 Well, to appeal your city council, our first item of business is to review and approve the agenda. Do we have any changes here? All right, so with that objection, we'll consider the agenda approved. Next item is general business and appearances. An opportunity for anyone who's here and I see people here for things that are on our agenda. So I'm just going to assume nobody's here to talk about something that's not on the agenda. Welcome all of you. And so when we get to you, we've got a report to hear from you. Next item is the consent agenda. Do we have a motion to approve that? Also move. Second. Any discussion? Bring none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, Brian. Waste any time here. Welcome. The mountaineer's update. And Richard. He's going to join us. Oh, we're in the city. Okay, great. We're going to have our city hats on, too. Absolutely. So welcome, Arnie. Thanks. Thank you for having us back and we wanted to just take a few minutes to talk about the proposal down at the rec field for this coming summer that we'd like to pay for from the mountaineers. We'd like to pay for and put this little benefit in, I think, for the use of the city as well as for the team during the season. Does everybody have the packet? I gave Bill copies of the time on the website. Was it attached? Okay, so what we wanted to do was just go through the drawing and just talk a little bit about it. The idea is to add handicap accessible seating to a grandstand that's very old. It's almost 80 years old. So there's no handicap access down there at all. So the idea would be we've had local architect look at this come down as well as the Wolf engineering came down to make sure it was structurally sound to do this and they both gave it the green light. Talk to Arnie and he's talked to the rec board and I suppose they are an approval of it as well. But the idea would be to take a cutout 12 feet out of the grandstand in the first section right there. And according to the engineer that would be the best spot to do it. It's easy coming into the ballpark where they don't have to go very far to get into the handicap area and makes it easy in and out without having as much traffic in the middle. Ideal seating and right now there's no handicap accessibility in the grandstand. So in the past 15 seasons we've had a special area down the first baseline which the fence was a little bit higher but it's just not part of being in the crowd. So this way people in wheelchairs can be in there, be in the crowd. And there's a seat on either side as well so that somebody coming with that person could be there sitting next to them and make it more of a friendly environment. So that would be the proposal. We hope to do this if approved as soon as the weather gets a little bit better. April probably so be ready for June 5th opening night. Any questions for Rosie? So I understand that you guys are proposing to pay for it which all sounds great. But it does sound like we have a possibility that we can include some of our ADA revolving loan funds to pay for this since it is a city facility. And it sounds like city staff want to do a little more looking into that. But I just want to throw that out there to go ahead and do this tonight and then if we are able to use those funds for it. That would be great for sure. I mean we had a donation for the use of as we saw fit to make the facility better and doing a little bit of work in the press box to make it so the roof doesn't leak and doing the handicap seating. But if that was paid for through some grants we could find some more uses down there for the money which would be great. And just to be clear I would only be proposing using that for those funds because my understanding is we're trying to find ways to spend down those ADA revolving loan funds that are just sort of sitting there without a good use for the other counselors. I'm free up money then. Yes. I'm sure you've got a long list of projects. Yeah, the lights are 15 years old. They're starting to go. The bulbs are very expensive especially if we do the 64 light bulbs at over $100 apiece. And hopefully we can get some LED lighting which would be more expensive. But again that's a capital improvement we'd like to make down the road as well as bathroom facilities. Right now they're not handicap accessible. We do import a lit that is but as you know the bathroom facilities are a lot of money to renovate. So that could be something we start fundraising for. I was just wondering if you had an estimate of cost because there's nothing in here talking about this. The estimate we had was $8,500 to just do this part of the work without the press box. So it would be $8,500 for this. And the contractor we're using is talking about we've got one bid right now. We've got two more potential bids on it. But the first one we had in was $8,500. And we may be able to trade some of that out for sponsorship for game night sponsorship. So we hope to knock it down by $1,500 if they're willing to do that. But either way we've got the money set aside to pay for it with the $8,500. This is a really thoughtful proposal. It's nice to see that especially the attention to detail here in terms of having seating right next to wheelchairs so that families can be together or having the rail on the backside of it. Really well thought out. And I'm glad to also hear you just acknowledge restrooms that it's on your radar and certainly any width or transition and pavement coming from the parking lot to this seating. I'm sure it's something you thought of as well. The biggest thing with the paving was we actually had Pike who was willing to make a donation, a one-time donation to fix the pavement, which is 15 years old. We fix the pavement originally. It's full of holes. It's pretty bad right now. Aaron made a good point in talking to the city that we could get that pavement and have it put down there to make a nice smooth surface going in. But within a year or two it's going to be heaved up because it really needs to be dug down and put some fill in and then have it done the right way with grading. So I think the city is going to use a little bit of just patch for the summer and get it ready and then hopefully when we do the paving at the pool at some point and just there we'll do it the right way and then use the donation from Pike which is a significant donation of pavement. So make sure that it's done the right way down the road. It's the plan. Yeah, it's been a good working relationship between the mountaineers and the city and trying to make sure we don't just throw the money in and then have it come back two years later to have to do something different. We're trying to make sure it's done well. Thanks. Thanks for all you are all doing to make the mountaineer successful here in Montpelier. It's great to go in the summers and see how full it is and people love it. Thank you. Thank you. And just a quick update on the last thing we talked about last year was that your garden and I know we said we would come back with an update a year later to a year later. We're happy to say that it was successful. There weren't any issues. Three pennies did an incredible job of making sure that things went smoothly out there. And the one thing, the one small little complaint that we had from people was that if a parent came in and they were having a piece of pizza and they have a four-year-old with them and they're in the beer garden watching the game from those seats that are pretty nice in the picnic area, the kids' coloring, we couldn't let the kids come in with a parent which made it a little awkward to have a six-year-old wait outside the