 We should probably get started today. And we don't expect Donna here today. All right, so I'm gonna call this meeting to order. Welcome. So the first thing is to review and approve the agenda. Gosh, I feel like the speakers are really on tonight. This is very exciting. Okay, so the first thing is just a, I think an easy procedural switch. We're gonna switch items 10 and 11. We're gonna warn the public. The public hearing first and then. Oh yeah, thank you. Thank you. Public hearing first, then approve the wording. Right, okay. Any other changes people wanna make? Okay, so without objection, we'll consider the agenda approved. Number three, general business and appearances. So this is a time for anyone from the public to come and address the council on any item that is otherwise not on our agenda. And if anyone wishes to do so, I would recommend that you try to keep your comments to about two minutes or less. We don't have Donna here, who's normally our timekeeper, but I would do that. I'm gonna, oh, oh, oh, or Connor. Connor can do it. Okay. No, do you know one? Okay, going once, going twice. All right. Number four, consideration of the consent agenda. Do we have a motion? So moved. Second. For the discussion. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Great. Right, so the bond to public hearing. So my plan, we have four items to have public hearings. I've got a presentation that includes all four of them. So what I thought I'd do is just run through all four of them and then you can take them one by one for discussion. But we'll have done the background. Okay, so this is a public hearing in anticipation of a special election or in fact a special town meeting being called by the city council. The anticipation as the meeting would be called for November 6th, 2018 to be held in conjunction with the state's general election already being held that day. For items, specifically for bonds and charter changes, but also any items on a warning has to be, a public hearing has to be held between 30 and 40 days prior to the election, the first public hearing. And that is what this meeting is tonight. The council would then vote after the public hearings to place the items on the warning and approve the final warning wording and ballot items. A second public hearing for bonds and charter changes must be held within 10 days of the election and the council has scheduled that for Monday, October 29th. There's also a special meeting. So that's the sort of the legal formalities. There are four proposed warning articles that are being discussed tonight. The first is a $10.5 million bond for a parking garage. The second is a $16.75 million bond for upgrades to the water resource recovery facility, also known as the wastewater plant or sewer plant. A petition charter change to allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in local elections. And a proposed charter change to authorize the city council to enact regulations to promote sustainability. So those are the four items on tonight's public hearing. So article one, this is how it will be worded. This is the required wording from the bond bank and from Vepsi for Tiff. It's kind of long and legalese, but this is essentially the vote for the $10.5 million for the parking garage and authorizing use of Tiff funds to help pay that. The project itself, where will this happen? This is the, it will happen. This is what it currently looks like be the parking lot behind Capitol Plaza and Christchurch. The garage itself is proposed to look more like this. We've got some other images around. And the city would own, operate and manage the parking facility using land donated by the Capitol Plaza construction cost, as we said is up to 10.5 million. The reason for doing this is to implement the economic development strategic plan, which called for a new hotel, new parking and new housing in downtown. And hopefully this will help accomplish all three. It would create 160 net new parking spaces or a 26% increase in managed parking. It would allow a new hotel and possibly new affordable housing to occur. It would create, we have the bike path already being built for this would create new ADA compliant bike path connection and park area. And the hotel, the garage certainly would not, but the hotel would provide additional rooms and meals tax revenue to the city, none of which has counted on in the finances for the garage. How will this be paid for? As we said, the project cost is up to 10.5 million. That includes all the construction design permits, environmental studies and that kind of thing. It's based on current bond interest rates. It'll be a 30 year bond, first four years interest only. We've assumed annual CPI interests on both expenses and revenues for 2.25% for the entire term. We will be using the TIF revenue from the hotel only, at least in the pro forma for 20 years, which is the maximum allowed. And that there's no change to the year one TIF revenue has been held steady throughout. Obviously, we expect that would increase over time. And we've also not counted any additional TIF increments or other projects in the zone which could be used to help offset this. So in other words, we've used very conservative figures. The 50,000 in capital reserve fund is what is recommended by our parking garage consultants and that is included as well. The revenue sources for this project are capital plaza permits. They will be buying 200 a year for 30 years. The TIF revenue from the plaza, from the new hotel will be approximately 150,000 a year. Other permits, we're assuming 80 permits will be sold and we think we can do that would be, as you see about 19% and then hourly users, flex users, those kinds of things, people that are in for less than full permits would make up the remaining source. Bill, do you wanna mention there how that adds up to more than two months ago? Sure, okay, yeah. I don't actually count in this the number of spaces, but the council member Krueger's referring to, if you look at some of our worksheets, it shows the totals that add up to more than 348 spaces. And it's a fair question. Gee, if you have 350 spaces, how come you're getting revenue from 450? The reason being is that some spaces are used more than once in the course of a day. So a capital plaza permit, for instance, a hotel guest might come in at five or six o'clock at night, stay overnight, leave in the morning. That's still a permit that's been purchased for that space, but that unused portion of the space might either be used by another permit holder or an hourly person. So typically these things get double counted. We've assumed I think about a, I wanna say 50% flex rate for the remaining permits, although that's off the top of my head, it could be wrong, but it's lower than what we were advised to use because we're trying to be conservative, but yes. And this actually is nothing nefarious. This is actually exactly what we do in our parking lots right now. We have permits in parking lot out back. If someone's not here that day, someone else pulls in and pays the hourly rate. So it's very comparable. This happens all the time. The expenses, and I still haven't been able to fix this slide, but the three sources of expenses, the main one of course is debt service on the bond, the capital reserve and the unlabeled one is the operational costs. That includes contracts for cleaning maintenance, greenery, electrician, that kind of thing, snow removal, all the various elevator maintenance. And this again has been run through our consultants. I know at least one person in this room thinks it's too low, but we have checked it and double checked it with other garages and with people and we feel like it's on the mark. So just showing that compared to this, you can see that the total matches, the income and the expenses match. Looking at the annual projected net income, obviously in early years when we're only paying interest on the bond, our cash flow will be very positive. Then as the full bond comes in, our annual cash flow will sink so we will have used the reserves that we built up. And then over time it starts building up to a more positive note. You'll notice there's a drop after 20 to 25 years. That's when the TIF revenue falls off and it's just being funded by itself. So frequently asked questions. I'm not gonna go through all of them. There's an article in September Bridge. There's an updated version of it sitting right over there and I'm happy to answer any of them and also all of that will be is online and the updated version will be online and I'm sure there will be plenty of them here. So this is just another view of the garage. As it's an updated design as the council has recently considered it with a higher viewing. You can see some of the elevations that compare to the current capital plaza there in the background and the proposed new hotel. Okay, moving on. Bill, excuse me. Is this okay time for questions or should we wait? At our last meeting there was a question about how the handicap access would be provided to the bike path. Do we, is that resolved yet? Yes, and we don't have our architect here but we are, there's gonna be an access between the hotel and the garage, about 10 foot access which will then create a lift and you see the, it shows a little bit of path alongside that wall and the bike path is on the other side of that. So it'll be along there and we're also gonna create one on this side coming up to it. Again, we can talk about all of these topics later too. Article two is on about the 16.75 million dollars for the wastewater, water resource recovery facility. This is the wording that you'll see. I'm gonna try to go through this but our experts are here as well that can answer much more technical questions than I can. Basically, this is what we call an organic to energy project. We have an aging infrastructure that needs to be replaced and we think that over the next 10 years, regardless of whether we do this organic to energy project, we have to spend as much as 13 million dollars over the next 10 years to just fix what we have and there's a long list of reasons why that is. So the organic to energy opportunity allows us to bring in revenues, create a new system where we can handle different kinds of solids and liquid streams that we don't normally take now. Those are revenue to us and so even though we will spend more now, we will also take in more so that net to the rate payer will be less than we would have. It also allows us to improve our energy consumption or decrease as you can see our energy use, water use and as