I think when we started, I had about a live yesterday where I counted about 90 degrees. Wow, and I bought a couple of these, the crocheting handle and the towels. Oh, those are jazz, yeah. And what's great about hers is that the towels don't, oh yeah, and I got an elsewhere, and it's a house, they never double. Yeah, I know. And it's a nice, dense, stormy towel. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. And she does a pretty good job of that.  Well, I don't know what I'm gonna do on Sundays. And I'll just be out of the house, so the way we're doing things I shouldn't be doing, and we're getting people on the show, oh yeah, guys, and also the same people that we know. Well, the other lady came in yesterday who bought some cotton holders, and in the end, there's some jewelry there. But I haven't seen her in ages, and that was kind of, oh my God. Hey, I'm you. So that's kind of cool. And then we have all the people who start to read the things, stories about the car going to the building. Oh, yes. And they asked me, I thought it was you.  Your towels are bigger than any one. Some of them are, yeah. Well, I have my favorite, and you can use them for a trip as well. Yes, and I sell them. Some of them are right kind of, oh yeah, yeah. It depends on the fabric. I'm not sure. And a lot of people say that my favorite one was Mrs. Pat, so we better not test her name. And she said, well, I wouldn't use them. All right. And I looked at her like, excuse me? What are you doing? You're going to test the book. Well, she may have looked somewhere, you know, and she had her all around the building as it's up from here. It's beautiful. Well, can you just navigate a little bit more from putting it in the frame or the work on that? Yeah, it was funny, because I thought I should wear a long hat all day. I think she would. Are you using them up? And I'm not in the base with what I'm wearing. I wouldn't use them. I'm going to use them. I'm not in the base with what I'm wearing. I'm not in the base with what I'm wearing. If you want to leave me alone about providing me with your money, are you earned a contract? I've got a contract. I have a contract call. I did not. I did not. I'm sorry. I did not. I didn't know what I was looking for. Is there something on that that's for people who are interest? I don't know. I've tried it. It doesn't work. You can do it too long. You can go better right now. Oh, it says 855, but I don't know what it is. You can put money on that. That's why I like to hear that. I can see 9.30 tonight. I have a look at the agenda, so I can't imagine who's taking care of it. Can I ask you a question as a former councillor, Sandy? Since afternoon, I got a strange call from Jeff LaBear, a community man. He's a board member.  They let me about a minute and a half long voicemail, basically, and Jeff's heard that you were recommending or choosing team and switched our banking services. So we were asking you to just open that for me. It didn't feel appropriate. I feel like it was an open, very big process where you do what you do, and shouldn't be lobbying after that. Would you agree with that? I didn't respond, but I'm not going to cast it. I'm just reaching out to you. We probably saw the agenda, as the president would say, which is fine. I don't know. It does that one, yes. It did say something, but it did say something. Well, I talked to Kevin about it. He said they called the disaster. He said, hey, they did get the call. So I'm guessing he called it. That's probably fine. That's probably fine. Submitted. Yeah. And where are the funds? Where are our funds at? BB? No, I think our current name is Community Management. Community Management. Yeah. Yeah. Which is a former member. Yeah. Can I not disclose that? How do you love an official account? I understand that we are recommending that. Or somebody's going to recommend you lots of selection. But not to BB, though. I don't know. Well, that's the first move. No, the community. Our community. We have a lot of businesses. So I'm not wrong. That's not the same thing. There's a process for submitting your proposal. It's the same type of marriage. The design of the RFE process is separate from the decision making for personal relationships. So, nice idea. Is that fine? Yeah. They're getting a little cooler, though. So in my day-to-day, at least, they're great. They're hot. Yeah, well, we're human, couldn't they? Yes, but... Cool to shade some of that. Cool to not have your stage. So my doubt can be stayed. Before you walk into a taking range of 11, you gotta be at 8.55 pm or not, and I have pretty good thoughts on that. Probably. We could. No. How many questions do you have? I think it's number 13, maybe, that is something. What's 13? The land wealth, I think. Well, that, I think. Why don't we're going to discuss that? No, let's go ahead and get a set of public hearing on that. Yeah, I mean, it does give us 20 minutes to do that. Maybe it's all those who don't highlight what we don't discuss. Well, I think you actually don't have to move to have a public hearing. You have to make a decision. Not necessarily tonight, but that's a whole idea. Because there's a 15-day boarding period. Yeah, so I think that's a recommendation for us to have a public hearing. One. Yes, and that's why it has to have three. Consider one and ten. Where do you think the piece of data comes from? I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Okay, so that's for the meeting of Monday, August 19, 2019. And David, would you lead us in the pledge? to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Second item of business is instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency. In case of an emergency tonight, everybody please leave the building through one of these two doors on the side and gather in the parking lot beyond the building to the south. Not in this parking lot, but around the corner and to the south. If these doors are blocked, please go back out in the lobby and out the front door and return to the same parking lot to the south. I will make sure that the building is cleared, so please leave expeditiously. Okay, thank you. My word of the day. Agenda item three is the agenda review. