annual pre town meeting day presentation with the city with the school board as a steering committee so hopefully folks can join us as several of you have mentioned the comp plan conversations are ongoing there are no more in March in February but they start again March 1st March 8th and March 9th with ecology environment and agriculture transportation mobility and the southeast neighborhoods on our home page is also the link to about a five-minute survey if people don't have the capacity to come out to a community conversation we do encourage folks to go online the last I heard hey Paul the last I heard we had a hundred and seventy seven responses to our survey so that's pretty good community engagement but certainly welcome a lot more the council was invited to fire promotion event Thursday evening we are going to postpone that until April because of the storm coming in so more to come on that I did want the council to know that chief Burke and I met with the commissioner of the Department of Corrections last week as you may have heard in the legislature they are considering the future of the women's facility in Vermont as I'm sure you all know we host the women's facility the only Vermont based women's facility here in South Burlington down by what I think of is by Klingers by 189 that facility while a very important facility for the state and for women in our state is really outdated and needs a lot of modernization as well as reconnection to more facilities for reentry into the community and folks to be able to step down so chief Burke and I sent two clear messages on behalf of the city to them one and they were very open and is a very positive conversation one is if they are going to leave that facility to make sure that they leave it they either sell it for redevelopment its prime redevelopment property in the city or they leave it in a way for future redevelopment they don't just abandon it which they had no intention of doing and the second is that we have been happy to host the women's facility for many years it is a great location in the state easy accessibility to the interstate to services to colleges and universities to health facilities if they are looking to stay in South Burlington we would be very we would be open and active participant in that future conversation so much more to come they seemed really receptive to the conversation but I want the council to know we had that conversation so more to come just again a reminder March 6 is a pre-tumming day and then for those remaining on the council March 9th is our annual organizational meeting so that's the Thursday night after time meeting 6 30 yep and that's all I have for now okay thank you moving on to item 6 the consent agenda we have three items the disbursements the January financials and approval of the road impact fee credit request requests for construction at 224 market street to 68 market street and 339 market street garden street a garden street excuse me so is there a move that we approve the consent agenda second okay any discussion none okay all in favor signify by saying aye hi so the consent agenda as presented is approved okay so now we come to you can get John down here yeah okay so we have a city council resolution to recognize the service of three long-serving representatives of South Burlington John Colackey and Pew and made it Townsend but before I ask you to come up and read it I think we'll wait for John he's upstairs at another meeting so he's double-booked he's double-booked yeah he's a busy guy was on the NPR this morning I think was it this morning or yesterday NPR or VPR well I mean it's the same station I think the public public yeah well it's it sounded like partly here but partly somebody else too do we want to jump to item 13 which is opportunity for counselors and public to share information and resources on climate change sure we can do that okay so why don't we move on to just item 13 while we're waiting so are there any counselors or public who would like to share information and resources on climate change funny you should ask and I don't know if I shared this at the last meeting or not but thank you for turning me on Matt to the ice in England app on the phone and plus the web page but that cold snap that we had right it was very interesting looking at the ice no England ice so no England grid and its sources of power for those two or three days right at its worst point in its coldest the number one fuel consumed to generate electricity was guess oil right number two was natural gas so over 55 percent of all the electricity in New England was being generated by those two sources as the temperatures warmed up and the price of the gig what hour went down right then the oil sources turned off because they couldn't afford it anymore but natural gas so good so then like it's pretty amazing the like right now for example it's not too cold and there is no there's no oil being used hardly at all and it's all natural gas and then nuclear and that imports in a little bit of hydro so so when it gets really cold in England that's when the oil burners turn on and the natural gas goes full throttle and the nuclear adds some it's interesting so there are challenges to I think the region to try and overcome that with building more renewables but I don't know what the schedules for that the other item is that as you've known the wholesale price of natural gas has gone up as high as $10 of therm since the start of the Ukraine war it's now down to $2.06 so the markets have even themselves out and Germany is no longer supposedly importing any more natural gas from from Russia as well so it things are getting better from a market perspective at least for those prices so that's the only yes can you just tack on to that because you and I attended a great meeting at on logic where one of our south brilliant to businesses night of power is figuring out how to reduce the use of heating oil for power generation on the coldest nights through batteries and micro grids and that's happening here in South Burlington that's something to really celebrate in my opinion well I I've always thought that if you push the envelope then industry will respond and develop things I mean if Henry Ford someone had said to him don't build the cars we don't have gas stations we don't even have paved roads so don't go forward with that wait and so you know my position kind of as you can't wait forever for everything to be all developed and laid out before you kind of push or embrace new technologies or they'll never never get you where you want to go but keep us posted I will I knew he's like that it's fascinating stuff and I'm there are more resources to tell you exactly where and what technology is using that is creating the energy from that oil source and I also learned that there the contracts for the natural gas heating of homes in New England constricts the amount of gas that's available for generating electricity so the homeowners have precedents right they're the ones that get the bulk of the flow if it's so cold that that dominates most of the flow of the natural gas to the homes then the natural gas generators don't turn on or they turn on less or whatever so then they become a minority until they provide more pipeline capacity into New England to run them at the same time which probably isn't going to happen and then you ask the question why isn't there more hydro Quebec power coming down from Canada to New England it's because there are some voters in Maine and New Hampshire that refuse to allow those power lines to be you know sent down through those states that's why the opportunity to put the power line under Lake Champlain is back on the table apparently so it's very interesting yeah yeah yeah well I did hear this morning and I believe it was VP or Vermont public no the public oh the public the public oh okay that because yeah that usually the energy consumption for electricity is highest during the day but because more and more people are putting solar into place it's now at night so I think I always you know repeat when I get the chance what Ethan Goldman said which was don't follow the electrons follow the dollars where you know just like Helen said if the dollars are going towards a new technology that's where the businesses will follow and I find that to be a pretty strong argument so yes we have work to do on our grid but if we continue to put our dollars where we want them to go the industry will follow I do have confidence there is there anyone online you would like to make a comment okay so we'll go back to item 7 our resolution you want them to come up how do you want to do this you want me to read it and then have them come up they could stand in front of the camera yeah that's a really long resolution I don't want to stand well why don't I read it and then you can come up because we can give you a hug and shake your hand are you a hug in public I don't know but anyway so this is the city council resolution resolution in recognition of the service of our representatives former representatives I guess John Kalaki and Pew and Mated Townsend February 21st 2023 it's kind of long but you all have done a lot and this will be clear why we're recognizing you and this is just a small snapshot of what each of you have contributed whereas South Burlington was extremely well served by Representative John Kalaki Representative and Pew and Representative Mated Townsend who each retired at the end of the last legislative biennium and whereas John Kalaki served as a state representative from South Burlington since 2019 and during this time served on the House Committee on General Housing and Military Affairs and whereas Representative Kalaki's writing and work can be seen in the South Burlington Public Library as well as aired on this says VPR but it probably should be the public and published in Vermont Digger in the Burlington Free Press and whereas Representative Kalaki centered Vermonters who were disadvantaged by some of our core systems advocating for better treatment of women prisoners in our correction systems working to provide better access to those Vermonters who were working on their sobriety and pointedly fighting for better access for those with physical disabilities to our State House and whereas Representative Kalaki fought to make sure that our artistic institutions and our artists receive federal and state assistance throughout the initial phases of the pandemic advocated for Vermonters who worked for minimum wage and for the use of state and federal funds to help Vermont to help keep Vermonters in their homes and to keep those experiencing homelessness safe throughout the pandemic and whereas Representative Kalaki brought his experience voiced to our public apology to Vermonters whose ancestors were damaged by our state sponsored and supported eugenics policies as well as the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and whereas Anne Pugh served as a State Representative from South Burlington since 1993 served as the chair of the House Committee on Human Services for many years and also served on the City's Planning Commission and whereas Representative Pugh was always a social worker at heart and was a constant champion of many of the neediest Vermonters including individuals and families with income and health challenges and whereas Representative Pugh worked excuse me to address homelessness and housing safety issues and was a terror tireless advocate for reproductive freedom and whereas Representative Pugh was an early and prominent leader around tobacco and youth cessation efforts raising the age of for tobacco advocating for health and outreach to youth through advertising by the use of the tobacco funding from successful state litigation against big tobacco and whereas Representative Pugh was a strong advocate regarding reducing lead pain exposure working on universal access to health care and expanded Medicaid access for children and their families and led the effort to successfully require mental health to be included in health care policies thus mainstreaming that care with traditional health and whereas made a Townsend served as a State Representative from South Burlington since 2015 and served on the House Committee on Appropriations and the Government Operations Committee including one year's chair and whereas Representative Townsend is a strong supporter of public education and enjoyed a long career as a French teacher and whereas Representative Townsend set the example for constituent services was always quick to respond to constituent questions and an annual basis visited every household in our district stopping to chat or leaving information if no one was home and whereas Representative Townsend brought intelligence sharp insight and incredible diligence to her work examining issues from all angles and with consideration of other perspectives plot applying an amazing work ethic readily accepting extra work doing your homework and was always exhibiting kindness and consideration and whereas Representative Townsend was instrumental at steering funding towards numerous priorities for the state and South Burlington including the expansion of broadband throughout the state and whereas representatives Calackey Pew and Townsend each supported the constitutional amendments to explicitly prohibit slavery and indentured servitude and to protect the right to personal reproductive autonomy and whereas the council and the community of South Burlington have been ably served by each of these representatives now therefore be it resolved that the South Burlington City Council hereby expresses its greatest appreciation to representatives Calackey Pew and Townsend for their tireless advocacy for the city and wishes them the very best and political retirement. Where do you want us to sit over here? Okay. Megan is art directing it, it's good, behind the baron flag, isn't it? Should we put our flag down? No, unless you don't want them in the picture. Oh, thank you. I have to run back up. We're meeting upstairs. So let's sort of struggle in here. But he's at home. You lie down in summer comfy with a 12 year old. Can you go on that side? Go in. I think I stand above the wall. Can you see the flag? Just a little over here for the flag. One, two, three. Okay, got a lot of them. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much all of you. I'm having the council sign many copies of this resolution and it will be delivered to you. Perfect. Thanks so much. It was very easy to represent. It was such a joy. Well, you guys are a joy to work with. And a joy to do some of those things when you were in another position. Oh, I know. That's why I could remember some of those things. Some of them go way back. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go ahead and again. Thank you. We'll correct it. Okay. If anyone wants to say anything on the mic too, you are welcome. Yeah. Do any of you want to say a few words? No. Thank you anyway. Thank you. Coming over to say thank you to you in both ways that I have interacted with you. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. My biggest sorrow is that I came in the beginning of your. You're still a constituent. I know much as you would like. I think Sarah. Oh, Sarah. Hi, just from a citizen's point of view, I wanted to say a heartfelt thanks to all three. You've just been fantastic. They have been. Thank you. Responsive to the public always. And I second Sarah's comments. So moving on to item eight, consider, consider entering executive session to discuss the evaluation employment contract of the city manager with this city. It's a city council request. It will be brief. I would like to go into executive session to discuss the evaluation employment contract of the city manager. Second. All in favor. Okay, and we will. Okay, I would like to call back to order the South Burlington City Council meeting of Tuesday, February 21st 2023. We're at item eight. Item nine now to approve the city council's contract with the city mayor. Manager, excuse me. We got a promotion and there is. Yeah, no. I don't think you want to be mayor. Yeah. I wouldn't want to be mayor either. You need to go back into executive session. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah, no. You need extra money for that. This is party space. So just so the public knows the process we went through, there were actually four evaluations done either about Jesse or one, one, she did a self evaluation. The council did an evaluation using a tool that very similar, if not exactly like the one we used two years ago, or we used with Kevin, I guess. And no, a year ago with you. Yeah, yeah. And, and then the leadership team, and that's how many is that 1217 people did another evaluation. And then we did a third or fourth one, I guess. And this was a group of key stakeholders were asked to consider Jesse's job in the past year to put it simply all of the evaluations were really outstanding. I'm sure no one is surprised about that, but the numbers were high and the comments were excellent. In many cases when we were asked, or anyone was asked, so what could she do better. There weren't a whole lot of recommendations or areas for improvement. So for that reason, we supported or I'm putting forward this employment agreement that does include a substantial raise. It's a three year contract that's substantial raise for year one. And then smaller ones for year two and three, the average over the three years is 7%. But the first year is larger, it's 12%. And then five, and then four, it is Jesse had also requested an additional year of pay a year week of paid vacation. She currently receives for and we opted to hold off to the third year to add that fifth week of vacation. And then she also requested in addition to the essentially the agreement for employment that currently is in place permission, I guess, and the funding to go for a certification for city managers. What's the title? It's the ICMA, which is the International City and County Management Association Credential Manager. Okay, so we will pay for that $125 and she'll do the work and take I guess there must be an exam or something. Yeah, so we present this agreement for employment and if anyone wants to make any comments they can otherwise we'll just have a vote. I'd make a motion that we approve the employment contract with city manager Jesse Baker. Second. Okay, is there any further discussion? I'll just say I'm going to be voting nay. Not because I don't think Jesse is terrific and not because I, I don't agree with the sentiment, but I find 12% to be much too high. And specifically with regard to the pay increases that were given across the city, I don't agree with this additional pay. And I just don't want that I mean money is separate from from sentiment as it should be. So I just want to say I totally support fully support Jesse's position as city manager. I think she's doing an excellent job and I it's just I find 12% to be much too high. Okay, you ready for the vote. Okay, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. The motion and the contract to her agreement passes three to one with one absent. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, item nine, consider action, oh wait, we just did that, excuse me. 10 is discussing DR request 230091 draft 7.2, the Senate's omnibus housing bill. And the H68, an act relating to removing state and municipal regulatory barriers for fair zoning and housing affordability and potentially take action. Okay. I just want to frame it just a little bit. These are the two bills, one in the House and one in the Senate that are, I don't even know if the Senate bill has been, has it been published? Does it have a number? It does not have a number. All right. Still published, but it does not have a number. Yeah, which is kind of unusual. I've never seen that, but that's what they're doing this year. Around focused on, I think attempting to create more housing meet that demand of housing in Vermont, both affordable and I think just housing in general. And so, was it last week, Paul? No, the week before. Paul Connor and I went to Montpelier and spoke with or presented to the Senate committee and then agreed that Paul, not I, would work on some real, they asked him some additional questions. He has submitted those, addressed those answers to the committee. And my understanding is he has some additional language. We agreed and they were interested in hearing what South Burlington had to say since their intention. I think we support, but some of the language would put at risk. A lot of the work that this city and the planning commission and this council have done as well as the Department of Planning. We promote additional compact housing. And at the same time, also make sure that we maintain appropriate open space and natural resources for our future and our children's future. So Paul, you have some new stuff to share. I even have newer stuff than the new stuff, which is like smartphone updates, there's often a new version. So there is a new version of the bill since the version that we reviewed last week and that this memo is covering that came out today. So I'll do my best on the fly to describe how things might be a little bit different even from the memo that's in front of you. I did and there's a paper copy. Yes, but we didn't get it till this afternoon. So it's right in front of you. This is the previous memo though. No, no, this is the newest. The memo that's in front of you and that you received by email at about 430 today is the four this evening's meeting. And I'll walk through it because I know folks haven't really had a chance to look at it. Is this in response to draft 8.1? It's in response to draft 7.2 and on the fly. That's what I just said is that this afternoon we know that there's an 8.1. So I will adjust comments as we go to include the 8.1, though we haven't really looked into it in depth. On 20 minutes of review. Yes, and the intention is that the council understand what the most recent bill says. And we can convey to Paul the city's position so that he can advocate for us in Montpelier because they're interested in city planners. Giving them the real hard, the real language to change, not just we don't like this, but rather we don't like it and hear some language that could address it. And so that's why we're having this conversation. So let me take just a couple of minutes if I can to give sort of a in plain English what appears to have changed from the first draft that you provided feedback on through to today. There's sort of a couple of categories of changes and that can maybe help frame out what additional feedback, if any, the city wants to give. And as chair really said, what you'd like to direct me to advocate for. So the main changes that have taken place over the last couple of iterations are one, as you had identified in the last draft, the term area served by water and sewer was undefined. So the bill takes an effort at defining what an area served by water and sewer is, and largely what it incorporates are specific circumstances where the bill would not apply. And that's why they are mostly not applicable to South Burlington. So there are things like if a water and sewer line were extended from say a village out to a pre existing mobile home park or industrial area solely for the purpose of serving that area that the land in between the village and that mobile home park industrial park does not have to meet does not all have to meet that minimum zoning density requirement. There's an allowance similarly for areas that are regulated at the state level or identified at the state levels being flood hazard areas or areas of wetlands that kind of thing. That that's the biggest change and I'll go into what we think that means in a second the bill that came out today has one change that does affect us to a certain extent which is that the minimum allowable zoning which was going to be previously five units per acre has been reduced to four units per acre. So now where water and sewer in an area served by water and sewer the minimum allowable has to be four, which is in South Burlington a lot of our districts are forward in the snaker. There are some other changes as well. There's been sort of ongoing shifting about what the bonus would be for affordable housing. So the first one that you looked at had allowed for an additional story and your feedback was that that felt a little bit clunky as a single tool. The latest draft said eliminated that and said 20% density bonus which is South Burlington rule South Burlington's rules encompass and extend beyond that. The latest draft that came out today says 40% density bonus and an extra story so there's a lot that's sort of shifting in that world that seems to be sort of trying to both both meet broad policy and editorializing like maybe there's one or two specific circumstances that are being advocated for. Is that 40% or or rather than and and yeah both both would be both are granted. Yeah, right both would be granted automatically for things that count as an affordable housing development. And then the on the subject of energy standards which is something that you had weighed in on. There's been a little bit of I'm not sure if I'd call it clarification but authority granted for municipalities to regulate. The the energy from buildings and this commercial and residential energy codes where buildings dwelling units exceed 1800 square feet but not below 1800 square feet. We'll go into this in a minute. I'm not sure that that's necessarily addressing the subject area that the council was interested in but we'll speak about that in a minute. And then lastly, this latest bill takes a provides a new tool proposed for municipalities to essentially get a delegated authority to to regulate active 50 criteria. But only for communities that have designated downtowns only in those designated downtowns through a process. South Browlington does not have a designated downtown. We're not eligible yet. We need to grow into city center a little longer before we would be eligible to be a downtown. What's the threshold? It's there's a number of criteria of demonstrating that you have that you have a historic downtown essentially. So ours being so new is intent is is a new new town center, which is intended to be the new ones existing. So we can look again in the near future at thresholds to see whether we would qualify when we last looked before City Hall existed. We were not eligible yet but so that's the lay of the land. This memo here tries to sort of outline what's changed in the bill up until before today. What the implications would be in South Browlington if it were adopted more or less as is. And then some considerations that you may wish to provide guidance to staff on regarding advocacy to the legislature. So I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I here I see at least five dwelling units per acre. So as of before today was five now it's gone to four. Paul wrote this memo based on the prior draft and the current draft was released at like four o'clock this afternoon. And so it's the in the italics paragraph that's the language from the bill and that says five right but they've changed that to four. More or less. Yes, the italics is actually a quote from your last letter because I was trying to say what you use what you were quoting. So it's actually two bills ago bills or two drafts ago. This is the challenge. Right. Yeah, it's a moving target. Right. I do. Right. I do think that the principles of the core things are stay more or less the same. So whether it's four or it's five the same major implications to South Browlington remain the same. So in my memo I note that the difference between four and five for instance in a neighborhood like Mayfair Park or the orchards or Chamberlain is fairly negligible because the lots already exist at a quarter acre. So changing it from four to five doesn't really change a whole heck of a lot where the bill. Let me take a step back there. In Stas view there's one area of this bill that could use some significant clarification. As I described, there is a provision now that tries to define what an area served by water and sewer is the good news of defining it is that it's starting to create some definition to it. The bad news is that it is creating some definition to it. It is likely the case that municipalities still retain the right under separate statute to define the