well as creating our new revenue streams. Basically, if you compare the two projects, you can see basically the projected savings, the guaranteed savings and this also comes with a guarantee from the company that is building this. To be honest, Kurt or someone can explain this slide better than I can. But basically you can see that we are saving in both operating costs, energy costs and gaining in revenue and I'm sure we will have a more robust conversation on that. Financial guarantee, again we will be guaranteed our annual revenue and our energy savings for 20 years. So they've projected certain amounts of annual revenue, certain amounts of energy savings and a certain amount of tipping fees. So if we don't make those, the company, ESG will guarantee those amounts. If anything goes on the upside, we get to keep all of that. Article three, this came in by petition and it says the article will read, as you see here, shall the city amend the city charter, allowing non-citizen legal residents to vote and the article itself, this is the actual charter, changes two pages, this is the first part. And the intent here is for legal non-citizens that are legal residents of people with green cards that are living in Montpelier that will be able to vote on local issues, so city school issues, there may be homeowners, taxpayers, those kinds of things. They obviously can't vote on state and federal elections but they would be able to vote in local elections. So this is the proposal, the city council has discussed it but this was brought in by petition and by vote of the council. And then finally, article four is shall the city amend the charter to allow the city to regulate issues and activities that relate to community environmental sustainability, we have a current draft that was approved by the city council, I understand there may be some amendments being discussed tonight but as it stands today this is the language that was filed with the city clerk within the legal timeframe. So those are the four articles, the upcoming dates for more information on October 15th, the good garage, parking garage will have both a design review and development review board, so five, 30 and seven, two separate meetings. The second public hearing on all of these articles will be held on October 29th and then the city election will be held on November 6th from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and early voting will start as soon as early as next week as soon as the warning is approved. Tonight the ballots we sent in for printing and as soon as they're received we'll start early voting. So thanks everyone here for participating, we look forward to answering questions on any of the four topics and I assume the mayor will walk us through them in sequence but that's a brief overview. All right, thanks Bill. So first thing is to take these each one at a time and we're gonna start with opening the public hearing. So specifically regarding, well the thing that's first on the list here is the item regarding the water resource recovery facility so we'll take that one up first. So I'm gonna open the public hearing. Any comments, questions, counsel or public on the water resource recovery facility? And we do have our public work staff and consultants here if there are any technical questions about that. I don't think I explained it all very well. No, okay. Questions from the council? Feeling okay? All right. Yeah, if you have a question come on up and if you would say your name and the mic and where are you from? Is if this bond doesn't pass, what is the expected lifespan of the current facility? Great question. This is Kurt Modica, the city engineer and assistant public works director. Aging infrastructure equipment is basically met the end of its period. So if this bond doesn't pass, we would return to council with potentially a reduced scope but the lifespan of certain aspects of the equipment has actually exceeded what most engineers would consider its lifespan. Some of those pictures up there, some of the equipment that is original to the plant built in 1962. So there has to be an upgrade. We really can't work one way or another. We'll talk about the number of complaints and issues that have been arising about the plant in the last year, year and a half. The only complaints that we've really had from the plant is occasional odor issues. I would say that those are rare. I've seen maybe, from what I've heard, at least at City Hall, maybe, since I've been here, maybe five complaints in 10 years, but I may not hear them all. That's what you're referring to. What do the odors indicate to you? Well, I think some of that is related to the discharge of septage, possibly. I think most of it is related to tank cleanings. It seems most frequently when we have to open up a tank and cleaned out with what's called a vector truck. That really sort of releases the odors that are otherwise contained in that tank. That's when, from what I've seen when we get the most issues, most complaints. How often does that happen? Tank cleanings are, on average, I'd say twice a year. But I mean, it's a wastewater plant. There's gonna be some odors with it. There's no, I don't think there's really any way around that, but as far as actual complaints received at City Hall, they're fairly recent. I'd just like to say, as somebody living on Lower State Street in the last year and a half or two years, there is odor all year long, which never happened before. I did issue, I did send in several complaints about the odors, but it's almost nonstop in recent intensity. So I'm really concerned about how much longer we have if the bond doesn't go through. Yeah, I don't think odor issues are a reflection of the plant's operation ability to treat wastewater. We really measure that through the concentrations of what's leaving the plant. Did you send those complaints to the wastewater plant directly or wherever those directed? I called them in. To the wastewater plant? Okay, I just may not have got past telling the City Hall of it. So the increase in odor across the year doesn't mean really anything? It's not related to how the plant's necessarily functioning. Okay, thank you. So not addressing the odor complaint specifically, but the point is that we do need to upgrade our plant. It is really beyond its useful life. And so in evaluating the options, although one is less expensive than that of the two is actually better for us to do the more expanded project because of the revenue also has more environmental benefits. So that was the reason the staff recommended the option that we're pursuing. Steve Whitaker, Montague. The new plant, will it prevent overflow releases of raw sewage into the Winooski River going forward? We've had quite a number of those, I understand. And will this salt resolve that problem? No, the overflow issues related to the collection system, not the treatment plant. So it will not have any effect on the level of overflows. We do have a roof drain study grant underway right now that we're looking at. And we've also done independent smoke testing. We recently purchased a smoke testing machine for public works. And we've identified several very large stormwater contributors into the sanitary sewer system. And we'll be addressing those probably next summer. So we do have work in progress to reduce and hopefully very soon eliminate overflows, but it's not related to this project. Okay, so all of those other mitigation projects to eventually prevent the overflows are gonna be additional expense not included in this plan. That's right, we're hoping a lot of this work we can do in-house would not be major expense. We also are required under our wastewater permit to develop a long-term plan to resolve this CSO issue, which we'll be putting together here this winter. Well, like I said, I think a lot of these are storm drains that are piped right into the sanitary sewer system that our crews have the equipment and the capabilities to do that in-house. So I think we're gonna be starting to really tackle that issue without a major cost upfront. There is gonna be some cost to it and some of that is already laid out in our Water Sewer Master Plan. We do have funding already planned for in that plan to address the CSO issue. But this is not an optional, the water treatment plan, this water sewer treatment plan is not an optional. It's you're running it into life of capacity that we have. Of the useful life of equipment, that's there, yes. And in terms of degradation to the water, while we absolutely take seriously the overflows and are addressing it, having a catastrophic failure at the wastewater plan will be far worse than the occasional overflow. So it's much more important to treat the daily flow all the time every day. So can you speak to the wisdom of putting that 17 and a half million dollar bond for a mandatory expense up against a 10 and a half million dollar optional bond for a parking garage on the same ballot? How are you gonna proceed if the garage passes and the treatment plan doesn't? Well, like I said, we would come back with another scope of work for the wastewater plan upgrade. I can't speak to putting the two on the same ballot. That's not a, that's not why I'm up here. I meant too much on this part, I didn't expect the answer. Simply point out with regard to that question that the funding available, the funding that's funding the parking structure, potential parking structure is not available for use for anything else. It comes strictly from the revenues from the garage and from the tip from the hotel. So we would not, it's not like we can take that 10 million and spend it on something else. This is strictly from the, whereas the sewer plan is funded by the sewer users, sewer user rates. Further questions? All right, I guess we're gonna close the public hearing for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Bond and we're gonna move on to the, specifically the parking garage. So I'm gonna open the public hearing. I did just close the one. I did, okay, I just did that, okay, thank you. All right, so we're gonna open the public hearing for the parking garage. If there are questions or comments from the public or counselors, that was a good time. Hi, good evening. My name is Sarah DeFeliz and I'm the owner of Bailey Road across the street. I am also the president of the Montpelier Business Association. So I thought it was important for me to come here today and share the thoughts and I am speaking for the business community. We had a meeting this morning and talked about this issue. We have