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes? Do you have one? After your meeting, a deliberative session on the interim zoning matter that you discussed at your last meeting, the jurisdictional opinion is ready for you to review, and you don't need to warn it. It's just a, it's a, and you don't need to do it during your normal meeting. Okay, good enough. After the meeting. Okay. It shouldn't take long. Any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? So I'm not gonna speak on behalf of the local resident that called me, but Regan has said he would come here tonight, but I guess he hasn't made it. He has an inquiry about the definition of a front yard, because he lives on that little bit of pinnacle that's in the back of it. So he has like, he has a frontage on spear, frontage on pinnacle, frontage on pinnacle. So, but he's not here. So I don't know whether planning and zoning can help him directly. He's called him before, but I wanted him to come to explain and see if we can. Okay. I got that, his email too. You do? Okay. Yeah. Okay. Well, Dooley noted, and is that something, plan, zoning? Or is it the planning commission? Well, his house, as I understand it, is kind of situated, yeah, and there's a road here, a road here, and a road here. What's the front yard, or what's the? And all, well, he's trying to, I don't know what he's trying to do, but he's concerned about which side is the official front yard, so he can, I don't know, do something to another part of the yard? It has something to do with his HOA as well. His pardon? His HOA. There's a concern within his HOA. Yeah, I think he has, but I don't understand how that didn't resolve anyway. So, let's let him see. Well, he's welcome to come for next meeting. I'll tell him to come again. Yeah, okay. Number five, announcements and the city managers report. So, Tim, do you wanna make a meeting? I don't have a lot to report. I was not able to attend the planning commission meeting last week, where Michael and the TAG described the TDR committee's work, because I had an earlier plan to go to the Global Foundries 10-year anniversary party, right? So, it's 10 years of being a true company and the 10-year anniversary of opening FAB 8, which is in Malta, New York, which I visited two weeks ago for two nights and didn't get to go to Saratoga because I was working the whole time, but, and Tuesday was a dark day. So, if you didn't know the terminology, Mondays and Tuesdays are dark days at Saratoga during race and season, and they don't race. Oh, good part about it is you can't lose any money. The bad part is you can't win any of this. But I did get a chance to walk down through Saratoga Springs during the daylight and went into their Congress Park, which is really beautiful, and was playing where I am with some people texting images and they had no one. But then I gave up the ghost by showing a regimental Civil War statue, which had the 777 on it, and so, which is funny how that's all those 7s and no 11s at Saratoga. Anyway, they guessed it. So. That must be a global foundries joke, or? No, no, no, it's just a 7 come 11 gambling term, you know. Oh, I'm not a gambler, I didn't even know that, okay. Well, you haven't given yourself a chance, probably. Or one of Boeing's latest jets. Right, 777. I didn't say that to anyone. So, I didn't get a chance to go to that meeting. I did get a chance to go to Boston this weekend to visit with my son, and for the first time we rented kayaks and kayaked on the Charles River. So, if you want to know how to do that, let me know, I'll tell you, it's pretty easy. It's in Halston, and it's not that expensive, and you can go all the way to the Esplanade from there, and get a little wet. They're waves? They're waves? They're only waves when boats go by at speeds that they shouldn't be going by it. And then pity the poor scullers, because they get more of a problem, and more of a new deal. Thank you. Yeah, it's hard for them to turn quickly to get their bow into the wave. Yeah. They're more like this. I saw that report. Okay, David. I've been reporting the last two weeks. Okay. I wasn't here a lot of last two weeks, so. Okay, Megan? Well, we were supposed to have a IZ Open Space meeting, I think it was last Tuesday, but because our chair was on vacation, and I think communication lines got cut, we decided that it wasn't necessary, he just gave us more homework. We had each of us four more parcels to do in order to complete all 183 parcels. So this Wednesday, I believe, is the 2030s. This Wednesday is our meeting, and we will have done all 183 parcels, and just kind of working out all the kinks. So if you're interested in being present for that, which should be a real intense working seven. Seven o'clock here, right? Seven o'clock here, upstairs. What? This Wednesday. Which is also the day of the, sorry. The 21st, I'm sorry, I apologize. Of the school board meeting is also the 21st. Is also the 21st. Yes, so of course, this is a busy, busy, right? Time for both school and city, and we know that there are choices that have to be made if you can come out and attend these meetings. And I think that's it. I was involved in a little accident here, so but I'm feeling all right, and did get away with myself this weekend, so. Would you what? I got away this weekend myself. You did? Yes. But you had an accident? Yeah, I have a sprained