fence where the parents were there. And they said it would be nice if it was similar to a restaurant where if you're in a restaurant and you have a glass of wine, the kids can be there. And talking to Bill Frazier, he felt, yeah, that makes sense. It doesn't seem to be a problem. The kids aren't going to be allowed in there without an adult and the bartender's obviously not going to serve a kid. So that was something we wanted to bring back just to say that it was on our radar from some of the comments that we had last year and just to kind of ask for permission or ask for approval on that being okay this year as long as the people... I'm surprised that's something that's in the city control. I mean, I would certainly support that. I think I may have mentioned this before. I just think our beer, our outdoor consumption laws are so anachronistic where we pin people away from, you know, whether it's a concert or a baseball game rather than looking at a beer in a stadium, but certainly what you're suggesting. It sounds like it, Bill didn't think it would even have to be a city-approved thing but we just said we're going to bring it up anyway just to say, hey, this is one of the concerns we had and it doesn't seem to be a problem. Obviously the three pennies are not going to be serving a six-year-old and they're there with an adult, so it shouldn't be an issue but we just wanted to at least put it out there in public that we were thinking of that this year. Concerns? Okay. Well, do we have a motion to approve the proposed revisions to the stadium? So moved. A second. Any further discussion? I just want to say I do certainly support from my perspective the perfect use of the ADA funds. Yeah, thank you. If we would like to work with the city as well to try to figure out this bathroom situation, we've done a lot of work down there but the lights and the bathrooms are the two next projects that we'd like to take on and those are the ones we hear the most about, the lines in the restrooms, the faculty not ADA compatible so if we could work with the city to get some funds and maybe matching funds where we could match some funds that we could get from a grant, you know, we certainly could work towards that goal. Any other discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, thank you all. Thanks again for all your work. Thank you. Good luck this season. Okay, thanks. Okay, unless it tells me I can't do this, I think we should, or anybody objects, combine four public hearings that I don't look like we've got anybody here. So this is an opportunity for where we are holding a public hearing now on our budget. The warning for the city meeting, the bond, and the proposed charter amendments. And Todd, you're just going to briefly I'm actually going to allow Assistant City Manager Sue Allen to run this PowerPoint. You know, I'm going to ask, I don't think, given that nobody's here, I don't... It's all information that everyone has seen. It's been warned, we've all been stated. You can pick these up now at City Hall if you have questions about it. It's available on the website. It is, click on the website and scroll down about halfway down the page and you'll find it on the website. The warning is also on the website. The budget's on the website. And all of those are attached to tonight's agenda as well. And voting's open for early or absentee votes. So if anyone has any questions, we're always available. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. So nobody, the President, are off for comments? So close the public hearing. Thank you, Todd. Okay, next item is the Parkland Ordinance. Sue, would you like to just briefly refresh our memories about where we are on that? On your desk, the first reading was drafted by our City Attorney Paul Giuliani. And it was passed with some changes and some requests from you. On your desk, you should find two versions. One is the red line that shows the changes. And the other is second reading with the changes accepted. It's pretty, you asked for a definition of what parklets were, and that's been added. The Planning Department and the Department of Public Works ask for a little bit more guidance in terms of where they go, what they look like, how big they'd be, how far from the curb. The City Attorney asks that some language be added to sort of protect the city if there are problems and we need to remove them to make sure that it's the applicant that pays and that the city's not on the hook for paying to remove them. So those are some of the changes that show up redlined in your version for consideration tonight. Thank you, Sue. Rosie, I know you had raised some concerns. I can just kind of go through those. So the first one is, I believe I recall correctly, and this was a long time ago. So maybe I'm not remembering, but I thought that we were all sort of in consensus that we wanted the parklets to be open to the public if the business that sponsored them wasn't open at the time. So the example given was that Positive Phi had allowed the public to use the parklet before and after their business hours. I personally would still be in favor of requiring the public to be able to access the parklets at all times since it is public land. But I know that I'm in the minority on that, so I just want to make it very clear that a business couldn't have a parklet and then when they're not open, keep the public from accessing the parklet. So to solve that, I pose under section, it's a second page. Six, last paragraph. Right under bike racks, see the list and it ends with bike racks. I want to insert it and I'm not seeing it anymore, but right above section seven. Right after where it says parklets may be restricted to use by patrons of a particular establishment or group of cooperating businesses, comma, and then I would insert during their operating hours, I guess there would be no comma, or group of cooperating businesses during their operating hours, comma, and that would ensure that the public could access the space when the business wasn't open. So I would remove that to make that change. Is there a second? I'll second it. I'm really concerned about the liability that that could create for businesses. Like they have to take out an insurance policy. I mean, if they're not even operating during that time, why wouldn't we allow them to close that space? I'm basically asking them to be on the hook for liability at all times at that point, even though they might not be open for business. Not sure. Justin. Remind me again, did we make any changes in the dis-proposed second reading language for the fees? Is it still 810? Is that our number that we're working with? That is the same. Okay. Because I agree with what you're saying, Ashley, and I'm also just thinking of the one that we already have in Positive Pi and the likelihood that to open for business they're going to need to do some general cleaning just from the dust, from the air, but also if there's garbage or vandalism or anything that occurs as a result of public usage, that then will be a liability to the physical parklet that they have paid to design. And so I would be very open to exploring a reduction in these fees to businesses to help compensate for higher insurance premiums or additional maintenance and damage that may occur as a result of opening the space up to the public. I guess the question I'd have is whether Positive Pi's had any problem. I mean, it's open to the public. I mean, I'm there a lot just because I work there and I haven't seen... It's not sheer design. It's open and people use it. And liability is strange. It's usually not by the hour. I'll bet you they're already