meetings monthly and we've had representation from the Bashar family and MMR speaking about the parking garage for the last four to five months. So the business community feels fully informed and we've been able to ask questions within our small group and talk about it as business owners and how that would affect our business. And we don't agree wholeheartedly on a lot of things but I asked the question today, do we unanimously agree on this parking structure? And we do. So I hope that you take into consideration that out of the 30 people that attended the meeting today and who have attended the meetings in the past, this is something that we are fully behind. And if you need anything from the business community to help move this forward, we are here and ready to go. Thanks. Thank you. Hi, my name is Roberta Garland. I live in Montpelier. I'm just wondering if somebody could speak to that note about possible affordable housing as part of the project? Sure. Christchurch is located right next door and they are considering possibly doing an affordable housing project next two or three years in behind their church and we've been in contact with them. I mean, it's really dependent on many things including external funding but we've tried to develop the project in a way so theirs can succeed and then we would provide them. We've already reached an agreement with them about parking in this garage should that project be successful. So hopefully it will allow that to occur. We're also, as you know, develop already building affordable housing on the other side of the garage at One Taylor. I had one more question that came to mind. How would the parking garage affect the water overflow issue? The water overflow? Like the combined storm water? Like storm water? Yeah, the storm water overflow. Is that, would that play a role at all? So I'm not an expert on this but I'll answer it as best I can. First of all, no more or less storm water is gonna fall from the sky regardless of whether a garage is present. And most of that land, not all but most of the land it's on is currently asphalt and has no real treatment so it just already sheds off into the river. The garage will also be impervious. It will have some treatment systems in it to collect what runs down through the building and cleanse it. So while it's probably not gonna reduce the amount of flow to the river, it will probably be cleaner. There's also going to be some more green space around the garage to connect, collect some. I'm not gonna sit here and say that this is gonna be a full storm water treatment facility but it should improve over the existing circumstance. At least that's the design, that's our goal. Eve Jacobs-Cartaghan, I live on Saving Street. So I have two questions. So am I first? You can see it right on top of the microphone. It's no close to us. It's too tall. You can sit here too if you'd like. You can also take it out too. Do you wanna just hold it? Okay, I'll hold it. So I wanna ask a question about the wall that's shown there that slices through the green space and seems to be right next to the bike path. It seems as if it makes a barrier so that you wouldn't be able to get from the bike path through to downtown through that section. And it seems that it would make it a very unfriendly section of multi-use paths. So are there any openings in it? Is it necessary? Is there some explanation for that? Great question. So I'll do the best I can. I'm not the architect. The wall has to do with the elevations and flood. They're trying to create this at a low level so flood waters can come through. But the connection to the bike path will actually be on the other side of the wall in the far end of the garage coming up behind it. And the bike path will be on this side of the wall will still connect to Main Street so you'll be able to come through. And on the heat that the side facing you there will be a connection coming down and going up to the path up above the wall so it will be fully accessible too from both sides. But there'll still be a wall as you're riding or walking along that path. But you'll be up on the path. So you're saying the path is higher than the wall? Yes, the path will be up higher. The path is actually on. You can see the railroad tracks there. The path there is on the other side of the railroad tracks. It only comes through down here toward the bottom of the flood. It's a path isn't drawn in so it's harder to see. So the path isn't even on that? That's correct. The corner of the path would be right near the corner of the. The path would be like right here. And if I may add we shouldn't be crossing the railroad tracks that are shown there anyway. And so actually having a wall there helps prevent people from crossing where they shouldn't. I just want to say I think that it was very confusing because the crossing isn't drawn on there and I had similar concerns when I first saw this. But it's just that the crossing isn't drawn. That there is actually a crossing plan but it's not shown on there. And we're getting that added on for future. OK. So my second question has to do with the overall planning of creating a very large parking garage that seems as far as the public is concerned that any public discussion has only come up since August. It's very, very quick. I am so I have served on the pedestrian committee for several years and it doesn't exist anymore. There's a different kind of committee. So I'm very concerned about how the downtown works for pedestrians and people on bicycles and people who are not using cars. And on the pedestrian committee, we talked a lot about things like public transportation, attractive downtown spaces where there is a friendly place to walk to a park, a place to sit. And those are the kinds of things that we talked about as ways to discourage people from using cars and to move in the direction of making the downtown a friendly place and an accessible, easy place for people to get to. So we talked about adding sidewalks in places where there are gaps in the city and we created a big map. And there's still a lot of places where there aren't sidewalks. We continually have talked about maintaining sidewalks in the winter. So my general question is if we spend, so it's sort of two-fold, what kind of planning has gone into how this garage will fit into the whole picture of all of the things that can be done in the city to decrease car use and increase the livability friendliness of the downtown for people who are not using cars and what does the spending of $10 million in bond money do to the ability to have funds to add the sidewalks that are missing in the gaps to create public transportation? Those are my big concerns and I haven't heard them addressed in any meetings. Two minutes yet? Well, I'll certainly talk about the funding aspect and I can try to talk about the planning aspect a little bit more so maybe I want to weigh in on that as well. Start with your funding question. We have drastically ramped up the amount of funding for sidewalks and infrastructure over the last five or six years and we have a pretty extensive plan moving forward. So there's I think in the hundreds of thousands of dollars now for sidewalks in the next several years. So I think we feel like we've got a pretty good handle on the funding for sidewalks both maintenance and new. With regard to the circulation here, the plan around this area was always the bike path and the bike path connection with the new bridge coming in. That was the main bike and ped circulation plan that is still happening going forward. This is, and as we just talked about, there will be connections to it here. It's, you know, I think the, with regard to, you know, we can, I'm sure there'll be healthy debate over whether this is good or bad for cars, but it's basically replacing what is existing surface parking with parking. It's not taking anything out of circulation or that. So I think that's from a staff perspective, I think that's what we're looking at. Councilman want to talk about it from a policy perspective, but. I guess I would just add that something that various council members have added to the conversation is that, you know, we certainly hope that, you know, with the addition of, you know, this is constitutes a net growth of available parking spaces in Montpelier and that that may open up some other possibilities for, for ours, our on street parking, as well as potentials for parklets and thinking about like how bikes have opportunities on street as well. So, you know, I'm already thinking about like the parklets that we might be able to put in in coming years and this would certainly help. One other piece of that too, just I forgot is council has already voted to move forward with the Confluence Park development to on the one Taylor piece. And as a result of this and a good suggestion, we were able to reduce six parking spaces in one Taylor to create 1500 or so more square feet. I mean, realize it's not awesome, but it's better than it was. And there will be green space behind this building that is currently parking. So that will be connected in. So on that point, as you know, I had sent an email asking whether you could reduce not six parking spaces out of the 45 that are being created at one Taylor street, but a large number like perhaps 30 of them. So that the park that's being created there is instead of being a teeny, teeny tiny triangle park could actually be a good usable park. So I would really urge the council to be looking much more seriously and immediately at finding ways to reduce, to create more pedestrian park like places immediately as part of this project. So that you're presenting it to the public as creating a parking garage and creating, doing the thing that you're saying is hypothetically in the longterm, which is to reduce parking other places. So you're creating friendly street spaces. I have another, it doesn't, I didn't understand or hear how this would impact, how using $10 million of bond money impacts the ability to use bond money for other kinds of projects in the future that might have to do with public transportation or. So the city's well within its legal bond limits in terms of, so it wouldn't really, I suppose at some point if we spent hundreds of millions of dollars, we would hit that limit, but we're far from it. We also have a bond policy, a debt limit policy, and we're staying within that with this as well. And that includes the wastewater plant as well because that's also a large bond that affects our debt limit. But because it's based on total revenues, there's