ankle. Oh, but not in your car? Not in my car. Oh, okay. Fortunately, no. On the bus? No, not on the bus either. No, no. Okay, Tom. So, but we can have to go, attended Sobu Night Out, really great series of events. I'm just, I love it. I don't know if next year we're looking at eight weeks, but it's just with such a huge success every night that I was able to attend, great. And then right after it, I attended with Tim the Dorset Farms Board Meeting. That was a very productive meeting, and I just want to applaud Paul Conner and Justin Rabadou for finding the time to meet with residents in the evenings to just go through that. So I think that was a very productive meeting. And then one thing that I want to say, I was very excited to receive an email from Captain Micah Genslinger, and he CC'd Leo Wurmer this weekend, and they want to talk about the Firefighters Award recognition dinner. So they're thinking about late March or March of next year, and if y'all want to get involved, I'm going to hopefully bring in the Rotary in as much time as they're willing to take from me, but I think that was a great event last time. So we're hoping to emulate that same experience. Or, yeah. Okay, good enough. And I have nothing to report. I was on vacation for two weeks and got to see all my Salt Lake and Denver children and grandchildren. So it was great. Fireworks are great. Pardon me? The fireworks are great. Yeah, we had like 1,500 people up, I think. Really? For Thursday night. It was the biggest attendance of all, but we've got eight this year. So there's still three more? Two more? Or three more? And next year we'll have as many or more. So also there's a... Who does that count, the crowd? Oh, the police try to make an estimate. But it's hard because people are coming and going. So over the course of the night, about 1,500. Anyway, so we're also working on a Halloween-related outdoor event that Holly can announce. So trying to have a fall event and probably a winter outdoor event as well. So in addition to Sofu night out. But those would be back for next year as well. Great. Nice. We had three new firefighters start today. These were one replacement firefighter for a firefighter who had left and then the two that are in the budget for this fiscal year. So three new firefighters started their orientation today. Next week we have two members of our fire team and two members of our police department going down to two sites in Massachusetts to look at consolidated dispatch centers. So under the Chittin County Public Safety Authority work that we're conducting. Are there any other individuals from our partnering communities? Yeah. There's a big group going down. Oh, okay. So just four from our community and then. Two fire, two police and then. Great. Same groups of folks from the other communities. We're looking at November 15th opening for Market Street. The, a lot of work has been done in the last two weeks. The wetland or the stormwater pond now has at least three of our geese planted in it around it, curbs in, sidewalks in, rec paths in and they should be out of the road shortly. So hopefully it will be open for traffic shortly and then completion dates still looking at November 15th. Most of the work will be outside of the road from this way forward. You have a luncheon on Wednesday for the DPW team up at Wheeler at 12. I was 12. I had 1230 on my calendar. I will get, I will get a confirmation of that out to all of you tomorrow. I thought it was 12. And then. My mistake, sorry. I got home late last night. I'm sorry. It is 12. On Monday we have the consultants here for the recreation facility and they will be meeting with stakeholder groups throughout the day and then there are a public forum from seven to 830 in this room on Monday night. Tom's out this week, but we'll be back with us next week. It's all I got. Okay. Good to know. So moving on, reports from counselors committee assignments. I don't have anything from the police, the airport commission. We have a meeting Wednesday of this week. Anyone else? Please put down what I put, what I said earlier for that. No, it's not a, it's not a committee assignment, but I can tell you that that we're hoping we're behind schedule on the rink, on the rink edition, the common entrance to the rink. We back and forth on emails this week. The pricing is a little higher than we anticipated, but we voted to go ahead and proceed anyway. The current plan is to hopefully get the foundation in this fall and then the building next spring. With completion next fall, we originally hoped to do the whole darn thing late this summer and be done before Christmas, but it's not going to happen just because of one thing or another and all the permits are in place. We're ready to go. So that's the schedule on that, but we hope to break ground in, in, you know, within a month or so. Alrighty. Consent agenda. We've got the sign disbursements, approving minutes for three meetings and acceptance of the Pinnacle Spear Stormwater System and Associated Easements. I have a question on that one. Just reading through the handout, the statement was made that it is in the city's best interest to take over this story. I think this is the stormwater and I can sort of on an intellectual level sort of understand that, but at the same time, it's a larger, I mean, presumably a larger expenditure. So I'm guessing that there's an advantage to have it under the MS4 because it's a higher standard or it's consistent. I mean, the stormwater and sewage is going somewhere good now, right? The school sewage is, but the stormwater, this is the agreement we have with residential properties that if they, with our help with grants and their other funding sources, if we make the improvements needed for the stormwater facility, then, and it meets our