paying max liability insurance for themselves. But it's so pleasant to see people there all the time when they're not using it. It seems much more communal. So I would prefer that they be more open, not less. Okay. So we have a motion, right? You made the motion. Is there a second? Yes. Is there further discussion? Is this something that we should run by the city attorney that the question of liability? We could give our consent based on city attorney approval. We can do whatever we want, I guess. We can approve it. If we approve, I mean, I would like us to approve the ordinance tonight. So then the question is, I'm not sure. We could revisit it if it turned out that it's not. Could also amend the ordinance if it looks like it's a problem. That would be fine with me. I just wanted one other just clear. I heard at the end of the last sentence in the last paragraph of section six during operating hours. And was there additional language that you were suggesting be added there? Or that was it period during their operating hours, but then it continues. So it's just inserting it in the middle of the sentence. So then the sentence continues or maybe open to the general public for their restricted during their operating hours. So the business has the option to restrict it or to open it to the public. Thank you. Any further discussion? I'm not going to vote in favor of that, but I'm wondering if you might mean to insert the word only in there. Parklets may only be restricted to use by patrons of a particular establishment or group of cooperating businesses during business hours. I think that's a little more clear because that way it can only be restricted. Without objection, consider that motion to be amended. And is there any further discussion? If you're not all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Okay. I wanted to discuss if we want to limit the number of spaces in a row that can be used. So we're putting a max cap of six on them. You know, right now we've got positive pie with two in a row. That seems fairly reasonable, but I'm thinking if somebody, not even one individual, but if a bunch of businesses wanted to do six in a row, that starts to really prohibit parking in front of certain businesses. So have some kind of limit on the number in a row. Maybe that's resolved by, you know, our review process because our review process does look at location a little bit. But I just wanted to throw that out there. Maybe the language is not clear, but I believe the intent of up to six was that was max that we would put out there. And so some might have one, some might have two. So in the process of looking at the applications, I think I'd like to leave it in the hands of those reviewing the applications for that year. Well, ultimately it also has to be approved by the city council. Yes. It's down to council thought that's out of scale. They could just say no. Okay. Discuss it. So I might get some gorgeous proposal, you know, and try it. It's bigger than the only question that I had and I read this a couple of times and I could have missed it. That is entirely possible. Is there so the goal? I mean, these typically exist for like late spring, summer and part of fall until November 8th. Is there like an application deadline that might be able to address some of that? Like if all applications are due by a set date and then they go through the review process to the city can consider all of the applications so that that kind of thing doesn't happen. There's no application deadline written in here. Some of the permitting requires 30 days. And so we were thinking we would need to remind businesses well in advance that they're going to have to get permits because they don't happen overnight. But there is no deadline written in here. So it just seems like that might be the way to get at that. So everyone has an equal opportunity to apply if they have parklet plans or aspirations. And that way everyone has the same opportunity to apply. The city can weigh all of them. And then. Obviously we haven't had, you know, we've only had one. And so my concern would be the deadline passes and then somebody wants to put in a parklet and they have to wait a year because, you know, you're going to need it. Presumably an annual process, but we just haven't had anybody other than Positive Pied Expressive Interest. I guess the one on Main Street or State Street that had to be removed. I would suggest doing the deadline and then saying they would be accepted on a rolling basis after that. So you'd have one deadline begin and then. And then if there are any spots left after this, we will continue to accept applications until all spot on a rolling basis throughout the summer. So somebody wants one in August. I mean, if it takes 30 days, the permitting process is 30 days. And the goal would be to have it, I don't know, Vermont winter suits last forever. But if the goal were to have them up by May or June. May is the date. It's the tax day. April, May 1st. So section four now says that applications will be handled on a first come basis or may be amended as needed. I think maybe if we said like with preferential review given to those applications submitted by March. But then how would that work in subsequent years? I thought we allowed them to renew for three. So then next year, would that be the same date every year? I think so. Yeah. And then people would know which ones are going to be in existence for the next couple of years. It seems to me you need a little more time than that because if they need 30 days, April 31st. And then you're going to have it on the land on, you know, built by May 1. More like March 15. Make more sense. I just want to make clear that everyone knows that for this year though, I mean, obviously that's a really short time frame. And so I think we don't really expect to have more than six this year anyway. Right. But everybody knows that even if they get it in shortly after that. Well, so I guess my question, why are we putting in things that could be heard of hurdles? We said we want these things to happen. They're really not. So why don't we make it as easy as possible enough to put up barriers that might put it away in March 20th? But at that point, we might have already allotted them to... So this isn't a hypothetical future where there's more applicants than the spaces. And so how do you manage that? And do you want a way of comparing them all to each other at that point? Well, I think it's here, you know, it's handling the first come first serve basis. So, you know, you get an application in during the door. But I think the concern though is that if three different businesses on State Street happen to be abutting and then they all want to choose spaces, I mean, that would be the six spaces. There would be nothing else. And if it's first come first serve, I mean, I know that it's also subject to review, but... All right. Somebody have a motion? Anyone want to make? I suppose inserting language in section four applications will be handled on a first come basis or maybe amended as needed with maybe review preference for submission prior to March 15th. Something along those lines. Preferential review given to applications submitted by... Yes, March 15th. March 15th. For the coming year. Yeah. Okay. Is that a motion? Yes. Okay. One second. Further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Any more? I've got more. We've got more. Okay. So the next one is do we want to allow advertising in Parkbuts? We don't discuss that. And I think that we don't, but, you know, I was open to having some discussion. I think that it makes it...it opens up a can of worms to