also additional revenues coming in from both things. So we're staying within our ratios and percentages there so we still wouldn't be able to bond in the future if needed. And then my last question is, I understand there hasn't been a traffic study done yet for this garage, so there isn't any information on how it would impact downtown traffic. When will that be done? Will it be before we have to vote on it? It's being done now. It has to be presented as part of the development review board process. So does that mean it will be available before October 15th? I don't know. It should be. I'm getting a nod from Tom McCartle. So will that be available to the public? Of course. Thank you. Some of you have heard some of these comments before, but I'm gonna, they're further enhanced and informed. The lack of transparency of the driving force here, the request at the last meeting for access to the Hilton correspondence, which threatens to terminate the franchise if we don't do this right now. There was discussion at the last city council meeting. I understood you were gonna ask for that document. I got a response that we don't have it. We're not gonna ask for it. I think this board needs to vote to request that document. In the interest of transparency, you have a private developer asking for public assistance in the millions of dollars of scale. And we don't really know whether this is a now or never proposition. If indeed that document doesn't exist or it doesn't say what it's purported to say, then we've been negotiating in bad faith and we've got a whole nother problem on our hands. So I'm asking you to take seriously the need to see that and release a redacted form of that document because for us to be forced to make a decision in the absence of what's really driving this. We're cutting corners left and right with planning and design and we're getting way ahead of ourselves. Take a step back. Enough said on that. I hope you'll take some action. We can respond to that. You wanna respond to that? So as a result of your questioning and also our own questioning, we did actually verify that document. We do not have a copy of it. We followed the same practice we did with their financial records as we had Whitenberg, our consultant review it for us and provide us the feedback. It's about a 400 page document. Has a lot of proprietary information in it, but they confirm to us that the schedule that we are on is what is required by the document. But Whitenberg is a hired gun bond. For us. TIF consultant. For us. Right, but. Well they were our TIF consultant, but they're also our project consultant in the garage as well. Two separate ones. But you're aware of the auditor's report and the JFO report that says this consultant industrial complex is self-serving because they get paid when these projects are called. Well actually, that be that as it may, we asked them to review a document to provide us information about it and they did. The same as they did. So they put in writing that Hilton is threatening to revoke the franchise. They didn't say that. They said that the schedule that we are following is consistent with the requirements of that agreement. So my point is that we are being backed against the wall with poor planning and short cuts. The perspective drawings, I've called this to some of your attention, the perspective drawings are misrepresenting the. I am, I'm going to take the poster back over the microphone. I point out that the Arizona regs require emphasis on walkability and on interconnection and extension of existing roads and trails. And this runs contrary to that in numerous ways. The railroad bridge actually comes. There's a better view of it right behind you, Steve. That's that was even more misrepresenting because this bridge is about 25 feet and this is a 50 foot garage. So how is it so much lower than a 25 foot railroad bridge? Because the bridge is elevated and the garage is sunk down to a lower. We review, you raised that issue at the zoning meeting the other night. We reviewed that with our architect and he said he's extremely confident. I mean, we're happy to float the balloons but he's extremely confident with the dimensions that are shown there. But fair enough. The garage shows itself 10 foot below the height of the railroad bridge, which is 25 feet above the height, the lowest level of the garage. So my point is these are things that should have been measured and confirmed and verified before you're asking people to vote $10 million. We believe they have been. We understand that you don't. So the year 2000 capital master plan in the section I think it's page 14 to 18 refers to the Waduski River Parkway. And it puts particular emphasis on moving parking away from the river and opening up the river for walking recreation and arts. This is running flat contrary to that. You're putting the corner of a four story 50 foot tall garage within 20 feet of the riverbank of the first branch. It's totally anathema to goals that have been in designs that have been done for the last 18 years. So you're similarly the Montpelier Sustainable Montpelier You're aware right that the bike path actually goes along the length of the river till it crosses over. That was in direct response to that response to report that you're referring to. Well, you're bringing me to a comment that I had further down. Is that the city is acting in the role of a promoter and a developer. And the webpage even that's describing this project and this handout that you're giving out today is not talking about the downsides of this. What could go wrong? Who's going to pay for it if and when it does. You know, I think we've been clear about that that if it goes wrong that the city's bond holders or we'd have to pay for it. It's not just paying for it. It's the impact on traffic and on ruining the city's walkability. You know, where we're basically putting to get to the path between the hotel and the parking structure is a 40 foot tall canyon only 10 feet wide. People don't want to walk through those kinds of dark canyons, you know, not to mention the plowing and maintenance. I just want to be mindful of the time as well. Just in terms of sure. If you want to cut me off, I'll take that. I'll give you a couple more minutes. How about that? So the traffic study, we've seen three versions. We've seen trip generation estimates. We've seen traffic reports. We've seen traffic studies. We are at real risk that a traffic study for this project is going to be short shrift and inadequate. The one of the local credible architects spoke at the Development Review Board and said these garages have only worked where they've been on a street. This is not on a street. This is at the back corner of a parking lot of a, we're not sure whether it's going to easement or a right of way. So if indeed this needs to be on a street, you're going to be forced to either turn the L shape drive through Capitol Plaza, Bashar's land into a street as it should be. What force you have. Or you're going to have to take the Haiti lot and turn that into a street. Either one is going to have massive cost implications and is going to take over a lot of perpendicular parking on both of those locations, which is no longer going to support the economics of your parking spaces. You understand that? If you have to take a street out through Northfield Savings Bank and over to Taylor, that means all those perpendicular spots on that narrow. It doesn't necessarily mean that. I appreciate that. That's your opinion. You have one. That doesn't necessarily mean that. It's okay. You have one more minute. Okay. Well, I can tell you're really open to hearing the informed testimony. So I'll leave it at that. No, actually, Steve, I'm open to having accurate testimony and you did just actually quote someone inaccurately from the meeting the other night. So if you want to quote them accurately, that would be fine. Sandy Vitium said was, in my opinion, these sometimes work best when they're on street. She didn't say, as an architect, these only work on streets. So I will have to go back and review the recording, but if you want to get into mincing words. I'm just saying. So I have made requests. In fact, as of five o'clock today, I still hadn't received the contract for the traffic study. So we're in the city is in violation of law unless it happens to be on the key that I got when I got to the meeting. One hopes. Thank you. Further comments? Hi, Dan Groberg, director of Montpelier Alive. I'd like to read a couple of comments that I received from business owners who were not able to be here tonight. Both of whom are highly respected entrepreneurs and business owners in this community for a long time. Bob Watson, the owner of Capital Ground, said, I want to add my full support of the project. I have served on various boards and committees over the past 25 years. Parking has been a topic of discussion for all of that time and it's a perennial issue in the downtown. We're at a point where we have an opportunity to make it happen. I stand fully behind the proposal. I believe the sentiment is shared by most of my downtown business community as well as the residents of Montpelier. The time is now. I'd also like to share comments from Eric Bigelstone that were submitted to city council last week. For too long, almost 30 years now, I've sat in meeting after meeting regardless of the topic and the subject of the lack of parking downtown Montpelier comes up. The problem is nobody until now has even proposed a concrete solution. We need to have a place in the core downtown where people can park. In this particular case, by doing so, it will allow further development of a hotel that is definitely needed. The possibility of an additional 80 to 100 people enjoying our downtown and any given night benefits not just the hotel owners, but the shops, restaurants and events that happen in our city. And I'd really like to emphasize that last point. This parking garage enables, not only does it provide tremendous benefit by itself that is mostly being paid for by a private entity. So the talk of this being a giveaway by the city, I think it's just not accurate if anything were presented with an opportunity where a private entity has offered to pay for the majority of a project over 30 years that will have tremendous public benefit. But this project will also enable a hotel that will bring 30,000 visitors a year to Montpelier. That's 30,000 meals eaten in downtown restaurants, 30,000 shoppers in our downtown stores. We talk a lot about affordability in Montpelier