standards, it'll come under our MS4 permit and then we will maintain it up to the standard. Otherwise, the concern has always been if a residence or a association, owner's association continues to maintain the facility, they're gonna be under their own permit obligations and the maintenance may fall by the wayside. Okay, so this is guaranteeing that they're maintained to a high level. Because the MS4 permit is on us, we have the requirement to make the improvements in the stormwater entering the waterways and so we wanna assure that the maintenance is carried out and best way for us to do that is to take it under our wings, so to speak. Okay, well, I think it is such, but I just, I was wondering. You're gonna see a lot more, they're just underway now on Kennedy Drive with that facility that was approved a few months ago. And that has its own funding mechanism, right? Through stormwater rates. Stormwater rates and also the grants we use. Right, yeah. I have a comment that I don't need to change the previous minutes, but if it was to go into nights, I'd appreciate it, but on the August 1st meeting, it says Mr. Chittenden asked whether reducing parking spaces would hinder affordable housing efforts. My question, and I'm 99% sure it was really if minimum parking requirements have been proven to be a hindrance for affordable housing. So there's a slight difference there. I just wanted to know if the parking minimums were in fact a hindrance to affordable housing. I don't know if you got that, Sue, but the way it was framed here, I just don't think it captured the essence of my question. That was August 1st. Okay. I would entertain a motion to improve items A, B and C under the peace center agenda. So moved. Again. Any further discussion? All in favor, signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Update on the city school collaboration. Well, we actually aren't meeting till Thursday and our sort of scheduled leadership meeting. There certainly has been lots of emails back and forth and announcements via the neighborhood watch and through the other paper about some conflicting time of meetings, one being the city's meeting to our first meeting, I think with our contractors or consultants to work on the rec department expansion and or building and determining from the public what it is they might be interested in. And unfortunately that conflicted or conflicts with a planned meeting. It's a working group meeting, they called it. A working group meeting for the school district, a working group, I guess, on their visioning and working with their consultant for the plans for a new high school and middle school. And unfortunately they're on the same night, although my understanding now is that the school is having a second meeting for the public two days later. It's the same meeting, it's for the same purpose. My understanding from this original meeting they posted was that it was kind of an invitation only, it was focused to hear from parents of students. That's who they wanted in the audience to focus on what it is the new school needs to have or the conversation. And it wasn't necessarily open to the public. The user group, they saw it as a user group, they call it the superintendent's message, which I didn't receive even though I'm a parent. So it's only, I think, some parents who received an invitation. So unfortunately, they both got scheduled the same night. Kevin assures me that the city went on their website to see if there was a conflict before they scheduled the Monday meeting. And it was not posted, so he was unaware of that. At this point, we have consultants scheduled, lined up to be here. And so we will go forward with our meeting. They will go forward with their meeting. And hopefully the parents who can't come, I guess it's an open meeting, right? So even if you weren't officially invited, you could show up. I'm assuming, I don't know. Because I didn't get invited. Could attend that meeting on Wednesday. And if they really are interested in meeting with our consultant and talking with the Wreck and Park department, and they could do that meeting on Monday and then. Do we have an option to stagger the time just a little bit? Maybe start ours an hour and a half earlier so that people might be able to go to vote? Or is that not an option? I think we're pretty scheduled for the day. That's right, they're here all day. They're here all day. Please, next Monday, the 26th, right? 26th, yes. That meeting is at seven, correct? Yes, and the school user group meeting is at seven as well, I believe. I didn't get, you know. That's what Bridget's posting said. So I mean, unfortunately, it's another example of either the process of posting things on the two websites aren't as foolproof as we might like. I mean, I have to say the city checked it and it wasn't on their website. So short of, and we can discuss this on Thursday with Elizabeth and David Young. And Helen, something to add for the public's benefit is that the study is also of interest to the schools. Regardless of where the study goes, the schools wants to know if they're, and as does the city, we both want to know if there is a possibility for the two entities to collaborate on both the performing arts space and a recreation athletic center. And the only way that we can do that informally as a city, because we only are representing the rec programs, right? We're not representing the athletic teams, right? We are not privy to all the needs that they have, but we are hopeful that we can get information that will be useful for those projects to go forward in a way that will benefit not only the schools, but also the whole community. So this study does not necessarily lead to a bond vote uniquely for a city recreation center. It would go forward in the way that the