allow it in that then we wouldn't have any ability to restrict what the advertising was. And that might not be stuff we wanted to see in our downtown. So I think we should put in something that explicitly says that no advertising is allowed on the Parkbuts. Thoughts about that? That was a great suggestion, Rosie. And I thought we'd go under Parkbuts May feature. And then you could have like the, except no advertising signs. Which section? It's section six again. It's right above where we were editing for operating hours. Parkbuts May feature, table chairs, benches, da-da-da-da. But no commercial advertising. No advertising? So just as a drafting thing, can we just make an H and say no advertising is allowed on Parkbuts? Okay. Todd. Oh, Todd. I just want to go in. Yes? You should probably allow them to, so like positive high would be allowed. Justin and then... I don't want any words on it. So we did just recently finish approving a whole bunch of zoning requirements for this part of town. And in section six, Part D, it says attractiveness and durability of design. So in terms of, I don't know if that addresses or if we could say something about design review. I mean, any area of the city that's already subject to design review, would this not then, because it's in the public right of way, where are we at? Any sign would have to go through design review. So we already have some restrictions in terms of limiting lighting and size and location. What I'm concerned about is that we are at the state capitol and that some enterprising lobby shop decides they're going to get a parklet to advertise whatever their position is. And I wouldn't want our parklets used for that. Also something... A message about it. A messaging other than the sign. So wouldn't that have to go through design review though? I don't know. I mean, it's the city street, so it's... Once she mentioned it, I just knew I didn't want to see, because the parklets have any words on it. I mean, they're made to be attractive and so I don't want to see the business sign on it. I don't want any word signs on it, except watch your step or whatever, you know, safety signs. And it seemed to be kind to them to tell them upfront no advertising in the parklet space, but no advertising signs. Other thoughts on this one? What did you make, Marcia? So I guess I would move that we add... You want it after E to insert H. I would add an H just for drafting. And say no... Whatever it is you want us to... No advertising signs? No advertising signs? You're talking about signs, right? What about this? No advertising signs are allowed on parklets? No good light, no... So are we putting it under parklets? It seems weird to say all these things that it can feature and then have the last one being something... No, this is a new... You put it in the section above under G. Oh, yeah. You could say... I'm not sure where parklets may feature. Does that fall under G? I was just going to add a new separate standalone sub-program. I think it should be H. So I think it's H. It's a little confusing. We also number those under G. Just like one, two... Yeah, that's confusing. So change A through E. I see numbering in G, all of the sub-sections. So that way we can reference if there's an issue, we can say C, G, 3. So I move that we add a section H to say that no advertising signs will be allowed on parklets. Okay, so a second. I'll second it. For the discussion. I think I would rather just say advertising is not permitted on parklets. I'm open to that. All right. I guess I would just acknowledge that it does specifically site the design review committee in the top of section 6. So that language already exists in terms of a requirement for an advisory opinion there. If we want businesses to build parklets, I think that it's reasonable that they would communicate that to their customers that they have invested money to build and put this thing there and paid the fees with the intent presumably of having some sort of commerce connected to it. If the intent is to discourage businesses from building parklets, not allowing them to take credit for what they've done in the form of putting the name of their business or some design controlled advertising on that parklet, I think would discourage businesses from participating in a parklet program. So I'm going to not support this. I would certainly be open to adding more specific language to section D after attractiveness if we wanted signage put there, but I'm... I think the concern though is that this would be sort of after the fact this wouldn't necessarily be built into the design process so the DRC will review it for like architectural standards. The DRC will review it to make sure that it meets all of these other criteria in terms of like the width and the height and the distance that it sits in traffic and you don't have... those things typically aren't built into architectural plans. So I think... or we could even just reference the zoning. You know, I... signs... I mean I think that allows for wooden signs, right? So if somebody wanted to like put a wooden sign on there with the business name, but I'm more concerned about the messaging and that we really don't have... if we allow some messaging, we don't really have a standing to not allow other messaging that we find offensive. And I guess I find that more concerning because now we're getting into freedom of speech. Right. I don't... Whether or not we... or it should be in that business I think is very debatable. So that's why I'm saying just no signage. That we don't have to make that decision. Other discussion? Are you done? All in favor, please say aye. All opposed? Aye. Oh, I was afraid that was going to happen. And I'm right down the... All right, well this is a challenge. Boy, because I could see... Last night here. Well, so here's... I guess I'm going to vote no. And the reason I'm voting no is because of the council review and I do think it's subject to the design review. So I don't want to keep this simple. All right. So then, two more. Sorry. Do we want to have a discussion about whether we want to prioritize parklets that are open to the public or open for more hours of the day over private parklets? Again, in the event that we have more than six spaces. And maybe there's not appetite to do that. I just wanted to throw that out there. I think DRC can do that. I mean, they'll review all of these things and be more comfortable leaving it to them. Council can always add more. That's not something that I would support. Okay. But it just... I mean, feel free to make a motion if you like. You've got your quotas, Rosie. All right. And I'm sensing there isn't support to do that. And then the last one is there's a mention of the city having... We reserve the right to undertake the immediate removal of a parklet in the event of an emergency or street maintenance repair. Later, we say that the applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the city for a parklet removal and site restoration after November 8th or otherwise. So technically it does say, and I didn't get that the first time I read this, that the applicant is responsible for the costs of removal, but I think it's not super clear that if there was an emergency street repair, then the city had to move it, you know, that the applicant might be on the hook for it. And I also thought maybe we wanted to have a discussion about, is that fair to the applicant? It would be expensive. Tom, do you have any thoughts about that? Is there any other precedent for private property owners having to move assets or facilities for street repairs? Maybe even the fire related where access to the