and I think if we wanna bring more tax revenue, if we wanna bring more economic development, more benefits to the public, this is a win, win, win situation. We've been talking about this for 30 years and we're presented with a tremendous opportunity. So I thank the city council for taking this opportunity and I hope the public will join in supporting the bond vote. Thank you. Thank you, Dan. My name is Yvonne Bob, a young global gifts downtown in Montpelier. I live and work in town and rarely use my car. My car probably sits in my driveway most of the week. I usually only take it out Sundays to go grocery shopping. So I appreciate that this is a walkable downtown, but if we want to have a vital downtown, we need more development, we need more tourists to support the restaurants and the businesses. Sadly, I could not make it in my business if it weren't for the tourists. At certain parts of the year, my business would be dead if it weren't for people coming from out of town. People coming from out of town need a place to stay and they're driving. They're not taking, most of them are not taking the trained Montpelier. We need more parking and we need more places for people to stay. So I support the hotel. I support the parking garage because parking is a perennial issue. I hear it from customers frequently during the week that, oh, I was going to stop the other day, but there was no parking. There's no place to support. So increasing the parking in downtown by 26% sounds huge to me. And as Eric from Capitol Stationers said, we've been talking about this for decades and finally there's a serious proposal where we can make a difference and have an impact on the parking. So I think this is a great opportunity. I hope we don't let it pass by. Thank you. Ma'am, would you mind repeating your name for the record? You're good. Thanks. All right, further. Okay, any comments from counselors? Yes. I just want to apologize to Steve. We disagree on this, but I shouldn't have gone after you personally that was a mistake of my part and I apologize publicly to you. Oh, more comments, okay. I've trained them for a few more minutes. It's up to the mayor. Hi, whoops, can you hear me? There we go. Elizabeth Parker. And so I've been following everything and I just want to compliment you while it's taken a lot of time on so many people's, so many people have put a lot of time into this and I appreciate that. And I've just been watching how the drawings have been evolving. There have been so many positive responses to how this building is going, how the garage is going to look. And there have been some, there are some challenges and I don't see, I didn't bring my maps. Can't believe I'm here without my maps. Oh, here, this will work. As of Monday night, I was talking with the architect about the ramp that potentially might run up the north side of the building after the opening that allows cars to leave. And that would hopefully be a handicap grade that would start and go up to the entrance of the garage. And what I understood at that point was that that path was still under negotiation because of the fact that it hadn't been concretized with Christ's church. And I just wondered whether that path exists that goes up the side of the backside. Oh, okay. I think you're right. I think we're still talking about that. Okay, that's just one question. I'm hoping that that happens. And then upon looking at the internal plans, somehow the handicap parking ended up on all floors over this emergency exit instead of over close to the elevator. So I think that's a quick fix, but I'm just gonna point it out to y'all. And then the other point I wanted to make, and I know you're still in negotiations with the farmers market, but the idea of having gates not only at the emergency exit, but potentially somewhere along here to allow the use of the lower level for public activities at various times, perhaps the farmers market, we don't know, is something that I'm hoping we might be able to add in. And finally, my last point is that now in order to come and get up onto the bike path, you would have to go around and in between the hotel and the garage. And I'm hoping, and I've got my little hotspot going and I'm listening to y'all in the beginning and the first question. And I wasn't sure if I heard correctly, Bill, that there is going to be some sort of an access from this side up that will allow you to get up to the bike path. Okay, because I haven't seen that yet in any of the drawings, so I look forward to seeing that. Good, that's all I wanted to. Thank you. I'll put this back over here. Anything further? Yeah. Good evening. My name is William Moore. I'm the president and CEO of the Central Vermont Chamber of Commerce, and I'm happy to come here tonight as a resident of Montpelier to offer the chamber's support for the project. We think that it's an important asset for the city to have. It's an important investment for the city to be making. We think it's going to be an important part of our overall economic structure. Our committees have reviewed the process considerably through our, we've got a process that we use to develop public policy positions and it has come through the board of directors. We do support this wholeheartedly. You know, in the view of transparency, the developers of the project, our members of the chamber, we are here because we believe this is a program that is very valuable for the city. The city's been begging for additional parking. We think this is one way to get through to the end of that. It's part of the strategic master plan. City's master plan has identified the site as the appropriate place. We think now is the time to do it and we strongly encourage you to go forward with the a bond vote and to encourage all the citizens of Montpelier to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further? Okay. Now, if anybody had more that they wanted to say, I would recommend that you send it to us in writing because we were always willing to read more that people have to say. All right, so moving on, I'm going to close this public hearing unless anybody else has other things. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we're going to close that public hearing and move on to the charter amendments. Let's deal with the non-citizen voting one first. Is that okay? Can we do that? Sure. Unless... I don't know if one of the petitioners is here to present it. You're a bird is here. So I think since it came by petition, petitioner should probably present. I guess we could... That is a switching of the order. I wonder, like, do you all care? Do you think that's fine? Okay. So I guess we'll move on to the non-citizen voting amendment, so... Sorry, what was the name that you said? I think it's Roberta. Oh, Roberta. Roberta Garland. Yeah, welcome to come up and talk about this. And for those that are wondering what this, this did come to us by petition, it's not initiated by any city of staff or council, so it seems appropriate. There you go. Oh, look at this. And actually, I don't know that we need to... Unless you have things that you wanna say, we could just open the public hearing and then give people an opportunity to ask questions. Do you, would you like to take a few minutes to talk about this? Well, I can take a couple of minutes and say something. So this came about because there was an interest in expanding voting rights in Montpelier to people who are living in the country legally, but are not U.S. citizens and therefore haven't had the right to vote. These are folks who live in Montpelier, pay taxes involved in Montpelier activities, maybe be putting their kids through school here, although that doesn't have anything to do with this, but they are invested in the community, but haven't had any say. We collected, we needed 300 signatures to put it forward onto the ballot, and we actually got 430 signatures by the time the signatures had to be brought in. Great. All right, any questions from the council? I just want to thank you for doing all that work, organizing and collecting signatures. Any questions from the public? I think, did I public the public here? Okay, oh gosh, oh no, a little slow today. So I'm opening the public hearing. So if there are comments or questions from the public. Yvonne, Bob, I have just a quick comment. You said whether the kids are going to school here is not relevant. They can vote on the school budget. That's very relevant. No, they won't be able to. That would be a separate issue altogether because the school board is made up of Montpelier and Roxbury folks. And so because Roxbury is part of it, then they cannot vote on it. Yeah, okay, that's right. Great question though. Any further questions or comments? Okay, well, I guess we're going to close the public hearing then. Thank you so much. All right, moving right along. All right, so the last one here, the Charter Change Amendment regarding sustainability. So I guess I want to just frame this here a bit, which is to say that as we had started with this goal from the city council to ban plastic bags, we asked, we don't have jurisdiction to do that. So we asked our lawyer to write some language that would potentially be a Charter Change that would allow us to do that. And what we got was quite broad and it's very exciting, it's very interesting. And since then, I mean, at the last meeting, we talked about taking out some of the language from the original. And so I just want you to know, I, well yeah, so we talked about taking some language out of the original, sort of slimming it down a little bit, making it at least a little bit more narrow, but it kept this energy efficiency piece as well. That's sort of at the end of that language. So I actually did call the lawyer this morning to say, hey, is that original language that's a slimmed down version that doesn't have the parts about wildlife or whatnot in it, would that work? And he actually, this was a big deal for me, he actually said that he would not endorse that language currently and that he had actually provided to us some alternate language that was really specific to banning plastic bags and not just plastic bags, but any single use plastics. But it did not, I mean, the part that was dear to my heart is about energy efficiency. And this language would not include that. And so one hypothesis is that if we went with the very broad language that would be quite a big risk and might not, like we might lose both of those things, I might lose both the plastics and the energy efficiency. And that I would rather, this is me, I don't want