geographic area that it is intending to serve with its water and sewer system. That's a very common tool used throughout Vermont to know, you know, this is the boundary of what we will serve in the future. But with these definition of area served that is a little bit of a question mark at least to planning staff as to whether that this how these two things intermix. And so several of the comments that are in this memo reflect this idea that presumably we still have the authority to broadly say where areas that where our sewer system can be expanded. And not so if somebody were to come with a proposal and say I'd like to extend our sewer service one mile over to cheese factory road that we would have the authority to say no no we drew the line at this area for municipal infrastructure purposes. I would recommend as a first comment that the legislature clarify that we retain that authority to do that broadly for areas that are just way outside of service areas. Paralleled with that in South Burlington we define in our own ordinances that a sewer service area is 200 feet from an existing water and sewer line but we do not have a policy on the expansion of that sewer service area. We sometimes draw an actual boundary that says this is where we regardless of proposals given to us this is where we draw our water and sewer lines. This is the extent of it we don't have that in our ordinances. So something that the city could do assuming that we remained retain the authority to do would be to match up our zoning with our sewer service area so that an area that is intentionally the natural resource protection district for instance that allows for very limited housing let's say you know one or two homes on 15 acres or three acres or three homes on more than 15 acres say on cheese factory road would still be allowed to exist but would be on private well and sewer which is of course what they're doing today but matching up the policy would be stronger. So that was my first recommendation is that some clarification be given to confirm the municipalities retain this ability to draw their own water and sewer lines. The second one would be that under the bill the purpose as stated by Senator Rom Hinsdale is to make clear that areas are either intended for development at four or five dwelling in an acre or that there is no residential development to be sort of not having this sprawling you know one dwelling in an acre staff would recommend that the bill allow for pre existing homes to connect even in a circumstance where it's more spread out could be home that exists before the laws passed but there could be areas of the city that are not intended to see more development but that have a historic home that is served by a failing water and sewer and so being able to connect to that we think would be important. We were invited to provide feedback if we like on the subject of TDRs and redistribution what the senator had described to me was that as long as the outcome is that there's either no development or at least four or five dwelling in its breaker that the tool that gets there is up to the municipality some clarification that codifies that I think would be helpful. So that would include our TDRs that would include our density bonuses right that that would call that if upon use of TDRs or density bonuses you got you achieve the four that that would be meeting the intent of the rule. And how about the 40% and extra and an extra story. So we already do 50% so we allow for more than what the bylaw what the bill would do. As of today in your memo I say that's taken care of because the last version of the bill was already within what South Burlington does. I would probably recommend that the extra story is still too blunt of a tool to just grant because it doesn't necessarily mean anything it just means more height. But yeah. So the next section that I wanted to go through with you is to sort of help walk you through what assuming that these clarifications that about the ability to adopt our own sewer lines is in fact accurate what the implications of this bill would be in South Burlington. And specifically the minimum of four dwelling units in acre so assuming that we can say that areas like the NRP areas like habitat blocks that don't allow for development or very very very little development can be excluded from a sewer service area. What's the remaining impact. So that's on on page two of your memo and there's really two areas that I wanted to draw your attention to that would be of some consequence and then this is really a discussion for you all as to what to do. So the west side of Spear Street south of Swiss Street is currently a R one zone so residential one and a little bit of residential two so one home breaker two homes breaker. That area is served by largely not every not every segment but mostly is served by water and sewer. So our assessment would be that that area would be needed would need to meet this new four units in acre west side of Spear Street west side of Spear Street. That of course does not mean that any homeowner who lives there has to change anything of what they do nobody's forcing anybody to take their lot and subdivide it but the authority to do so would have would likely if this were passed have to be granted. So that's probably the most significant one. There is a small area on the west side of Spear Street just north of Swift that would fall into a similar category. There's two or three homes there. There's a habitat block that's behind it but in front of the habitat block is an area that if you have less than five buildable acres the zoning allows for only one home per acre. If you have more than five acres you're automatically a PUD sorry four acres you're automatically a PUD which meets our rules because of the minimum densities in there. It's sort of served by water and sewer so that would be a little bit of a judgment call that you know it's nearby ish and I think we'd have to look at it but. So the west side I'm trying to think. So is that a cross from the church? Is it between the Millers and the Erdmans pretty much? Yes. So the corner that is not the corner towards the interstate from the UVM wheeler we lock barn. Yeah. And on the other side of Spear from the church that corner there. So there's a couple of parcels that would be affected in there possibly there's water service there and then sewer is near ish but not right there. And then that land is contiguous with UVM land. Correct. Now most of that land in that whole big block is an habitat block which would not allow for residential development but a portion of it is outside of it. The other area of what would happen to the habitat block. I'll get to there in just a second. The other area from a zoning perspective that would be affected is if you recall last year when we made the amendments to the southeast quadrant. Some of the the areas that were called receiving zones so the neighborhood residential district the neighborhood residential transition district and the village residential. If they had four or more acres became a conservation PUD if they were less than four acres in order to have the sort of total amount of housing meet up the density was lowered a little bit there. From allowing up to four homes per acre to now allowing 1.8. The commission planning commission recognized that that might be a little bit of an awkward tool and has it on this year's work plan to reevaluate that question. But my assessment would be that those areas where we do allow for development today that were essentially down zoned a little bit would need to go back to this for in order to meet the state law. So this is areas that are zoned neighborhood residential that are less than four acres in size. So those are sort of the big zoning ones. I did look at it also through the lens of the nrp and through the habitat blocks. The nrp largely does not allow for housing development. If you've got a split lot you must build the homes in the area that is not in the nrp and that meets the rule because there's no housing allowed in the district. There are a handful of parcels where the entire parcel is in the nrp which allows for a little bit of housing today and it's near a watered sewer line. It's a very small handful I came up with somewhere between four and seven parcels that meet this those criteria. And so if the law were if the bill were passed then the city would need to either a change the nrp to say no new housing can exist. B possibly designate those areas as being outside of the sewer service area or C create a carve out on these lots that specified where development can be and meet the standard of allowing five units an acre. It doesn't have to necessarily be a large one but geographically identified. On the habitat blocks for the most part no housing is allowed and therefore my read would be that if housing is not permitted then it's meeting the law. There is an exception where for parcel is more than 70% covered by habitat block that they can build on 30%. Most of the time that's going to be a conservation PUD and a conservation PUD allows for the shifting of development potential to that 30% and allows for at least four units an acre. So that should not be a problem. There is there are very small handful of cases where a parcel would not be eligible to be a conservation PUD and has more than 70% habitat block. In most cases this where housing is allowed again very small number of parcels the city would need to set wouldn't do allow at least five sorry four homes per acre. Over the natural resources. Over the 30% that we already allowed to be built. It wouldn't really change policy except to say if you're going to build on the 30% or some subset of it it needs to be at least four units an acre. To me that's consistent with all of the planning efforts which is instead of building on the entire parcel build on a small portion of it. So that's essentially the implications as we read them the committee was helpful in describing sort of philosophically that what they're really after is either don't build or build it at least four units an acre. And so areas that the city does not identify as being eligible for development are not part of that discussion. So I wanted to give you that as likely implications as to whether those rise to the level of you wanting to provide concerning feedback on any of those or just say that there are implications of bills and it's an opportunity to evaluate our local regulations in those areas that's that's really up to you all. And then lastly, on the energy side, as I said, the bill does not appear to be responsive to the concerns that the city had raised, which is the city in its letter sought to ensure that complimentary standards like the ones that you recently adopted of heating fuel sources, or what the planning commission is considering which is requiring solar photovoltaic where it's been identified. Those are not building code standards per se they are complimentary to them. And so if council was interested in pushing that a little bit further. We'd recommend that there be feedback that said that things that are not specifically regulated by the residential building energy standards or the commercial building energy standards are still the authority remains at the local level to do that. Now, of course, if they take that over then then they set a standard but where there isn't a standard that the municipality still have the authority. But that language isn't clear. Is that what you're saying? It does not. But it's not clear that it's not clear that we retain that authority higher standard that that could. Right. Is that your assessment after reading the latest draft as well. The latest draft does not appear to change very much in that specific area, though, I will confess to having read it while sitting in this room so I retain the. I reserve the right to email you tomorrow and say actually the draft tomorrow could change as well. Can I ask a question? Sure. The height issue in. You don't we don't see a issue with that that the has defined in 4303 of this titled make seed building height limitations by one habitable floor beyond the maximum height and using that additional floor makes the density limitations for residential developments where that's that's not in conflict with any of our LDRs is at all. It's a little bit in conflict so what I had written in this memo was based in the last draft without was taken out. Now it's been put back in today. I would. Here's the ways in which I would say it's slightly in conflict one. South Burlington intentionally increased the heights along Shelburne road to just simplify it and say instead of it being a DRB discussion. It's five stories. Period. Just. Not make it conditional just allow it. Six stories for affordable housing. Probably doesn't change too much, but it is sort of. Entering back into this sort of more math more complexity. The area where I think it could be a little bit challenging is the traditional neighborhood development the TND this this planning and development type is very sort of calibrated to. Focus first and foremost on the scale of everything so that everything feels like you're in a neighborhood. Would one additional story for affordable housing change everything. Maybe not, but it feels like a little bit of a blunt instrument and would possibly run the risk at that scale of saying oh that building that building and that building are the three affordable ones because they're taller than all the other ones. Right. I like on my risk level. It's it's a it's a medium. It's not, you know, I don't think it's as high as some of the other ones as to their implications, but it's it is a little bit of a blunt tool. Can I ask a practical question related to the number of stories so from my memory when the Odell buildings were built right there for stories and they had a very minimal steel skeleton hardly any if at all right. At that time, I think I was told that that four stories was the limit with that wood wall type construction. Has that changed in the last 10 years where they can put a fifth story on and not have to go to complete steel. So I'm going to take a shot and see if Deputy Chief Francis who I see is on the screen happens to be