building is necessary. Look onto it with a bucket loader or an excavator and drag it off the site. So I look at it, throw integrity, something that we can look onto it, positive pies, it's all steel. So it's really not an expensive herd? There may be some incidental damage, how it's hooked to the sidewalk, but generally they just butt up against the curb. So you don't see us taking on any expense to do that really? I really don't, but I do think it's incumbent upon the park owner to understand that that's a distinct positive. Tom, while we've got you up here, I was also hoping to just have you weigh in. Is there any other language in here that you have thoughts or concerns about as it relates to street operations or anything else that we should be considering here? Yeah, thanks for asking. I've read it, even looking at this a long time ago, the conditions established by Federal Highway with the signage requirement. Okay, thank you, Tom. Are you all set with that? Okay, any other comments, suggestions, amendments? Yeah, given that we did make a couple changes here that I think potentially make it a little more challenging for businesses to participate in our parklet program, I would move that we amend Section 8B, which addresses the fees for the parklets and reduce the number 812 by $200 to help businesses that do want to build parklets. They're shouldering the entire construction costs, but a reduction here would help with paying for any additional insurance premiums that they would incur as a result of having it open for 24-hour public usage or usage in their non-business hours, and any small cleaning or maintenance that was a result of having it open to the public. It's a fairly small amount of money to the city, but I think it would help businesses to know that we have their back and we want them to participate in this program. So just for clarity, you'd reduce it from 810 to 610? Correct. Is there a second? No second. The motion is not agreed to. Are there any other motions? Do the motions approve the ordinance? I'll make a motion to approve the ordinance as amended. I'll close the second reading. Is there a second? Second. Further discussion? I am much happier with where this is right now. I'm still extremely uncomfortable with the idea of us turning public space over to private businesses for such a nominal amount of money, so I am going to vote against the whole thing, but I am very grateful that you all worked with me to improve it, and I think it's in a much better spot. Other comments? You're none. All in favor, please see aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay. Next item is a pump track. We have with us Nolan Langwell and Kip Roberts from the Montpelier Area Mountain Bike Association. Oh, and Arnie as well from the Rec Department, and they know they've been working with Arnie on this proposal. Welcome, everyone. I apologize. I meant to. Just a general description of what the pump track is and what your proposing. Yeah, absolutely. I apologize. I meant to print out copies for everyone. Well, we've got them on there today. Yeah, you have the five page proposal. Yeah. So Nolan and I are here representing the Mamba, the Montpelier Area Mountain Bike Association. Not the dance club. Not the dance club. And we hatched this plan. Well, it's been more than a decade since we started talking about it in this town, but basically a pump track is a imported or it can be excavated fill, and it's a very low, it's like a BMX track in a circle with a crisscross in the middle, and it's meant to get new riders, especially kids as young as one or two, all the way up to beginners and experts out testing their skills in a very safe control manner. So we brought this proposal to a trail designer in Vermont. Brooke Scatchard works for Sinuosity, our own Sinuosity, and he has designed a pump track in a number of places, including in Waterbury on River Road, I guess that is by the skate rink there, which sees lots of use and is at the base of a trail system up on Fairy Hill State Land. So he put together this proposal here with cost estimates and material estimates. We brought this proposal, talked about it with Arnie, went and looked at the site, which is out by the tennis court. You can see on the map there, we had looked at a number of different spots, and it's amazing in all of that grass out there. There's really not that many places you can actually put something, even this small. So we found that spot. We think it's a good space right next to parking pool, the skate park, with the redo of the North Branch Nature Center and their programming and the accessibility through the corridor crossing through North Branch Park from Coming Street. This will be pretty accessible to families and kids without adult supervision. Several years ago, we did a survey of our membership, and one of the big priorities that came out of that was more family-friendly kid-oriented trails. And so this is part of that. The first thing we did recently was we rebuilt and built some new trails over at Morse Farm, working with the Morse family. We did it in the middle of the season. It's been a success. The idea was someplace for families to take their kids, ride a mile or two, and then go get creamy. This is like the next phase of something that's within the city boundaries. It's sort of part of the bigger structure over there of all the other stuff. And so this fits within that sort of new context that we're really aiming to get more family-friendly, kid-friendly biking in town. You already talked just a little bit about how this is going to fit with the Parks Department approval of the mountain bike trails in North Branch last week. I was wondering if that was a week or two ago. Yeah, I mean, it's funny because they don't think the council probably knows anything about that. Sure. There was a committee that met with Mayor Holler on that committee and some other citizens, and they were part of a bigger trail idea. Make a long story short, I don't know if folks are familiar with the North Branch trails and the off-coming road where there's the walking part and then there's the mountain bike part. And it pretty much just kind of goes straight up the hill all the way up to Sparrow. And so we've been working with the same builder, Brooke, Scatcher, to design more what we often call flow trails. And it's just more purpose-built, sustainably built on some of the existing trails. And we had several, we went to the Parks Commission multiple times because they want to figure more and answer the questions. And finally they did a big hearing and over 50 people showed up in support of this and the Parks Commission gave us approval for that. So that's going to be more of an extension of the existing network. That'll be just, that'll be family-friendly, but it'll be a little bit more intermediate level trails. But also multi-use, to be clear. And multi-use. Everything we build is multi-use, so which means that people can hike them, walk them. And it also includes some of, I think, a little less than a mile of the existing trail which we will actually fix and make in the future. So the idea is that obviously with what the Parks Department already has going on out there with Mountain News Field and the tennis courts, this is kind of the recreational corridor heading north on 12 there. And so I think the pump track would kind of be part of that hub for biking and then stocked loops of multi-use including bike trails up above that in the North Branch Park which is the proposal which still has a ways to go but it has some initial approval that will all kind of be part of this recreational package to