community sees fit. I want to make, I think that that's an important point that needs to be understood by the public. This is, yes. Does the study include a class system? I believe so. I don't know, I walked out, some people over at us. What study? We are for the Recreation Center study. It'll, at this level, we'll have a reasonably good cost estimate coming out of it. We won't get the, we won't get an actual real cost estimate until we have a, until we've signed up a contractor to do the, a bill, a contractor for the construction. Similar to what we did. It'll be very close. Several years ago, when we were talking about a library, a rec center, and. Same thing. And a city hall, all in one building. That, that came back with some cost estimates. I was part of that study. It was a very rough estimate involved with what I expect we're paying for here. I just, and it won't include a, I guess my concern is that I'm hearing from a lot of people that they really would like this delay. A cost estimate, if we were to build two or three years down the road, a cost estimate now would not be worth money because so many things change in terms of the cost of materials, the cost of bonding, the cost of everything, so. How do we inform the school district as they're trying to collaborate with us on ways that meet the recreation programming needs as well as their athletic team and I would assume that they have club teams. Well, if it's simply a, of what we would want, and not specifically what we need in facilities and what might be done with them, that's very different from designing a facility for veterans from my own part. Well, it's actually not. Can I have an update? Sure, you may. So I met with David young last week. We had, the week before last, had a really good meeting, discussion them. The school board, of course, is moving toward trying to make a decision on what they want to take to the voters because they're going to have to tell their, their architects to start moving in one direction or another. Part of that is whether or not we can collaborate on a recreation facility or not. In order to do that, we have to know what we need. So what is it that the public wants by way of an indoor recreation facility and could that be built at the school or would it still need to be a separate facility? So one of the reasons we scheduled, we scheduled the consultants in so quickly on the Monday of next week is to get that dialogue going so we can dial in to what the program needs are of the public. We did that initially with Dor Whittier, but this is really an attempt by professionals who do this every day to really hone in on what the programmatic needs are. And so with that information, then we can have a more informed discussion with the school district about collaboration either there or taking what their needs might be and if we were to build up at Veterans Park to use those facilities for school needs as well. Anyway, that's why we're having... And I think, even with rough estimates, you can get sticker shock or the public can say, yeah, that doesn't sound outrageous. Well, that's why I asked my manager to see the contract because this couple of work sounds, as I understood it, sounds much greater than a needs assessment of what facility, well, that's my concern. It's a preliminary schematic design. I don't think it's a collaborative process with the school. I say that if I can interject on cost and pricing, I'm looking an email related to the project at the rate for the new addition. Numbers fluctuate all the time. I'm looking here, you know, we're not going to actually start primary construction until spring, hopefully get the foundation in, but from our contractor, Masonry Concrete Block numbers have gone from 160,000 to 137,000, so they've gone down. Our price from Ireland to a package number for excavation and concrete has dropped 24,000. So not everything goes up. Some things go down. Prices fluctuate up and down. It depends on the supply, the demand, the time, et cetera. And an awful lot of what we're talking about is concrete work and, you know, real thing work and excavation. And so those prices fluctuate. So any number we get is going to be a best estimate at its point in time and it's gonna change, but it might not get tremendously higher. It may stay the same. It could go down. But I think our original one would be. Well, it will be helpful to see the current contract and I understand it's also being remodeled and then later on, because then I'll have a better understanding of what the consultant is being asked to do and when. I think it's, you know, a disappointment that the two are in conflict, but I hope in the future, we'll figure out an even better way to make sure that each of our calendars are up to date. So if one side of the street is planning a meeting, they know what the other side has planned and perhaps this working group, it isn't on the big calendar because it's just a small working group and the public isn't really, I don't know, invited or encouraged to attend their meetings, to necessarily know about them. I don't know if it was a public meeting. Should have been on their schedule, I would think. I understand that, but I think I am concerned or was disappointed that there appears to be a conflict in the dates on topics that I see as working together potentially. Monica. So separate from the timing of the meetings, can I get some clarity on the schematic that would be discussed, I think, in the public meeting or the looking to create a schematic for the RAC Center? It kind of relates to overall timing. Can you just explain, will you be, is it like a phase one, phase two? Will phase one be understanding what is wanted and needed and then before actually creating a schematic, figuring out what's already in the plan