to take that risk. And especially when we might have the opportunity to have another go at some charter revision language for March. So if the council cares about energy efficiency, one hypothesis is that we could aim for some charter revision language specifically about creating ordinances regarding energy efficiency for March instead of trying to package them together now. And this, I mean, I've talked with a few of you and you might know, like I've really wrestled with like what is the best solution here because, yeah, because I care deeply about both of these things. So having said that, I just wanted to frame up where I thought we were at, because we do have this other language. Should we print out enough copies for the public? For some, I'm for Steve. I wasn't sure whether you were actually going to get to it or not. We have some extra. So I just want you to know that there's this other language exists and so that is also on the table. So we could, I guess our choices are really, do we want to go with the, either some form of the original language slimmed down or not or this, the alternative language. Connor. So Mayor, I think I went into this thinking the broader the better, but I took some time to reflect the last few weeks here. And to me it comes down to three things. Would it pass in November? Would it get through the legislative process for a charter change? And then would it hold up in court legally? So we sort of went into this with the intention, we want to ban plastic bags. I very much want to do that. But I think I would be willing to limit the scope in this case with the understanding that we would pay close attention to the energy efficiency piece, potentially for a ballot item in March. So that's where I'm at. I looked at the language proposed by the attorney there. I would actually strike one word from that too. It talks about taxing, single use plastics. I believe there could be some risk associated with having the word tax in there and that it might open it up to the House Ways and Means or Senate Finance Committee, which would further clog it up through the process up at the State House there. I don't want to tax plastic bags. I would want to ban plastic bags. So I'd recommend just taking the word tax out of that. Other thoughts? Ashley the Jack. So I guess I'm going to label plan A, the first set of language that we received as the proposal. Plan B is the sort of paired down version and plan C is what we have tonight. I favor the paired down original version. So plan B, the legislature has the discretion and I realize the exposure that that creates but the legislature can narrow or tailor whatever language we submit to them. And I think that it's our role as counselors to be bold and to make big asks. And there's risk associated with all of that. But to me, sort of waiting and seeing isn't really the answer anymore. The last few weeks in particular, I've just been rage filled at everything that is happening in our country. And so I am supportive of plan B. I really feel strongly that if the legislature is going to be the ones to say no, make them be the ones to say no. I don't think that I'm not one to hedge my bets on things like this that sort of impact the future of everyone on the fact that there may be some people who disagree with us. I'd rather get them on the record as saying that they aren't willing to support this for whatever reason. So I favor the pared down original language. First off, have we opened the public hearing? No, let's do that right now. So I'm going to officially open the public hearing about this charter change language. We're going to continue to take some comments from counselors and then we'll go to the public. Okay. Having reviewed this, I came into this thinking from the very beginning, even before I was on the council, talking to Connor Casey saying, we get on there, we're going to ban plastic bags. And that's one of the first things we talked about as our legislative agenda here. And I think that is very important here in Montpelier to do that. The other important thing for me is that as an attorney, I think it's important to listen to our attorney's advice. I think everybody should take their lawyer's advice when they get it. I think that we can have a very clear charter language that goes right to the point of plastic bags and other single use plastics. It gives us some time to get a much more focused language on energy conservation and efficiency, which I think are very, very important. And talk about what proposals or programs we would develop using the authority that the charter would give us. But I think that the either plan A or plan B is so broad that I'm concerned that it would not get anywhere in the legislature. And so I'm in favor of the language as proposed by the city attorney. Plan C, so to say. Plan C, yes. Looks like yesterday. I would go along with what Jack just said. I think that that's more or less where I am as well. And I also think that I would add to that that I think it's a much clearer ask of the voters that the language as most recently drafted makes it very clear. I think what Montpelier voters would be asked to consider either of the two previous versions felt to me difficult to understand, difficult to grasp the scope of the proposal. So I'd go along with that. And I also kind of for the sake of that, I want to read out the current language because I'm not totally sure that it is fully available to everyone listening or reading. So, and it's brief. The relevant language is under section five dash 301 powers and duties of city council number nine. Regulate, license, tax or prohibit within the boundaries of the city point of sale distribution of non reusable plastic bags, non reusable plastic straws and similar plastic products that are not reusable and to define what constitutes reusable in this context. Thanks for reading that up. Rosie. So I am most comfortable with version C and that's kind of the pragmatic, this has got to go through the legislature and given our past history of charter changes of the legislature, they could just sit on it if they don't like it. And so I think this is very clear. This is what we intend to do. This is the power that we need to do this specific thing that we intend to do. And I don't think that there's anything objectionable. It's very straightforward. And so I'm very hopeful that we wouldn't have a problem quickly getting this through the legislature. And this is something that it feels like the council would like to act with some urgency on. So I'm good with version C. I did want to note that my colleague in district one, councilor Bate sent some comments. She is concerned about the term non reusable and finds it a little bit confusing. So we may want to have a little bit of discussion about that and she just wanted to reiterate that she had actually a preference for the broader language that we considered earlier, but understood that she probably wasn't in the majority on that, but just wanted to reiterate that. So I wanted to share her comments because she's not here tonight. Thank you, Jack. I agree with the concern about non reusable and how do we figure out what that means? But part of the language does say that we would have the authority to define what constitutes you reusable. So I think if we adopt this, then when it comes back to us as a charter change and we're working on adopting the ordinance, we, this gives us enough authority to consider how to do that decision. So having said that, I move where we already passed something. So we have to amend that or? I think that's the case. I moved to amend the proposed charter change to adopt the language proposed by Joseph McLean as read by Glenn just a few minutes ago. I second that. But I would also note, Jack, that there were a couple of additional minor insertions that Glenn didn't read. So we want to have a full text. And that's part of that too. Yes, part of my motion too. And those are, should I read them? Yeah, yeah. That's just for completion. Those would be changes to 5301B2 capital B, regulation or prohibition of any condition, activity, public nuisance or matter concerning promotion of public health, safety and welfare as permitted by the general law of this state and the language added would be for this chapter and subsection C, also adding the words for this chapter. Further things, yeah, cool. So we go public and then back to council comments unless you want to do it. I'm not sure how it worked procedurally or if Jack would consider it a friendly amendment. I would like to strike the word tax in section nine. I don't think strictly speaking, the parliamentary law allows for friendly amendments. I think it's just an amendment. Once a motion is made, it belongs to the whole body, not just to the maker. Can we hold off on that for right now? Okay, and then we'll come back to that thought. My name is Joe Yoder. I'm a resident of Montpelier and I'm in an organization called Citizens Against Plastic Pollution. I felt like I had to step up because you're getting ready to vote on something and language change and nobody's had a chance to speak yet. I'm a little confused about A, B, and C. The choices? But I'll tell you, our interest, our group is that it have language to ban single use plastic in it. I got the sense that you were talking about maybe turning towards energy efficiency and we wouldn't be supportive of that, our group. It's the idea is to really do something about this plastic waste. I think everybody in our group, the more we study it, the more we see it's like a plastic apocalypse on the horizon and it would be nice if the capital of Vermont could set a good example and do something about it. So whichever one of these A, B, and C actually includes the language to ban single use plastic or strongly in favor of. Okay, perfect. Thank you. I believe that would be most closely associated with option C, which is what Jack proposed. To be clear though, the intention of A, B, and C was to do just that. It was just a question about how it was worded, whether it would give us more authority to regulate other things as a municipality, not just plastic bags. Thank you. Yes. Further comments? All right, so, Connor, did you have a... I need some help, huh? Should we vote first on the amendment and then, Connor, you might further amend? That works. Well, actually, if he's amending the amendment, once you vote in the amendment, well, I suppose you could amend it and then you amend it again. Isn't it like he's got to propose the amendment, someone's got to second the amendment