available. My understanding pending his arrival is that five stories can generally be done by wood now. And that's what part of why we set it at five stories and that once you get past that it becomes really difficult to stay on wood and meet all the standards without changing. So functionally, it may not mean a whole heck of a lot. Right. So it would. He is green now. I am here, much to your chagrin. Hey, thanks, Paul. And yeah, currently, IBC international building code allows up to five stories of wood frame. We have one building of that construction type in South Burlington. It's on Eastwood. And, and it's a site where that was built about six years ago. We do have a couple of podium style buildings that are going in. That can be up to seven stories by IBC, not by state by our standards, which, if you look at 1068 Wilson road, we have two stories of steel construction, and then four stories of wood frame above that. Actually, it's four and a half stories of wood frame above that, but that's currently the maximum that's allowed in the city. And we're allowed to go one story higher in the IBC as things stand today. So just flat saying through this legislation that you could add a story might might not be practical in terms of what the developer has for resources and or just whatever whatever they're able to do. Yeah, you have to go to a different building construction type, right? If you want to go higher, it's a city allowed us to go to seven stories, eight stories. It all be type type two or type one construction, meaning steel or CMU block. It sounds as though chief that it would possibly be pot allowable under the IBC as you just said to have a two story podium and then would above it for four stories. Is that correct? That's correct. So that would be an example of where somebody could conceivably do that. And our current limit is five. So that would conceivably be six. Thank you that clarifies. Yeah, 1068 Wilson road, the old holiday insight is a good example of that. Alright, so that's my broad feedback and really the discussion for you all kind of understanding the impact that might have on our neighborhood. Well, one impact would be take a look at Eric Farrell's building on Joy Drive. Right. So the one that's set so it's it's on the Olympiad property, but it's not the Maidstone. It's called the Olympiad, excuse me, because Maidstone is is the southern building and the northern building along Swift is is the old Olympiad. They're calling the Olympiad building, right? That was proposed originally as a four, four story. Then he wanted to five story and the DRB voted against me and allowed the five story, but it's immediately adjacent to a neighborhood of two one and two story homes on Meadow Road, Orchard Road, Proctor Hadley, that area. Right. So that's the kind of thing I worry about where you add a story on now you have a seven story building next to an old, you know, post Korean War built neighborhood. Right. That that kind of scale difference is just really wrong in my estimation from an aesthetic point of view. So I take issue with a lot of stuff in here because I have to ask the next question is, has, has the legislature ever taken this type of an action before to supersede any local zoning, planning and zoning action, you know, existing regulations in the state that that you know of or I don't know of any? Can somebody fill me in? Sure. There is a section of statute 44, 4412 and 4413 that do place limitations on what municipalities can do. So, for example, municipalities cannot regulate telecommunications facilities or power generation facilities. But that's been like that for years, right? Yes, though the telecommunications is in my career. So that's an example. Okay. So that would be one the allowance for municipalities. Sorry, the, the setting a new floor that says that accessory apartments are permitted everywhere. Back in two before 2003, that was mother in law apartments. So you had to be related by blood or more marriage or over the age of 65 to qualify. So that's been made across the board and accessory apartment doesn't have a limitation on who can live there. I don't know when the other ones went in, but there are other ones that limit the authority of a municipality to regulate municipal school facilities, state facilities, hazardous waste materials, and we have, we cannot regulate agriculture or self-cultural practices. But those are the power to regulate specific things. Has, have they ever dipped their fingers into actual planning, zoning, height requirements, number of units per acre and, and that kind of content? Because to me, it's, to me, I think they've exceeded their authority. They, the whole statute is built on letting the, you know, the cities and towns establish their planning commissions, establish their planning and zoning, you know, offices and their LDRs have a comprehensive plan and go through the process of what's the point of having a planning commission if the state's going to tell us what our density requirements are going to be or what our height requirements are going to be. I, I just don't understand how they can do that. And I, and so I, my feeling is to give them the feedback that we don't support any of their proposals. I understand that there's a good heart behind this to try to expand housing in the state of Vermont. But I don't think this is the way to do it at all unless there are certain municipalities that are, that are stubborn and, and are behind the times in some respect because they're not allowing development. But, but all the work that's gone into all the LDR protections, right, that we, that we passed last year in, in February could be at stake here unless they, they change the wording. And that's completely ridiculous for them to propose that we would want to build housing in areas that are, that are natural in the city, that we've already said it should be protected. So, I mean, I hate to go off on a rant like this, right? But every time I read these, it just makes me really angry because I don't want the state telling us what our planning and zoning staff and our planning commission have been doing for the last 40 years. Here, here. And, and looking across the country, these bills have failed in other states. So I really, I completely, I completely agree with you, Tim, that this is completely at odds with why we are funding our taxpayers are funding a planning and zoning department. If the state wants to do that business, let's save a lot of money. I mean, I just, you know, we're all here for enterprise and here they are taking enterprise away from, you know, from our hands with very capable hands at the helm. So, yeah. Next question, is there anything that's unconstitutional about this type of legislation proposal that is counteracted by some other statute that gives us the power to regulate our own LDRs? You know what I mean? I mean, I don't know enough about that. I don't know if Colin knows something about that. No, it's the state. The state has the power. The state has the power, but most states have delegated that power to local municipalities. So our constitution, our federal constitution gives that power to the states. Jesse. Oh, is that what you were going to say? No. But. Well, did you want to say something? I guess I just want to make the point that we, the conversation that council had at the last meeting, this is not against your position or fervor, but the conversation council had at the last meeting was let's try and figure out how to be a partner with the state in achieving our housing goals as a state and our conservation goals and climate change goals as a state. So, Paul was directly responding to what in this can we would negatively impact us and how can we shift in course correct to give them something that would be better. So I appreciate your passion. Please don't direct it at Paul. He was. He wasn't. This is the kind of work that we have to do to play their game to give the feedback to them about the stuff we don't like and the stuff that we could possibly live with, but I don't like having anything shoved down our throat. But I do agree with Megan that we are a very, we have this myth of local control in Vermont and we are a very strong Dylan's rule state. And if the legislature decides to enact laws to tell us what to do, I've never see them not have the power to do that. So what do we need to do to protect our natural resource protection areas, Paul. So in the memo there, I have a few bulleted items in red. I think the strongest thing if you were to provide feedback on the bill specifically here would be to strongly encourage the legislature to be clear that municipalities have the authority to to draw the boundaries of their sewer and water service areas. With that, I think not all but many of the concerns raised by the council and the planning commission can be addressed because these are areas that you have largely designated for not having development. And where there is very limited development allowed, it's far away from water and sewer service. So I think that would be a strong tool. Allowing pre-existing homes to connect to me is an important one because if you decide to find your sewer service areas to exclude certain areas that you have no intent in the future of seeing additional development, there still may be a building or two that has existed for five, 10, 50, 100 years that would want to connect and putting you in the position of either having to include it in a sewer service area, therefore allow more development, or exclude it, therefore making it so that the house can never connect doesn't feel like good policy or to good options. Clarifying, again, within the rubric of what's been presented, that TDR programs and other programs that redistribute density are acceptable ways of meeting the standards. And the statement about complementary rules to the energy codes. So those would be the recommendations that I had. I had a few other items of things that staff has been working on that are, in our view, things that South Burlington is already advocating for that would be additional tools that the state could give, such as the ability to have a second new town center if we wanted one, to have a new designation that envisions places like Shelburne Road or the Barry Montpelier Road sort of strip development and how could the state maybe makes it easier for towns to redevelop those areas, just giving an additional tool to towns. And I've been in communication with our partners in Winooski and Burlington about a possible optional delegation of Act 250 to the municipal level, so that if we have a functionally equivalent set of rules that we could remove some of the redundancy that exists between local zoning and Act 250, these would be complementary things to, in our view, A, they'd be good things to do and be demonstrate that there are ideas that are being generated at the local level as to how to meet some of these goals. And then I went through that whole exercise of the implications of the bill along Spear Street and in the neighborhood residential portion of the SEQ to give you a little better background and see, you know, how does that resonate with you all? The intent clearly of the bill is to say that if an area is clearly served by water and sewer and residential development is allowed, that it have a minimum allowable and there's a couple of areas in the city that don't meet that. And those are the R1 district, the portions of the SEQ that, again, it's on the work plan to address and then a handful of other places near the lake. And is that from the council's perspective, do you want us to push back against that or is that something where you would say, well, there are, you know, whether we either like the bill and its intent or we're going to pick our battles on it. And that's really for you all to discuss and decide what you want to do. Are you talking about what you are working on with regard to infill? Is that part of what this bill supersedes? There were some smaller parcels that were changed from four units per acre to 1.8 units per acre. And the goal was to look at where four units make sense and to kind of think about the kind of transition areas. I'm going to be really careful with my use of the word infill because I think infill means different things to different people. But I would say it is already on the planning commission's list to evaluate areas that are clearly built areas where the rules last year sort of unintentionally made a little bit of infill not viable. I would say that Spear Street on the west side is a little bit of a different circumstance because it wasn't changed last year. It has been one unit an acre. And so this is somewhere where the state rules would set a new floor for the municipality and again sort of up to you as to whether that's something that you want to push back on, something that you want to pick and choose your battles on or something that you support policy-wise that's really up to you. Is there any value in identifying more rigidly I guess with a real line the natural resource areas and the habitat areas to say this is where South Florida and Burlington does not want growth or doesn't allow it? Or do you think we already have that in place? I think we largely have it with possibly a few minor tweaks in our zoning where we don't have it is in a parallel sewer service area map. And so a recommendation that assuming that we retain the authority to have a plan sewer service area map would be to match that up with the zoning to be very clear as to the areas that the city intends to allow future extensions of water and sewer service area and areas that it chooses not to. Because I think that is an opportunity to reinforce our own local policy. But the guidance to the state here would be make sure that we retain that authority. Is it the legislature that determined the 200 feet? That's our own. That's yours. Well, ours being yours. My understanding from 7.2 version of the bill is that they didn't want to give that designation power to the municipalities, but rather to take specific exceptions to areas where sewer and water went through. So I tend to play conservative and I don't know that that's going to become language that they'll adopt. So is there another way that we could say specifically this needs to be exempted, this needs to be exempted? Right. So we could say if, and that's a good comment. I think when I look at this, I think of a more rural community than we are. And I imagine a circumstance where let's say you've got a village that's served by water and sewer and you've got a road on the edge of the village. There could be a 300 acre parcel adjacent to that. It's not likely the intended policy that all 300 acres there can be four or five units an acre. And at the same time, there's not a lot of clarity provided as to how to draw that line in this bill. So I think one alternative would be that municipalities retain the authority to draw water and sewer district boundaries. An alternative if, as you're suggesting, Councillor Emory, there's no appetite for that, there could be a numerical definition of it. So something along the lines of our 200 feet, 200 feet, 800 feet, some number that says that in areas that are designated for rural areas, in all cases, X number of feet from the existing water sewer line must be allowed to be at four or five units an acre if any residential development is allowed. I think it's very clear in the bill that if there's no residential development allowed, then that's okay. But it's this sort of, you have 300 acres in a rural residential zone, is that intending to say everything has to be one or the other? I'm not sure that's the intent, but that's where that gets a little bit unclear in the rules. Well, I think it could blow up a sewer and water system in a small community. Oh, yeah. You know, if it was a little community with one street or two roads. Right, and there's nothing that strikes. 