bring more to users, be a side just the pool and possibly baseball, football, soccer, etc. and biking in New York City. One of the themes that came up a lot in the public hearing and in the public comments and in the conversations specifically around North Branch was the economic development. About looking at the bigger picture of what does this bring to the community. If you look at places like Burke, if you look at Stowe, the businesses are seeing a real impact of people coming into town specifically for recreation. Now, are we going to be there? Well, we have a ways to go but there was some sort of metric that Vermont Mountain Bike Association uses. That's a good idea. About if you build, if you have more than a seven mile loop, people will actually make the effort to come into town. And Vermont Mountain Bike Association did a study of, another trail was built about four or five years ago at Blueberry Lake and that's probably four or five or seven miles of trail. And they looked at the economic impact and they found that there was quite a solid economic. They said there was over a million dollars of business brought into the area, working at Fiscal. It sounds a little bit on the high end to me personally but I think that you cannot, I think you definitely can't doubt that there has been a boom to business development in that area. So while I can't guarantee that this is going to be like, hey, we're going to build this trail and people are going to come, I think that it's a step in the right direction in sort of creating more, like drawing people to town for one more reason. You know, they're going to come into town, ride bikes, go get a beer, get a burger. So we're hoping that this too could be part of a bigger economic development piece. And on the flip side, people won't leave town. I worked it on your sports for 15 years and that's what we saw is every Thursday night we drive out of town because our one trail in North Branch Park was one mile that went from here to here and it was really not that beginner-friendly. So I would take my eight-year-old daughter and her family out of town and we heard that over and over again and I think we're talking about Parkwoods, et cetera, we're trying to keep business in this town. Okay, questions for these folks down and then Jessica. I attended the Parks Commission and was very interesting. There were two groups that do it with adolescents and the sheer volume of kids involved. I was really impressed. It was a very informational meeting. It was very helpful. Thank you. And we do usually one to three take a kid mountain like this per season. We've come and gotten permission. I think we've been here at the Parks Commission in the past. The Parks Commission where we did a couple of them in Hubbard Park and this year we did it at Morris. And now we'll do one contract with Morris. So this sort of fits within that sort of like trying to get kids outside, active. One group was for girls and then there was a gentleman who had more of a mixed group. Yeah, drew it out. Yeah, so that sounds like you had a lot of kids. Yeah, we had over 90 kids at a three series of take-a-kids mountain biking days a couple of summers ago and over 90 kids came to those three different events and so what I see, this is obviously you can get there from Coming Street for the kids. I think it's kind of an economic equalizer as well for the families who can't exactly load up the bikes and leave town to go riding. If a kid has a bike and if anyone has had children in the middle school, you see those bike racks are overflowing. I mean, talk about infrastructure. We need more bike racks there, which is great. Beyond that, I think we kind of lose these kids because we don't have the opportunity to actually turn them into bikers, which is a lifelong sport. If we don't have the opportunities for them in here in town, they give up on biking and that bike goes to the bike swap. What was cool about Pump Track is you don't have to have a fancy mountain bike to do it on any bike, a kid bike, you know. This is the Mabel Street bike park in Essex Junction and I can pass around a bike bike. It's right near the pool and you see kids in flip-flops and bathing suits there on cruiser bikes. You know, you can tell them flip-flops and biking. Yeah, flip-flops and biking. Right. I talked to Harlan Smith yesterday. His title's changed and he wasn't even sure exactly what it was, but he's director of Wreck and Park, I believe, and he had a lot of good things to say about the age of kids, five to 45 years old. He said they were just out there for hours on a dirt track that was pretty safe. There had been some injuries only because theirs actually incorporates medium to large jump lines, which is certainly not part of our proposal. Any other questions? Rosie? Oh, I missed you. Sorry about that. That's fine. Either way. This is a great project. Thank you guys for helping make this happen. It's exactly the sort of stuff I think Montpelier needs more of and for $6,000 more or less you're asking for. I think it's very reasonable for the usage and having it in the Wreck field, but I think it's a great choice because you've got so many kids already riding bikes down there or being down there with siblings for sporting events or parents who were dropping off kids and now can ride the track. Thank you for helping make this happen. I wanted to touch base with you, Arnie, in terms of ongoing maintenance. It appears as though it's dirt or crushed rock, but you're comfortable with the ongoing liability that this new asset will hold for the Wreck department. We've actually talked about that and I invited these guys to our Wreck board meeting in February and one of the things they do is work days where they come in and kind of fluff the track back up for lack of a better term, because I don't know exactly what they do, but they come in and they get the, you can probably talk about getting the track reset. Yeah, obviously you can have some frosty to do the moisture and whatnot in the spring, so it just kind of gets a refresh and a makeover. I talked to Jay for Ventures, I don't think he's a president, but they're part of the Waterbury Area Trails Alliance and they don't have a specific contract with Brooks Gatcher to also build theirs to actually do renovations and facelifts every spring. They just do it on a case-by-case basis, but a lot of it they do with their volunteer help. So I actually talked with Tom, Colonel earlier today about some concerns, because this is right next to the river. There's some sediment concerns for sure there, and we would be importing this mix of clay sand and possibly silk, because it does need to kind of set up. There needs to be some level of erosion control and certainly we will work with both Tom and Arne to make sure that we mitigate that as much as possible with zoning planning. Rosie and then Tom. I just wanted to remind you also that a couple of meetings ago this council approved the purchase of roughly seven acres and additional to Hubbard Park with the intention of making sure this is on your radar as a potential opportunity for more bike riding in the park. Yeah, that discussion has certainly been going on for a long time when I was on the Parks Commission for a number of years there, and the idea in theory was to, this would help create a contiguous circ trail around Hubbard Park, which would also possibly be a community connector through what road is that off of 12 there where you can go down and actually cross over. That one or further where at the longest, yeah. So that trail, if a trail got built on that theoretically, that would also help kids get