and then we vote on the amendment. Right. And then we vote on the whole thing, right? I think we have a motion on this second. Do we have a... Yes. To substitute this for the prior version. Right. And then your tax. Was that an official, was that a motion? No, so, Connor hasn't made his amendment quite yet. So I would move to amend the amendment to strike the word tax in section nine? Is there a second? I guess I'll second it for the purposes of discussion. Okay. I don't know what this was. Uh-oh. Okay, so, for the comments on, do we add the word tax or not? Go ahead. I don't feel particularly strongly, the initial idea that we, band plastic bags didn't come from me and so I am open to how the rest of the council would like to do that. So, if it's the way you would, if you don't need this for the way you would like to do that, then I'm happy to get rid of it, I guess. Jack. In your discussions with our attorney, did he make it clear that even amending the charter to give the city the authority to tax would be enough to force that to go before the money committees? Yes. So, just to explain that a little further, normally charter changes have to go before GOV OPS, but- Government operations. Thank you. Thank you. But, if it also has to do with taxes or fees, then it also has to go, it's either before ways or means or appropriations. Thank you. Oh, he knows. And finance in the Senate. Wait, both? Oh yeah, and the Senate, yeah, okay, fair enough. So much to learn there. Okay, so yeah, it would be extra committees that would need to approve it. Yes. Carter, do you have something you wanted to- Just a little background data myself here. I worked on this issue about 12 years ago. There was a bill at the state house that would create a five cent tax per plastic bag. The Douglas administration testified in opposition to that and used the full weight of the Department of Taxes to come in and complicate the issue. So it was bloody to be on repair and didn't have a chance of passing by the end of the legislative session. I worry this is a technique that could be brought into play in this case as well. I believe the simpler the better. And again, I want to ban plastic bags, not tax them. Clear. If we take out the word tax from the amendment, it then says regulate, license, or prohibit within the boundaries of the city, et cetera. It seems to me that we have all the authority that we would want with that language. Regulate seems quite broad. Prohibit seems quite definite. So I think given Connors' evidence of trouble with tax language, I'd support his amendment to the amendment. I don't have strong feelings about this. Okay. Any further conversation about this? Any thoughts in the public on whether we should include this? No? Okay. Take out the word tax, say what's the meaning. Further conversation? No? Okay. We're voting now on the amendment to include, to strike the word tax. That's what we're voting on presently. So, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. So now on to the, now it's the original amendment. Further to conversation about that? So I just want to be clear. I'm going to vote in favor of this, but I think that as a community, we need to do more in terms of what we are doing to become net zero by 2030. So I support this, but I don't want this to sort of be the thing that lulls us into complacency. Might I suggest that we also make another motion after this that might recommend that we ask city staff to look into creating further charter change language regarding energy efficiency. I'm just going to put that out there. You know, I can't make that motion. So, did you have a question? No, I just had one more comment to make, which is I note that the plastic straws are included in this charter change. I know that I came in here many times saying, well straws have to be part of it, but it's also very clear that the use of straws is important for some people with medical conditions and disabilities. So we can't just ban them humanely, but I think that we can use this to regulate straws and not just ban them. Great. Liz, did you have something? Further discussion? Yes. I guess I just want to point out, and I sort of thought about the same thing, Jack, but I would envision that there would be some committee work around this to identify those sorts of situations where we would need to kind of craft our ordinances such that it's still an option. We just have to bring everyone into the conversation to get it right. Cool. Further conversation? Okay. We're voting on Jack's amendment. Okay, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Thank you. Anybody like to make a further motion? I guess I have a question about how we envision this working. Do we move all four at once or do we move each one individually? I was thinking about energy efficiency. Oh. I would move that then. Just a suggestion. I would move that the council direct city staff to start looking at potential charter change language to allow us as a municipality to implement energy efficiency ordinances and regulations in our community. Great. Jack. Second. Yes. Would you be receptive to put a date on it so that it would be ready to go to the city meeting ballot in March? Absolutely. I thought that was what you meant. Yes. I don't know that we need to necessarily include that in the motion, but... Yes. City staff knows. Yeah. I mean, can we aim for like January? Well, if you're going to have it on the March ballot, we'd probably have to file the language, I think, by the end of December, early June. Yeah. So I think if we get it by like mid to late November, early December, then... Okay. Hopefully that's doable. Well, yes we can. Okay. Great. We'll go with that. Okay. Do we have to vote on that motion? Yes, we do. Oh, really? I got a flu shot today. A little punchy. So I guess I have a question before we do that. I thought I had understood that we were checking with the lawyer to see if we even needed to do a charter change to do some of the energy efficiency work that the mayor was envisioning. So, I mean, if we find out that we do, then sure, I'm happy to support a motion to have city staff do that, but it seems a little premature. I'm quite sure I heard the motion say to research whether one was needed and if such to present one. That's certain, that's what Council Member Hill said. I'm just certain that that's... I think that's, thank you. That's great clarity. I envision that as being rolled into that conversation. Thank you. Great. Okay. Further conversation? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Okay. So now, we are at the point of setting the date for and time for the special city meeting, which would be November 6th. 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. At City Hall. You need a motion? Yeah, I do. So moved. Second. Further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Great. I don't know that I closed the public hearing. Last one. Right. You did not. Okay, I'm gonna close the public hearing. Okay. Keeping it together. Here we go. Okay. Set the date and time. We're gonna close the public hearing on all of these. Is that how this goes? Yes, so you've had the public hearing on each item. Now you, I know it's repetitive, but now you have to have a public hearing on the proposed warning, which is all four of those items. Okay. And the fourth one having been amended just now. Okay, so we're gonna open that public hearing basically on all of them. Oh well, in the wording. Right, in the wording, especially that we just passed. So I had, I realized I had jotted down a question on Waste Rubber Recovery Facility, a minor one that I did not bring up during that one. So, and it was just, I know we'd had a lot of discussions about whether or not to get a loan guarantee or not. And I couldn't remember where we ended up on that in terms of whether the dollar, the costs to get the loan guaranteed, we need to borrow that or is that just gonna come out a general fund? Like, does that, we hadn't made a decision whether or not to do- I mean the bond, the- The surety bond. The surety bond. That's, yes, I'm sorry. That's what I meant. That's $2,000 or so. So we'll just take that at a general fund. That doesn't need- Yeah, that doesn't need- Great. It'll be in the $16.75 million. Perfect. Great question. Okay. Further comments, questions? Anything from the public? Okay. One little bit of information that might be helpful. We've been looking at laws that worked for banning plastic in other towns and other places. And one thing we came across was a town that said that they needed to define what's non-reusable and their definition I think was under four millimeters. So the thickness is one way to define non-reusables. Great. Thank you. Question, if new information comes up in the context of traffic study, the renderings turned out to have been inaccurate, what provision do we have to get that information out objectively, not by a cheerleader point of view to the voters in time to basically correct, of course correction for where we're at on the track we're on right now? I would assume that if we got any new information that we would provide that to the media and it'd be available on the city website. So anything would be released as well as of course the permit process. And if there were some, obviously the council is gonna approve a warning but the council can also pull back an item if there was some drastic new information. So I mean, they do have the right to cancel it. And do you know? Actually though, I would say with three other items it's probably unlikely to have them, but. And do you know whether the detail requested in the traffic study includes the cumulative impact of three construction projects going on at once in the displacement of all that service parking? Do you notice who I don't know? It does not. DPW is running that show so I don't know where we're staying on then. So whatever they believe is necessary. But you do bring up a good question which is also to say that we have on our radar for some upcoming meeting a discussion of the short term parking. It's not quite traffic, but at least in the interim between now and the time things are built, like what is our plan? So we're gonna be talking about that further. An example that brought this to mind was trying to get with the Taylor Street Bridge closed state and main, I mean, main and memorial were gridlocked this afternoon. And that light is not censored timed. So three or four people get through and you can sit through three or four cycles of the intersection. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, any further comments from the public? No, okay. We're gonna officially close the public hearing on the warning of the ballot. And just to be clear, article, it is four, is the amended language. So it's not as it appears on the agenda for anyone following along with us at home, but it's the new language, which I hope we can get up and out ASAP. Great. Minus the word tax. Okay. And so now I think we're approving the warning. Yes, so you'll be the motion for that. So we need a motion for that. The motion with all four. I move that we approve the warning with all four items on it, with the language is suggested by city staff except for item number four, which was amended this evening. Second. Further conversation? Yes. I just want to make clear that I will be supporting the warning as it is, but I am not supportive of article one. And I just want to make clear for anybody who is paying attention that I am voting yes, but we have to vote yes. It's in essence a vote on all four items, not individual items. One is the parking garage. And one is the parking garage. One is the parking garage. Two is the water resource recovery facility. Three is the non-citizen legal resident voter registration for city ballot items. And then four is the plastic bag ban. Okay. Okay. We did just have a motion. Do we have a second? Yes. Okay. Great. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Okay. Do we have to close that? That wasn't a public hearing. That was just a. Now officially set of special city election for November six with those four ballot items. Okay. We don't have any other business, but council reports. Actually Connor, I'm going to start with you. Yeah. Sure. So I think we could get into it a little bit more next meeting. There's a company called the bird and they function in many cities across America similar to a bike share program, but different in the sense that it's a two wheel scooter. It is placed in what's called the birds nest at different points in a city. Somebody can take an app on their phone and activate the bird scooter, which goes about 15 miles an hour and runs for 20 hours on a charge. It's 15 cents a minute to operate this. And I believe it could potentially be helpful in meeting our goals to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce congestion downtown. So had a representative from the company come and just had sort of informal discussions. They did bring a bird around, which some members of the police department rode around in the driveway behind the city hall here. And the company would be open to having a pilot project for just several weeks to see if it would be a good fit for Montpelier. Certainly questions that would be asked right off the bat is this conducive with the weather in Montpelier. It mostly operates in places like San Francisco. Would it be used? So I think there are a lot of questions. I think it's worth exploring. And I would certainly ask the company to come in and talk about it with the council. Potentially as early as our next meeting there. But I do think it is something worth exploring. I don't think there's any action needed by the council on this. But I also think if we found it was not a good fit, we could probably preclude this from happening. So again, just sort of float in a test balloon here. We'd love to hear more from them at the next council meeting if they would come up and present there. That's one thing. Rest of my council report, I had a great stay with the fire department on Saturday night there. Some city employees have restraining order against me now because I've been shadowing them quite a bit the last couple of weeks. Really want to thank, of course the chief, Leon and Luke and, oh jeez, I'm spacing. Jake, who let me hang out with them for a night there for about eight hours. Flew down the pole again. There wasn't much action that night, thankfully. But they're so selfless and they, you could see them texting their families. They take so much time away from their families for these 20 out of four hour shifts. Which take a toll on them. But they do it for the safety of the city and really make gratitude to the department and would encourage anybody to stay overnight and ride the boat. Thanks a lot. So first I want to say that I was very pleased tonight to see that we, deep in the consent agenda we approve the purchase of an articulated wheel loader, I believe, which is the first public vote I've taken that my four year old on Monday nephew is gonna be really happy about. So I'm going to see if I can get a picture of that articulated wheel loader to send to him for his birthday card. About it for you. There's a couple of things happening tomorrow and Friday that I wish I could go along on, but I can't. It is We Walk Week and Harris Webster is leading a couple of tours. He has been all week and I think they must be great. I haven't been able to go to them because I'm at work. Tomorrow the fourth at 3 p.m. Meet at the Triangle South and across from the Granite Street Bridge on Berlin Street. Bring water. It will be about an hour and 15 minute walk gems of southeastern Montpelier. And please go in and take my place there because I won't be able to be there. On Friday, a similar walk, gems of southeastern Montpelier meeting at two o'clock in the afternoon in the parking area north of Derby Street and south of Econolodge on Northfield Street. Again, bring a bottle of water. And finally, if you want to talk to me about anything at all, I will be at Baguio's tomorrow morning from 8.30 to 9.30 as usual. Looking forward, thank you. Who would like to start? I'll go, go ahead. So this afternoon was the Vermont League of Cities and Towns platform meeting, which I attended. I would strongly encourage anyone who's interested to get involved. It was an interesting experience. We did, I raised the issues that we had all discussed last week. We did get a few of them changed the exemption for religious organizations that receive state and municipal funding were removed from one of the sections. There were a few public safety measures that were approved, but I would really encourage, I would encourage people to step up and get involved. I think as a member, municipality, I would like us to be better represented in the group. So I think that the more that we can do to step up and get involved would be great. I'm one of the people who had an opportunity to ride one of the bird scooters last week. I've been eagerly watching the city webpage for the videos of the mayor, chief of police, city manager, assistant city manager and various other people riding them. I think that it was kind of an exciting and fun thing, but I would also say that there are real questions including safety and other issues. If you Google bird scooters, you'll see all kinds of stories in newspapers from across the country about negative impacts on the communities they're in. And so I think it requires some study. And so I'm interested in continuing the conversation. That's all I've got. You were like, poppin' wheelies, oh Jack. As I say, it was fun, but... Safety first, Jack. I hope you were wearing a helmet. Only one person was wearing a helmet. That was the corporal from the police department. The rest of us were not wearing our helmets. So although he did offer... The mayor was particularly adept at this. It was fun. And we do have video. I don't have anything to report this week. Could I say one other thing? I'm sorry. We've been through a long process on this parking garage and it's obviously not over yet, but I think that it's been a good thing to see, especially as the design has gone forward and been discussed. There's been a lot of public comments and a lot of comments from the public have been reflected and changes to the design. And I think that that's probably gonna continue even more as it goes through the permitting process. Okay. So I just have a couple of things. I went to a really great workshop on, I think it was Friday of last week about how biodiesel can be used as a home heating fuel. I was unaware of that previously. So if people are interested, what should they do? They should probably get in touch with Black Bear Biodiesel. Because apparently a lot of the fuel that they sell does actually end up going to home heating. So as people are looking for ways to make their homes or businesses more net zero, that is all sourced from restaurants around. So someone's gonna use it, so it might as well be you. Just saying, I'm gonna put that out there. All right, so that's one thing. Second thing, we have our budget conversations coming up and I don't know if you know what I'm gonna say. There's this budget survey out there and I would love to get more responses from people on thinking about what you want in that budget. So take a little time, carve it out, make it happen. We have two hours available tonight. That's right, we're done early. So right now we've only gotten two responses and one of them is from me. Oh no, I'm suggesting we go home and fill out the surveys. That's right. So anyway, so please take a minute and do those. It helps frame our discussion. Especially knowing what you want before you've even necessarily talked to other people. So it's very helpful. Okay, that's it for me. Do you wanna introduce yourself or? Sure, hi, I'm Sheila. I'm the new deputy city clerk. It's nice to meet you all. Nice, and nothing else to add, I assume. No, that's it. I don't really have anything either. Well, obviously we've got another agenda. I will say that council member Hill represented the city quite effectively this afternoon. And certainly people know Montpeliers on the map now. They didn't before. That's hoping to be loud. And I would say with regard to Vermont League of Cities in town, certainly echo that being involved in that organization is a good thing. Although I would note that your city manager is on the board of directors of that organization. So the city does have some involvement in that organization. Actually, Bill deserves a shout out today. He made the last point. There was a floor motion for a resolution to address the issue of slavery in the Vermont Constitution. And Bill had the last comment, which I was so proud to call Bill our city manager and a friend. And he, I think really sort of swayed a lot of folks in the room to do the right thing or what in my estimation was the right thing. So I think Bill deserves some acknowledgement for that. Thank you. Awesome. Okay, so nothing further, eh? All right, so without objection, we're gonna adjourn 814. Phew. I feel like I'm watching a movie.