300 acres developed for 1200 houses. Right. Well, as someone who lived in the town of Plainfield, there are restrictions on what you can do based on that sewer and water. So it doesn't, we don't find out after the fact. You have to get permission to put in a toilet in some of these communities. So I'm just saying what their goal of having all this housing is maybe more limited than by reality, that a community isn't like South Burlington and kept a $33 million bond to upgrade their sewer system to support. Right. And the bill is clear that where there's a, that we don't, a municipality doesn't have to permit housing where there's no capacity. But how the municipality geographically allocates that capacity is brought slightly into question in my view. I'm not an attorney, but that's where I would see a potential language that we could provide to them where that capacity should be directed. You know, I'm just looking at page four and page five of the draft 7.2, which I know has been superseded. And I don't know if this language is still in the, the, the new version. But here we have what page I'm sorry for four and five. So they're talking about, you know, what's served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure means. And, right, it does not mean areas that are prohibited by, right, at the bottom of page four. And one of the prohibitions is identified capacity constraints. That's the two, Roman numeral two. And then there's another Roman numeral two for whatever reason. Municipally adopted service and capacity agreements or areas established by the municipality by ordinance or bylaw that. Now here we have some exclusions exclude flood hazard or inundation areas as established by statute river corridors or fluvial erosion areas, etc. Exclude this is now Roman numeral three exclude areas served by water and sewer to address an identified community scale public health hazard or environmental hazard. And it says exclude areas where service lines are located to serve the areas described in subdivisions three to four. So that also has to do with three to five. Thank you. So that also has to do with public health hazard or environmental hazard. These are areas that I would see that they would welcome our language because I do not see them granting that leeway to municipalities given how detailed this is. We can certainly give them both, right, but I think we have to be prepared that they're not going to be giving that authority to municipalities. I don't like a Stalinist dictatorship myself, but what I can say is we have to play it safe to and we have to play it conservative. And so we could, you know, look at that language. Does that adequately protect our natural resource protection areas? If not, what do we need to add so that those areas are protected? Does it adequately protect all of our habitat blocks? If not, or all of our conservation beauties? If not, what do we do? And as I said earlier, in a one of the tools that the municipality could do, I believe both under this and if with some clarifications are if there's an area that prohibits residential development, then that's acceptable. So it's possible that the city may at some point be faced with the minimal allowance for residential development in the NRP. For instance, the city may have to either not allow for residential development or break that out more specifically to say here is the actual physical place where you can build a house. And that is that meets the four or five units an acre and the rest of it is not. And because the law does appear to still say that if residential development is not allowed in an area, then that's acceptable. So could we include that language then that we'd like that added where residential is not allowed? I believe that that's already in there. So 13 subsection 13 says in any district served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure that allows residential development. So that's already if you don't allow residential development, then the section doesn't apply. Okay, so which conservation beauties would no longer be allowed? Is it because there's already house on there? I'm trying to understand the distinctions you were drawing earlier. The distinction right there. It's it's it's not about conservation beauties per se. It's about a handful of parcels that are in the NRP where there is some allowance for a house to be built. So if you have a pre existing lot of say under 15 acres, you're allowed to build one house if it doesn't already exist. There's a handful of circumstances where an argument could be made that that watt is up against water and sewer. And so we're allowing one house to be built on a parcel that is served by water and sewer per this bill. That might not be allowable because the parcel is served by water and sewer and it's not allowing a minimum of four or five units nacre. I guess I have to kind of agree with the legislature here. Why are we still allowing one house on such a large parcel to be built in the future? To to coin a term legislation is sausage making and that was the decision made back in 2005. So an outcome of the city would be to say that's a full conservation district. There's nothing that could be allowable. It might end that the TDR program is what is compensating property orders for that. But we'd have to change that rule in order for that to be clear that no residential is allowed. That might have to be an outcome if this legislation is passed. Yes. Or alternatively the city designates the first hundred feet of that property and says that hundred feet can be built at five units nacre. And then the remainder may not be built. That's those are planning choices that would remain at the municipal municipal level. Yeah. And how about you know agricultural land land that could potentially be agricultural where we would want to be able to have farm workers being able to be housed? I mean are there distinctions in the land use? Not as presented. So if residential development is allowed in an area served by water and sewer then it has to allow this density as drafted. So what about in the whole bread and butter and? Claire. Pardon me. Claire. Yeah. There's a I mean a lot of the money to purchase that and preserve it for agriculture was from the. You know the agriculture department right? Yep. And they maintained that there was there could be a parcel for farm housing. I mean wasn't that one of the requirements? Right. So. Right. So there's there's about 10 acres that would be allowed to do that and that was. Does that supersede what this bill might say? I would say that in my reading of it the planning for that is consistent. Our regulations are already consistent with this bill because the if that were to come to fruition, we already allow more than four units in acre in that retained area and it would be next to cider mill to neighborhood. So I don't see any conflict there where there. Yes. It would be eligible to be it would be served in the future when cider mill to is built. That was that was why they did that's why they chose that area because those. Yeah. I remember. Right. Okay. They're coming. I think that you know what what gets a little bit can. You know in my example of the 300 acre parcel there are three house lots proposed on the south side of or that have been approved by the DRB in the south side of cheese factory road. It's at least a mile from any water sewer service presumably that would not be that would be allowed to pursue because it's not anywhere served by water and sewer. But I'm sorry. Which what are you talking about? Lot C, which is the south side of cheese factory road up against Heinzburg Road. Okay. It's about a 45 acre parcel there. Yeah. Presumably, you know, that's an area completely unserved by water and sewer. There's nothing in this bill that is intending to say that truly rural development can't happen on private wells and septic. But the side effect of defining all these things as counselor and we described as all the exceptions as to things served by water and sewer sort of leaves this well what about rural areas and we don't have that many of them. But in other areas of the state, does it in it just sort of leaves this gray area that feels open to challenges in the future one way or the other. So that's why our recommendation would be to make it clear the municipalities retain the authority to determine areas that just aren't water and sewer areas. They're truly rural. I have two more questions. Do we have time for that is. Yeah, no. We have time. Subdivision review proposal that in the highlights and yellow. I mean, the way I read that it almost seems like they would like to circumvent the ability of neighbors to have public access to a review review process for subdivisions so that subdivisions could take pace basically without any public notice or hardly any notice. I suspect that the intent there was municipalities can delegate certain things to the administrative officer to do administratively. And there's a section in there that talks about adding authority for that to become for subdivisions to become administrative. I think there's an unintended additional language there that was trying to match it to say when it's administrative there's no public hearing. But the language says a municipality can choose when there's a public hearing period as part of my technical comments that I've not sort of brought to you all. Everything else that goes to a DRB has to be a public hearing so it would be peculiar to have this one thing under all of the areas of state law that doesn't have to be a public hearing. I think the intent was to say if you've chosen that it's so small that you have delegated to the administrative officer which has its own standards of it can't be discretionary it has to be very black and white. I think that's what it meant to do. But it doesn't say that and that's a comment that we have provided as a technical. The second thing is I noticed that there were proposals to raise the limit for active 50 review. Right. So nine houses currently is exempt. Right. So they would raise it up. There were a couple of 20 or 25 25 in the latest draft 25. So my question is if you look at Link Road and Sadie Lane and the buildings across from Sadie Lane those are three examples of exactly nine home developments. Right. Because they didn't require active 50 review. If those were blank land today and they were going to go in and develop them could they put in more than nine homes on those properties. Well I guess I'd answer two ways. One it would still be of course subject to all of our local regulations. Right. So just to be clear. But to back up a little bit I believe those developers chose nine homes because they didn't require any active 50. Right. Right. But had there been. Yeah. I believe that the standard of 25 applies only in designated downtown's villages and. Okay. Newtown centers so unless I'm. Thank you. Right. No I may be wrong. Maybe 25 period is proposed to expand. That's 25 top of page. Let's see. Yeah I think it is 25 period not just in downtown's. It is. What page is it. I'm on a different version of this new but sections 6001 definitions around page 21. This is the new version you're looking at. Both. It's it's this particular thing is not changed. But it is just to be clear from the 10 to the 25 it's within five miles within five years. So if the developers of Sadie Lane had built 20 homes somewhere else within five miles they'd still be an active 50 for these nine foot for doing nine on Sadie Lane. It's not nine and individual individual project. It's nine. Five miles five years five nine. Which means that effectively everybody in South Burlington is in is in active 50 because it's very there have been examples examples like the one you're raising but most of them. A developer has done something in the last five years within five miles which is. Burlington and Williston. Where do you. Oh this is the notwithstanding nine. A designated downtown. Okay. Yes. And then just above it. Yeah. Above it it talks about. The 25 straight. So I think. Yeah. Yeah it's a little hard to read with all the missing sections in it but I think it's. Raises it to 25 period and then matches that in the in the village. I know it probably doesn't have anything to do with us but I was trying to. Understand when they have when they're talking about a place for the homeless. And you can't. Designate times. When it's open and closed. And I was just trying to decide. What they were getting at because so many of the homeless shelters. Are