from A to B. Rosie. So I really support doing this. I actually had a friend with small kids talking to me this fall about how excited they were to go to the Waterbury one, and that they wish there was something like that here in Montpelier, and then Phil put it on the agenda, and I said, oh, what's a pump track? And he described it, and I was like, oh, that's the thing that they were talking about. So I think this is great. I just have some questions about the money. So my understanding is that the vendor has said, it's $5,000, that MBA is putting forth $2,000, and we're being asked for $3,000, and then there may be $3,000 approximately in additional materials that we may be able to get some of that built from EPW. But the $3,000 should cover it and maybe implement this. The $3,000 was just the ballpark, because I wasn't exactly sure of exactly what they were looking at of how much, because the part that'll be probably the most expensive is the ball field clay, but I'm not exactly sure off the top of my head what that costs, but that comes in bags and we get it by the pallet. But they're generally fairly expensive, but I also noticed in here, they want like 140 yards, possibly, of that material. Is that cubic yards, you know, or is that, that's a lot of material. Yeah, I don't think you see it. So I'm not sure. That would probably be the biggest expense of that part of it. And DPW, I've been in contact with Bill and Tom in regards to, they might have some construction projects where they might have some extra fill from this summer, and if it's a good enough quality fill that won't contaminate anything, that we might be able to use that for the base and then put the ball field clay over the top of that. So we have a compact material that stays in place. So tonight, we're just discussing the $5,000 for design of which the city is being asked to contribute $3,000. Probably the grant. Yeah, that was already awarded from the... I mean, I think we'll have to approve the whole project, though, right? No, we're not going to be coming back from work. And so I did ask, I have talked to a number of friends through the Mountain Bike Organization about possible clean fill sources. I'm still kind of waiting to hear back those so I couldn't get any estimates. But I did from Brooks Katcher, the travel designer. He was saying roughly in the $2,000 for 110 yards, 140 yards of base material, could be hopefully donated, which doesn't need to be very high quality. And then trucking is the expensive part, which he estimated at $2,000. So this is beyond the $5,000. If we don't get donations or other sources of clean fill. And we had talked with Tom and Arnie about that a little bit, about the Caledonia spirits, like what other sites and projects going on, as Arnie referenced, where could we possibly find this? So, and then I understand from Arnie that this kind of came in after our budgeting process. So this isn't in the budget already. And I want to know from Sue or Arnie, kind of where are we planning to... Yeah, where's it coming from? My thought would come out of our budget. Figure out somewhere we have some money in the line item. The other option we might have, and I talked to Sue a little bit, I think I talked to Sue about this, is we do have a fund balance. If it's kind of a capital project, maybe we could go in and use some money with council approval out of the fund balance to do this type of project. You're talking about a rec fund balance or a general rec fund balance? So that was my other thought since it's kind of a one-time project that needs to get started. And then I understand that there wasn't a bid process or anything done for the designer that this is sort of a collaboration with them. I'm not super comfortable with that, just because it is public money and I always am supportive of competitive processes. I don't want that to hold this up. I just wanted to throw that out there because, you know, Arnie had said that it was possible to do a bid process. Well, a lot of times I'll just speak real quick. A lot of times for us just to kind of get the understanding of our project is these guys came to me with already a designer in mind, you know, so it was an easy place to at least get started, but if we had to go out to do a bid process, I mean, that's certainly something we can do. I'm not sure how many designers are in the state that do pump tracks, but I mean, you know, that's always an option. Because I agree most of the time I try to bid everything. Part of the factor here is it's just a small right. And is it your feeling that this is a pretty reasonable, like compared to other projects you guys have worked on that this would be? This is the builder that built Waterbury. He's built other pump tracks around the state, so he's one of the two people. There aren't a whole lot of other people. Yeah. So I, you know, so we're, yeah, we're comfortable with the machine's work. You can do it wrong, and it won't last as long. And that's what I'd be concerned about. Anyone can move dirt for sure. But to have somebody who has a lot of this kind of design and construction under his belt, but I can't really appreciate what you're saying as far as bidding processes. I just don't want to get in the habit of doing that. But I might be willing to kind of... Someone who works on the state budget, I can appreciate your question. And I did have one more, sorry. I noticed from the aerial view that it looked like it is fairly close to the river, and I wondered, I haven't looked at the spot, so I don't know, maybe this isn't, makes sense, but is there any concern that we might need a safety fence there so kids aren't riding off into the river, or is there, maybe that doesn't make sense for that spot? I think it'd be a pretty solid riparian buffer there, a grass buffer. You're right, there is a bank there from flooding erosion. And back to Donna's question, which we never quite answered either, as far as erosion and how to control that. I talked with Tom a little bit about that today, and possibly building up the material on the outside, doing a little bit of fur testing to see how well that soil drains currently, and then possibly sloping everything to one point and then dealing with all the water in one exact spot. We're dealing with some kind of drainage, but the outside of that pink loop, in theory, could be built up a little bit to keep most of the material there. And it would still have to go, it would have to be quite a flooding or rain event for sand to kind of move across that flat ground. And honestly, it really depends on a couple things during the construction process, exactly how close that is, which you can't exactly say there, but it's not going to be furiously hanging over the glitch. Is this close enough that it gets in trouble with any of our river hazard zoning stuff? We talked to Audra about this, and it's certainly in the flood plain, which actually extends up into the tennis court in a funny little triangle, but it's not in the floodway, which essentially is the river. And from discussions with her, it seemed that bringing material, bringing fill into the flood plain is okay, floodway, nah, this is flood plain. But we'll certainly, don't check that. All right, that's that. I appreciate the sort of answer about the conservation and erosion, but I do feel you have to plan for kids. You're encouraging all these ages, and it would seem you'd need something that's a little more buffer protection for their bodies and their bicycles, doing things that you wouldn't expect when you get that close. So I hope you'll explore that with your planner, your builder. Certainly he must