there open at. You know five in the afternoon or something. And you got to be out by eight it's really just. Sure night. I think that so so this is a new protection so right now under the law there's nothing that says the municipality has to allow homeless shelters or shelters I guess is the definition. This would say municipalities must allow shelters. Just along alongside that other list of things that I just said that we have limited regulation over and. In allowing them we're not allowed to set through zoning hours of operation. So we would not be able to say well you're allowed but you're only allowed to be open between noon and 2pm organization can say we're only organization can but through zoning. Right. Trying to get it. Right. By allowing municipalities to allow emergency shelters and. Prohibit us from dictating the hours of operation. Thank you. I read it differently. And I was trying to figure out what they were. What goal they were trying to achieve. I'm waiting for a pause so I could just say something. well the council should continue to have and I know they will have long after I'm gone multiple discussions on this I just want to say that this bill for 19 years I've been walking the halls of the State House this bill is going to change about 13 more times back forth back forth back forth Paul did an excellent job representing our city and he's well respected so thank you for doing that but just know as you know what it looks like today it looks like different with skill if I can may and I feel very comfortable having Paul represent our city in the State House as he did last week and you as well but Paul did the heavy lifting certainly did the heavy lifting yes he did thank you council yeah no that was great no and I think they are looking for you absolutely if you have any other but I think Paul needs our direction in order to know what to advocate for so to that point I think it would be we've had a really robust conversation about this tonight which is great and I think to Matt's point if we get too much into advocate for this specific thing and this thing we're we're going to be hamstrung in our ability to be nimble so I think it would be helpful to hear if there's something in if any of the red text in this memo you strongly disagree with give us direction to not go and provide testimony on those specific things or if these red statements are statements that you think as a council you can get behind and we can and Paul can use his professional judgment to meld testimony along those statements I think that would be helpful alternatively the council could decide this is not a perfect you know this is not a for us to weigh in on or identify a specific counselor to work with Paul to make policy recommendation into the future my first ladder the former letter would be agree with the red comment a ladder ladder former ladder this is a wooden ladder or a metal ladder steel I think it's really important for us to protect the TDR program I you know I say I don't see why we shouldn't I really wonder what they're going to say to number two I think we're we might have to give them more reason to do that and I and I think that we should really look at those exemptions and we being you as a planner do those exemptions meet our needs or what else you know could be added to that exemption language and of course if there's anything in the bill that we didn't cover tonight or not in my red bullets that you would like for us to be touching on please don't hesitate I was using your feedback from the last one as the guide for that but if there's anything that you've noticed in the bill or that you'd like me to elaborate on if our understanding I'm of course happy to do that tonight or any other night because there's a lot in this bill that is not necessarily covered in this memo so for wetlands and flood zones they're still using 50 foot buffers my read of it is that as defined they describe it as statutory statutorily enabled so I would say it's probably the 50 foot buffers I would I would argue as a planner that we're gonna be facing serious flooding and that that is inadequate well and and I think mine the reason I didn't flag that subject area is that my interpretation is we don't allow development within 100 feet therefore we meet the criteria of no development is allowed okay so I think it's it's the if we were to say well we allow for new homes sometimes to be within 150 feet if they are purple or if they're sitting up 10 feet in the air I think that's where we'd be in trouble but our rules are pretty clear to say residential development isn't new residential development is not allowed in those areas okay so I didn't flag it for that reason the same thing for for the flooded hazard areas we have slightly more restrictive rules and then the baseline I'm glad and they don't allow for new development any other council comments all right Andrew did you want to say something yeah and just understand council this is clearly a work in progress so this isn't our last conversation Paul might be able to bring other things forward or we may identify other issues so this isn't like just these red things tonight and that's it we can add some more red ink okay Andrew hi Andrew Chaluk so there was a lot said tonight a lot to unpack and so this is a little awkward it may actually much be much better a kind of working group but I wrote some thoughts down I think merit some discussion so let me just start really right at the end with Paul what you said that if no development is allowed in the area you're okay I get that I don't read the proposal that way because the proposal talks about whether districts allow residential development and district is undefined and our regulation is defined the southeast quadrant as a district which allows residential development I don't really see how I'm saying this area doesn't allow development protects you so that's really the first comment just not sure that's right I think that needs to be looked at maybe a little more carefully then so in my mind the question is what's what's it what's a district because that's there's no like the the statue doesn't apply to areas applies to districts and so I think what we would have to so without more I think the entire southeast quadrant would be rezoned at four units per acre subject to the very narrow carve-outs that mostly don't apply to us just reading the proposal on its face and to avoid that I think you'd have to redefine what a district is as you said a water and sewer district say and then allow the provide something that from the from legislation that allows us to do that right that that's respected our definition of respect respect because not otherwise defined so that's I think that that whole question of what's an area what's a district how you define it is merit some further discussion the other thing is once you do that presumably the parcels that would be conservation PUDs would not be in that district because they do allow for some residential development and the conservation PUDs right now allow over the whole parcel between 1.2 and 1.8 because it's between 4 and 6 on 30% I think this statute would say you know you can't do that you need between 4 and 6 on the entire thing not between 1.2 1.8 on the entire thing so I think I think even defining the district would still override our conservation PUDs so I think that's probably also a merit some discussion next point I wrote down is TDR so our we are TDRs work right now as you know is you know you get kind of 1.2 TDRs per acre I think that maybe with some discussion in case you mentioned well you should make it for or something but that would that would like seriously change the whole TDR framework first would just create a whole mess of new density would probably be unfair to the old folks it had only 1.2 I think we raise a host of constitutional issues honestly between those two sets of folks and that that to me just feels like a complete mess to change the framework you know midway midway through those are my major points okay thank you Michael Michael metag I was interested in what Tim had to say Tim's rant rather I have similar feelings but we don't have a defined sewer service area in our ordinance but many towns around us do so I'm worried why would we ask why don't we just do it why would we ask if we're allowed to do it when it seems based on on my understanding that there are towns around Vermont that have sewer service areas defined service and if we could do that we could define it in a way that would solve this problem and the other thing is I mean I like to sort of keep things simple but it sounds like the legislature is telling us that every district in South Burlington has a minimum density of four units per acre that's what it sounds like to me and that's that's a terrible state of affairs for us so let's define a sewer service area the way we want to protect everything that we want to protect okay thank you I feel like this is just the thought just came to me I feel like the developers I feel like that's the opposite situation of I have the developers felt when we were developing the LDRs that we passed last February well the all the developers somehow got in charge of the legislature proposing the legislation to override the LDRs that we went through but so much work to put together the first place it's really ironic I think it's really interesting and it begs a whole nother list of questions that I have but I will go do it today thank you they began working on it last August yeah well I guess I would ask you what you would like to see done with it because if you're giving me guidance are you asking the planning commission to give you additional guidance or to give me additional guidance I just want to be really clear on that point certainly happy for them to discuss but they have independent authority to also communicate to the legislature we've been asked to come with a voice from the city so if you gave it to the planning commission would you like them to come back to you with additional ideas well I think we get too many cooks and you know I think we need to have one very clear voice that represents the city we certainly can have the land trust or individuals who have specific ideas to go to the legislature they're always free to to do that but I think it would make more sense to have a one strong voice from the city and I frankly think it ought to be you with our guidance what I heard Paul say is if the planning commission reads this memo and wishes to provide feedback would that go to us and I would just say yes I mean this is a public document I don't see why they couldn't yeah I don't mind getting more feedback but I also know the planning commission has a lot of work some of which he identified in the memo as addressing some of this so but I'm fine to have the planning commission look at it and if they have some great ideas and you can discuss and then direct and just one note to what commissioner Chalmick said if it turns out that a municipality has to more clearly define its zoning districts that's certainly something that we could do it's not written in stone that the secue is a single district we could divide it into the districts that are appropriate I didn't raise it in here because I think that that authority remains in place it may be an action item that the city would want to or need to look into but I don't I don't think it the bill in and of itself doesn't restrict our ability to do something like that I don't think if that became a important step for the city okay is that Roseanne do you want to say some words yes thank you you know my views on this and when I first heard about this the bills my immediate concern was how this would override and destroy some of the great work the city has done to protect our rural lands I feel even more concerned about it but I tell you as I was listening to Paul go through all this and as you're discussing I felt like I was in a planning commission meeting and I feel like the legislator is turning in I mean they are doing zoning and to do zoning for an entire state city by city is totally inappropriate and I mean what what Tim said and what what Megan echoed is also getting my attention and that is this is so inappropriate to have people in my pillow your make land use regulations for the state when zoning is one of the things that our city has the legitimate authority to do but they're taking that away from us if they if they do it now for this then what's to say next year they might decide to do take another crack at zoning it is such an exception of the city's responsibility to take care of our people and our land in our city and I really urge the council to push back on the general I general approach that for whatever reason Montpelier is doing and this thing certainly is the developers dream and the way it's written it sure seems like it's been written by developers because this would really benefit them and really would harm all of the efforts that we have made another municipality to preserve our rural lands and to take away that from a city I think is is egregious and I really really urge our city to speak out in general terms against this approach which could be continued into next you know into future years to take over you know take away the the rights of the city to determine how we how we develop and how we preserve our land so that would be my recommendation to go in with strong opposition to that and I hope you do and thank you Tim and thank you Megan and thank you Helen for for for for voicing those issues too and Paul and everybody there Sarah just echoing what Roseanne said this isn't a technical kind of wording that I can propose but I'm just so repelled by the idea that a committee of the legislature honestly thinks that one size fits all I mean this will could turn into a Vermont that we absolutely don't recognize you know the the small village of 200 people is quite a different animal from the city of Burlington or the city of South Burlington I mean that's just my gut reaction that they're trying to do something statewide that absolutely negates all the distinctives in local communities and and they're all across the board I mean I think there's probably many many communities in Vermont who haven't got a clue what's going on in this bill and there'd be different issues for them than there are for us but they might be equally valid and one that I've put forward before is historic centers take a town like Manchester or or Woodstock just as an example those historic 250 300 year villages should not have the same treatment as a small small village fork in the road or the city of Burlington it just doesn't make any sense that's all I can't be I can't be more more precise about it it's from the heart thank you okay well we'll certainly be continuing to discuss this and we look forward to maybe what the Planning Commission what thoughts they might have to share with you Paul and new stuff that you come up with I mean especially what you were talking about earlier you know do we have it just a hundred feet from the street do we I mean do we take away all opportunity of building housing I mean really looking at ways to to protect those natural resource protection areas I feel comfortable at this point that I've got council's direction as to your intent but to councillor Coda's point the bill is going to change a hundred times between now and in the end so if you're comfortable with the guidance that you've given I think that I'm fairly comfortable in both what I can talk with the legislature about and when the point comes back to saying council I'd like your feedback again on this because something has changed substantially and of course if you choose to you can invite me to any of your meetings coming forward as well if you've got thoughts that you'd like to bring forward thank you yeah could we just know your your steps what are you gonna are you gonna be writing to the legislature the committee this week next week it would be my intent to reach out to the some some committee this week I received a note I think councillors received a note yesterday that feedback after today maybe to another committee so it may not be economic development housing in general affairs but I will learn the status of that tomorrow and see if it's to this committee or to the next natural resources I guess is next would likely be next but I with this new bill having been this new draft coming out today it's probably not out of this committee yet so maybe feedback would go to this committee on these general principles and then onwards and continued okay so that would be this week yes the bills move pretty quickly so it would be my intent to first provide this feedback this week first bite at the apple okay okay Michael one last comment and then we need to move on this is not the end no just a point that if we're going to have if Planning Commission is going to look at these this memo and the recommendations there and we'd like to get that to you whatever the Planning Commission commentary or recommendation is give it to you before Paul has to go down to Montpelier again so that so that he has the benefit of whatever it is there might be nothing well I think your consideration as the Planning Commission will help Paul because he knows what we have said so I think well my understanding to be clear was that Council Commission would talk to you yes yes and also just timing wise just to be respectful for everybody crossover date is likely around when you have your next meeting so it'll be out of the Senate by the time I want Paul to go now I think the earlier the better and then he'll go again was what I heard him say yes I'm for you for the record I did watch some of the proceedings and it horrified me to see members of the committee trying to do Paul's job on the fly and they had no clue what they're doing absolutely no idea yeah me agree that's why I want to go ASAP all righty okay moving on then to item 11 approving thank you very much Paul and and thank you Planning Commission members approve the purchase of 1270 Wilson Road so Alana's gonna take this you receive and Colin and Colin sorry yeah this is very exciting there's one they go left good evening we're here just to present the city has the opportunity and summarized in our memo to purchase 1270 Wilson Road which is essentially it used to be a travel agency it's a triangular parcel near where Alice franchise fries is and Midas Drive and Alana's been working diligently on for years and as is the city in trying to acquire this property it's better long-standing goal to acquire this to to better improve the the traffic infrastructure of that area I think the only thing I would add is that in looking through files there was actually a letter from 1978 which had a nice little diagram of the improvement alignment of the garden Street White Street and Midas Drive meeting at one point as opposed to in three points and I guess I would just also add that the property owner Alana and the team have been working with property owner for many years and the property owner this fall after meeting with Alana and Andrew came forward and was willing to be an active seller in this deal as opposed to go through an eminent domain process which I think is very beneficial to all of us so the general idea would be that we we have the opportunity to purchase this property through negotiations with with the owner the property is right now currently not being used it's vacated by the current tenant and so that's why the property owner reached out to us because he knew we had a long-term interest we were able to negotiate a purchase price that fit in with with our expectations and the idea would be that we would move to remove the building from the from the property and create an intersection at this place that would better align the intersection of all all all the four streets that are three streets that are currently there yes can I say a real basic question one this really doesn't work without without that space right to create that that connection between Market Street and Williston Road we need that that piece of land in order for it to work safely and effectively so we can make the connection to Market Street without the parcel what the parcel does for us is it adds traffic capacity to the overall transportation grid so this was heavily studied with traffic studies during the environmental assessment for Market Street which looked at the impact of adding all of the buildings on Market Street and Garden Street to the downtown and what what would happen at Dorset and Williston Road and so this improvement was one of the significant improvements that that that that assessment I don't know if the word required is too strong or not as part of the mitigation for the impact of city center so as part of the federal action this was one of the mitigation strategies got it thank you what is the relationship between this purchase and the pending tiff bond vote so Garden Street the Williston Road intersection project includes this intersection so it would be the funding for this project so if for some reason the voters didn't pass that tiff bond vote is this a purchase that would be delayed or are we giving our authorization to make the purchase after the bond vote if the bond vote passes no this would be so so this project as with all of our tiff projects there is ongoing investment in the projects in which means that the city is carrying costs on these projects to to develop the design and and this would be a right-of-way purchase which would be part of the planning and preparation for the actual project if the bond vote did not pass we believe this is still a project that the city would seek funding for from some other source other source because it is a significant enough improvement and has enough both local and regional benefit going forward thanks and just to follow up if you approve this purchase we're scheduled to close tomorrow we'd get the keys tomorrow so well it might even be demolished before the bond vote you get your demo permanent waiting along along with the pizza I'll just say as someone who goes through this intersection from time to time because the bus avoids it is that it's an unsafe oh it is its intersection yeah so regardless we need to make this a better yeah a better intersection okay are you ready for the vote I guess I would take a motion motion so I'll move to approve the purchase of 1270 Williston Road second any further discussion all in favor one one just component I would just recommend that you authorize Jesse Baker to sign any necessary documentation to to make the sale go through right so I'll modify the motion to add that we are approving Jesse Baker to sign the documents for this for the sale now second half of the city my half the city and that's seconded any further discussion now okay all in favor say aye so that passes for zero thank you thank you that was a long time coming oh item 12 receive a recommendation to apply for a safer staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grant and possibly approve it we have chief Locke a safer grant and not like an unsafe grant something like that you know yes we love acronyms sure good evening I'll just tee it up we're looking for authorization the grant period opened earlier this week so safer is been a federal grant program modeled after the cops grant if you're familiar with the cops grant for the last 20 years or so ironically it does sunset this year and without federal legislation to re-enact it will this will be the last year the safer grant and in the fire at grant and so it's been a very goofy time in national politics to try to get anything done and we but we thought we would get this reauthorized so we are this is you know very much a great program that allows for the retention and hiring and retention of firefighters as well as recruitment and retention in volunteer agencies and so as you probably know back in the early mid-2000s South Burlington did receive a grant to hire six firefighters to the safer program and back then it was a way that you could they would pay a percentage of the salary that would go down over the the years and at that time it was over five years and you'd be a hundred percent the first year and eighty then sixty and forty and go down so that the community would would pick up those costs over time the last few years it has been a hundred percent for three years and no in no match for the local community and no longer a requirement that you retain the staff at the conclusion so though there used to be a requirement that you would retain them so they're they're doing everything they can to try to get communities to to be able to make this work for them and in one of the priorities lately and certainly going back the last couple years is the the rehire of laid-off firefighters we saw that a lot in the at certain economic times certainly this year not so much on the national front we're not seeing community struggle like they were just around the pre the pandemic time so what my what I'm requesting authorization to do is to apply for the grant and we brought this to you in advance because of the liability that you'd be signing up for if awarded now if awarded we would come back to you for another bite at the apple or to confirm that you still that you want to accept the grant and so what we're proposing to do is to apply for three firefighters one per shift in the model what the priorities for safer are is to find ways to get to 15 firefighters on scene within 10 minutes and 20 seconds and the reason for that is there are certain critical tasks that have to have has to happen in a timely fashion and and these are national standards that say that you should be able to accomplish these tasks in a given amount of time we have eight firefighters currently on staff hopefully with the passage of the bond passage of the ballot initiative about the budget next week next week and a half we will go to 10 firefighters on duty we have now asked the air guard to respond automatically on any reported structure fire so that gets us 13 to 14 and so one one additional position per shift gets us 15 which is our which is our goal right and the highest these grants are the highest priority is given to communities that can get to 15 with at least amount of dollars and so really we are ripe I believe forgetting there by adding one body per shift and in what is and I spoke about this to you a little bit during my budget presentation the the we are getting to the size community where we need to have I'm going to call it on duty chief or shift commander working 24 7 who is the conductor of the orchestra during the day or during that 24-hour tour right now and it happened this tonight just before I came over here both of my officers were in the back of ambulance is going to the hospital so I have two two officers on both are paramedics both were needed on two different calls so there I don't have there was not an officer on duty on the in the city and so another call comes in I have some very competent you know senior firefighters they're going to step up but we are reaching the call saturation in the complexity of calls where we need to have a shift supervisor someone dedicated to running the running the orchestra and deploying resources going on high level calls managing the day to day activities without being stuck on a medical to be quite honest without being stuck on a medical call where their their services could be used much better doing other things and so Burlington currently is the only community that has a dedicated MSA duty chief on every day and and they certainly are had a dedicated duty chief when they are running 4500 calls like what we have what we have reached we're reaching that capacity we've reached that point where our call volume in the complexity of our day to day operations require true on duty supervision 24-7 where we have a shift supervisor not just them riding on the right frenzy of the fire truck trying to multitask and that really is evident on when there's high complex incidents they reach tax tax saturation very quickly because they're both trying to do individual tasks that they should not have to be doing because there's no one else to do them so this would allow us to get there it's I would expect if we were awarded the grant we would know they expect they expect awards to be notified by September of this year September 23 there's a 180 