have experience if all these are used by different ages. Yeah, certainly. Arnie holds the camp there, and this actually does create a great opportunity for kids to use during the camp. I don't believe that there's any barrier along there at all. I don't know that this would necessarily be more of a risk, but we will certainly look into that. Well, you know, you have the bike, not just your body, that can roll. You have you and your bike, and you part ways and the body could go towards the river. Anyway, I would feel better seeing something of that elk, and I'm just a little confused about $3,000 plus $3,000 worth of materials. So tonight, you're wanting us to approve, and I'll be glad to make the motion to have the rec department build the pump track at the rec field. But you're not asking for any appointed money, you're just saying you're going to make it work, or do we have to authorize you to use that money to make it work? I think by approving it, I'm just spending money either out of this budget or just out of that one. Okay, should that be in the motion, John? I'm still authorizing the approval of the pump track. Okay. So John Odom, I'll make the motion to approve the rec department's request to build a pump track at the rec field. Second. Second. Second. That's all folks. Say thanks to the work. I know that no one put a ton of work on this and all of your receptivity, and I'm sure you put a ton of work. But just the one meeting I was at Your Open to speak about it, I think it's going to be a great opportunity for kids, it fits in. It's just tremendous with this new, you know, more family-focused, mountain-like context of trails. Well then, everyone in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Thank you. Okay, so we move to council business or council reports. Rosie. I guess it would be appropriate to thank our departing members for their service and say it's been a pleasure to work with you all. And, you know, we all here understand how much effort it has been and, you know, thanks for your service and it's been fun. Rosie. Anne reached out to me earlier. She's sick tonight, but she also wanted to pass on her thanks for all of the work that all of you put in over the last few years. And certainly there have been some trying times. And I echo her sentiment exactly that, you know, the tireless work because of all of you have really set us up to be where we are right now, which is, I was really worried about the budget process and it was quite painless thus far. And I, too, thank all of you for your service. I think it's, I can't believe it's been a year already. I was just thinking about that earlier. And it's been a year of exponential growth and learning certainly as a new member of the council and I really appreciate all of the time and effort that you all have spent sort of educating us about how this works and what the process is and how things happen. Thank you, Ashley. Donna. It's the same. Thank you, all three of you, and that I'm glad to hear that we're having a little party so that we can thank you even more abundantly. Apparently it's a party where we're excluded. Is that public at the date? 13? What? Is it a thing? We were checking availability, but there will definitely be a little party for you. Look forward to a notice of a party. Jamie had been polling the three of us to find a date. And I just said you might want to also invite Tom. He would enjoy the party. I would also say thank you to everyone on the council. And I know that we're in good hands with newer folks. I also know that we've got some good candidates running from district two. I'm very pleased about that. It's been a privilege. I wanted to make sure all the residents know that the town report is out. It's a beautiful shade of purple and it's available here at city hall. There's a lot of really interesting information in here prior to town meeting day. It's also maybe available at other places around town. The senior center and library. Or reach out to me personally. I'd like to copy. I'll make sure that one gets brought to you. I also want to thank the residents for allowing me to serve on their behalf. To thank my family for giving me the time away from home to get these meetings and subcommittee meetings. It's been an absolute pleasure. And I've learned so much. It's really been an honor. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. Well, thank you all for, well, first let me just say it has been an honor to serve the city. You know, this is an incredible place. And so to be able to say you're the mayor of Montpelier has been a real honor to me because this is a place that people look to in so ways as kind of a model for what a city should be like. And people love to be here. They like to live here, visit. And so to help to make this an even better place has been a real honor for me. It's been a great pleasure working with all of you on this side a little longer than folks over here. But it's been a real pleasure over the last year for the two of you and then all of you guys. So I miss that. So thank you for giving me this opportunity. Really quickly, I want to remind folks that we are open for Saturday voting this weekend for early voting. 10 to four at the clerk's office. It's the only business we'll be doing on those Saturday hours. Also note again that we're having limited service in the clerk treasurer's office on town meeting day. You can come in and make payments for things. But all the things that are specifically focused on clerk functions, you know, licenses of various type marriage licenses, dog licenses, town research on the land records. Oh gosh, there's a bunch of things and they're all like clogged in the front of my head right now. But anyways, there'll be a nice list up and just we won't be able to do it then. Also just, you know, thank all you folks leaving for your service. I know it's a lot of time and a lot of grief, but you know, I always thought public services about making the world a better place. So thanks for sacrificing a meaningful chunk of your lives to do that. A meaningful percentage of your lifetime. I'll just quickly echo that from city staff. I know I speak for all of us. I don't think anyone has any idea how much time you all put in. The meetings are only a small part of what you do. And the meetings, some of the zoning meetings were going until 11 o'clock at night and that's just a piece. So thank you very much from all the city staff as well. And speaking of parties, I think everybody knows that Amanda Pelkey's hockey team won the gold for the U.S. and she's due back. I believe she'll be back in Montpelier on Thursday. So sort of keep an eye out. We're going to do some sort of celebration to congratulate Amanda Pelkey and thank her for representing the city so well. Thank you, sir. I just want to acknowledge my wife, Jennifer, who's probably not going to be happy about me doing this, but two things. One, just supporting all of my work here over the years. And it's been a lot of support. But the other is as a fifth generation Montpelier, I'm providing me sort of a grounded level of sort of guidance and wisdom. So thank you. All right. So we have one more item in the city manager's contract that will be in it. We'll presume we will go into executive session. And we may, I'm not sure what we'll do, whether we'll come out of executive session. There's a possibility we would come out and take action on that. So just say that I don't know whether that will happen. All right. So do we have a motion to go into executive session? Discuss city manager's contract. So moved. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you all.