day grace period to to hire the people so if if if we hypothetically we would be able to start them around January 1 of 24 with and then you would end up with a three-year 100 percent everything except for all all this all the contractually obligate guided expenses are covered so basically once we once we out up at them with uniforms and do their physicals everything but overtime is covered and we're going to be paying the overtime whether they work that position or something someone else so it covers it for three years the decision is again then the decision could be made if the community cannot afford it in 27 that you could either lay them off or or those positions most likely we would do it out through through attrition right but there would be a natural runway out of this and I think the other one is we come back to you in September saying we've been awarded it and how would you like to handle us so I think your approval tonight is to kind of set the stage but it also you know signifies that you want to move in this direction that you're comfortable with a grant concept and plus it's quite a lot of work to get there and I don't to be quite honest want to spend two weeks worth of work because it's due it's due March 15th March 17th is the grant closes I'm away next weekend vacation and then I'm going to you know this will be my priority to get this done in order to to to to get a good grant application in but didn't want to surprise you with this and certainly consultation the manager want to make sure that we had your blessing before we moved too far with us well I think it's a great idea so I would be very positive about you going forward in 2027 we'll see where we are with the budget absolutely I just had a couple questions so you are saying adding additional firefighter to each shift is an opportunity to remove the shift commander from serving as the company officer so if the safer grant would give us exactly how many firefighters so adding one so we would apply for three firefighters they really don't care how you deploy them we would explain that so we would go to a minimum staffing of 11 on duty with by adding a body another body per shift so we're currently at eight and again I mean I'm saying this in anticipation that the budget is going to pass so in January of 24 when we hire the six for the second ambulance that gets us to 10 and then this position would get us to 11 if the stars aligned budget passes get the grant we could hire not start nine at one time in September in January of 24 that's the that's how this could all work out it's always easier to start a group of people together than it is um ones these twosies okay and this would free up people to become the shift commander kind of the orchestra director that you described yes so what we yes it would it's going to require us to have some conversations with labor because right now the captains are in a collective bargaining agreement so right now the organization is extremely flat with so with the exception of deputy chief francis and I were the only two not in the not in the labor union so yes so right now the captain the shift commander is writing so we call him a company officer they're writing the right front seat making tactical decisions and because that they're pulled out of they're going on calls every day that they that I'd rather have them not go on but I need to have but because they're only three people on the truck they got to go okay all right so there would be three of those shift commanders and they'd each have like an eight hour shift to cover the 24 hours we they work a 24 on 48 off okay wow yeah so 24 hours on so every so there's shift one two three then they rotate one two three so you work every third day 24 hours yeah yeah but even a shift commander okay all right and I'm sorry to sound like such a nitwit but how does this combine with your duties so I I ask need help so again as a very level organization and something we've talked about I ask and rely on the captains to do many administrative tasks so one of them let's just say overseas our uniforms and you why you think uniforms could be or should be a rather easy aspect but you order so one person's in charge of ordering uniforms for 20 for 30 people and making sure that everyone has the right components and so they're doing those duties every third day because they only they only work every third day so you're waiting a call back from a vendor those types of things so many administrative tasks now are managed out to the captains who would who then are running out during the day to run call run calls run a bunch of calls and so they're trying to get get their paperwork done their run reports done and do these administrative tasks no I mean your duties not the not the captain's duties but so how do they interact what your duties are I'd like oh that's a different question because I I guess I considered you to be the orchestra director so I orchestra I'm the director of the orchestra when it comes to the fire department not the day-to-day operations and I say that meaning emergency how how the day is handled from training to what you know where we're gonna train on today how we're going to respond to this call almost all those things are managed by the captain my duties when I need to all step in but that's what they truly are that's what their true strengths are my duties are much more about people budgets and politics to be quite you know and all those all the things that come to all the things with it come running a six million dollar business so everything from hiring discipline policy development for your request you know that that is the day-to-day grind of of career fire chief okay I learned something thank you if I if I can just add one point I think to me the advantage of having another commander in that 24-hour shift is right now in any one of those 24-hour shifts but for weekends the chief is only actually present for eight hours so when you think about developing the leadership of the department and you think about who that person is that a new firefighter is going to trust to go to with a challenge or a problem or a technical need or information need the chief's only there for a very small portion of the shifts that that individual is working through the week so how do you develop that leadership in the layers of the department so you know at two o'clock in the morning when somebody's been to a you know sorry it's late at night a dead baby called there's somebody there to support that office that new firefighter from a position of leadership and those right now the captains kind of do that but they also might be off on another call or off doing something else in the way the hierarchy and the fire service are those new firefighters are not going to come straight to me they're going to go to that position they go to that position right that's seen as their immediate supervisor they're seen as all those they're they that's where the relationship is you know it comes to me at a very different level okay any other questions or comments so it looks like just doing a google search downloading the safer grants of the last eight years over the 2,300 grants that FEMA has given only the alberg volunteer fire department which got $55,000 two years ago was the only vermont fire department to get a safer grant we got one in 2008 when i was first elected to city council is that the last one yeah so you know so in wilson turned it wilson got authorized in the early 2000s for six firefighters in the town turned it down so it's not something in fact i've never i'll say this in my my 16 years of fire chief i've never applied for safer i never applied for people you know there's another grant that they use for equipment and i've done a bunch of those but people are just one of those things that you know one communities don't often hire people and so it's it's much less it's just much in it's much less active yeah okay that was my question is there anything about vermont that makes it we've only gotten one grant in eight years now i just i don't think most most communities just don't aren't hiring people okay so a motion to um apply for this grant i make a motion that we recommend that the chief apply for a safer grant second all in favor i thank you thank you thanks for staying around okay um oh the shared um the policies and strategies yes so i'm gonna line by line through these um the so honestly i give you this report as a check in on us and make sure we're all kind of aligned and pulling in the same direction to provide you a resource for when constituents come and ask you what's going on on a project you can search this document have the easy accessible answer so obviously i'm not going to walk light by line but there is actually one update that came in after we published this report which is on the being the umal one so the umal property owners have um officially closed on purchasing the sears properties oh they did last week okay so that is a i mean i guess that's cool i mean is that good it is very good i think it's very good it means that they have more complete site control and can use the property more to maximize the development potential so that includes the um parking the sears and then the entire place yes no so i'll store the garage and the sears okay yeah i believe the garage was part of the original purpose or purchase but i could be wrong on that it's it's they now have control over the entire mall footprint and the sears auto shop at the front but we but not the building next to the hanaford no and the building next to the hanaford what they don't what they don't have no they have the they own the hanaford land that has a master lease on it yeah and the hillsons they own the hillsons building the the party city yep they own that building that goes back away well there used to be ten or tennis courts there too so i was just remembering the other day that uh i was at the old sears where market 32 is now which used to be also the uh there was a video 2000 store there before that and but because they were getting ready to close in 97 and move to the um mall so i went there and bought a couple of things with my son who was too i remember it very clearly so okay so did that we did so that's that's the real only kind of emergent update i wanted to give to you otherwise this is just i don't need action was just to receive this report can they they're great reading you know they really do bring you up to um speed and um i appreciate the organization and the fact that people are actually doing stuff you know in a very organized way and it's all on a piece of paper we can read okay um it's already other business i have about four things i want to bring up i'd like to start with dog parks please okay i see a lot of people at that dog park yep and if you didn't notice there is a what are my wife's sculptures is on a tree within the the dog park and it's up very high with this little solar um oh i didn't know that solar panel and it lights up at night and it glows and it's in the shape of a moth if you haven't seen it oh pretty oh cool within that there's one tree within the dog park because the fence got extended around it and up high out of reach is this like this this thing so i've never there at night with your dog we might see it no it's closed at night it has to be a sunny oh then forget it but it has to have been a sunny day tib because you brought that up i will also mention that the masonry is almost done at the pump station um so we are going to need a reinstallation at some point okay good to know and that'll be planted uh my wife is working diligently on the latest incarnation of a v-trans public art permit process document it's probably longer than you having to submit one for a new traffic signal well i i do have a question though i was curious when the orientation for the south burlington neighbors who are eligible for the airport's noise mitigation funds will happen will begin because those have already begun i believe right well i don't know if they've begun but i you know do you know i don't know that's we that's we need to prioritize that we have not prioritized that with comp plan planning and ldr updates and budget but paul and i talk about it regularly if that's the next thing on the list so i will bump that up thank you for asking okay i would just note that i think betty militia wrote a very strong comment on the neighborhood you know the facebook neighborhood whatever about really asking um dog owners who use the park to pick up poop and um you know how important that was and i do take my dog very occasionally and it's it's really important especially when we think about you know we're talking about potentially another dog park um or at least we've identified there's a need for one whether we can actually build it or whenever we can't do um you know i would just encourage anyone who listens into this if you have a dog as she suggested at the new dog park since they seemingly relieve themselves on the outer edge if before you leave if you just take a little walk around the fence and pick up what you see maybe just one or two um that would be helpful and i i noticed that they have moved the bin um and i i think that i think there's the um bags are so you can access them from the inside of the um park which is nice because sometimes you go there and you forget to bring one and you can just walk across and get one and and dump it you don't have to be carrying and go into the entranceway and i did have a second comment oh i'm sorry that's okay pardon me but consider lenses with which city decisions are made climate equity fiscal affordability sustainability and others i think that that should also be moved up because that's really interming of determining you know how we move policy forward i think that that's a policy i mean that comes with strategic planning and i think it's hopefully a part of the comp plan discussion to when the comp plan draft comes together for the planning commission for the council that's thought there that it's linked to the comp plan okay well thank you matt thank you oh i'll be back that's right yeah we'll hear we'll hear from him and about him anyway so um motion to adjourn so moved second all in favor okay