with the school so that we're not double schematic-ing, schematic-sizing, right? Like, I think that there's, yes, this calendar issue was unfortunate and I have suggestions for another time, but for the overall timing, I think there's just confusion. Are they showing up on the ballot at the same time? Because you're both gonna be very expensive endeavors. We're not there yet. Well, but I'm just putting out there that this overall sense of, so if there's a schematic that is going to be paid for soon, will we at least be able to identify, oh, well, don't bother putting that in the schematic because that's in the high school plan or develop two schematics because we don't know if the high school plan will ever come to fruition, be approved, even make it to a ballot, we don't know, but... Well, I think that you're getting to a good point. Should I? Yes, you may. Monica, the timing of this is important because let's say noted before, school districts, if they're gonna be on the November, or the March ballot and those of you who are aware of the warnings required for that, know that you really have to have develop the ballot language and the warnings in late January. So working back from that, we're not that far off for them having to have some pretty significantly finished designs. The effort that we've undertaken that David and I agreed to work on together, actually this goes back months when we start talking about synergies between the two projects, but a week ago was talking about the school board's timeframe and the need to at least understand what the non-school program was so that it could be termed if the synergy was right there between the school and the city's rec department to have a common facility or a facility that was an add-on to their facility where you could create some type of barrier between the two because school campus security is a huge thing now. Plus our preliminary estimate was 300 parking spaces. So those things have to be figured out before their architects, Dorn Whittier, can really start modifying that part of their overall building. So right now we're really focused on programs so we can have that discussion. The drawing aspect of it, kind of like you see for the community center will be coming on behind that. But the actual detailed level of design wouldn't happen until after a public vote. Well, I think that is what would really be made the schools a public vote. No, I'm sorry. I'm just saying this is exactly the piece I think that will be helpful to the community in understanding because it is confusing right now. It seems like there's this conversation, people are saying right hand, left hand. And it sounds like it's not right hand, left hand, but that's not clear to people. And the fact that it makes a lot of sense to learn from the public how they might be able to use a new school building or not so that no tax dollars are being duplicated, no efforts are duplicated, nothing's competing. And then in terms of timing and when people will have to decide on things, of course that's gonna be relevant to the taxpayers. But most important is knowing that the research you're doing now is to help understand what the school can take on versus what they can't or shouldn't for a separate building that that's helpful. Whatever communication you have going out and say that needs to be more clear to the public because my impression had also just come back after two weeks is that that's not necessarily clear right now. Well we can certainly make that clear on Monday. Yeah. And hopefully the other paper will have people at both meetings and reporting on what is said. Cause I think the more we talk about it, the better the outcome will be cause they are, they're large items and dear to different people's hearts. Okay. And I'm just gonna throw this out there, just as we often do, we throw spaghetti and see what sticks. Is this too premature for consensus to put a question out there to the community just to see whether or not having a joint facility is something that the public is interested in at all or not? The concern about doing that is that if you put the question out, the expectation might be one way or the other and there may be some showstopper issues, either direction we go, either consolidated with the school or separate. I think the general question would be fine, but I think we've asked one about an indoor recreation facility. I would hate to be too specific because then you get tied down. I think it would be good to hear some of the questions from the public and maybe post some of those that make sense to have a broader conversation or feedback. But what I would also encourage members of the public, especially people who run Facebook groups or who write letters to the editor and things, is that you take the information that you've gained tonight and you share it. I mean, that's also part of the public process. I am limited. I have very few followers on my Facebook page. Many, much fewer than you do, Monica. And I can only do so much. There's a paid staff member and I understand the city and it's not school, but there is a person on staff who's a communication person. And I'm not in any way commenting on that person's skills. There's nothing to do with that. If there's anything that's preventing the city's communication person from getting paid, there's anything preventing that person from reaching out to as many resources as they can to help so it's not left up to. But I think just like the user group meeting was very preliminary. It was not really advertised at all. I didn't even receive a letter as a parent. I would think that the task payers and persons. They have one at the schools too, Monica. But they should all, so anybody who's getting paid to do it should be doing it and it shouldn't necessarily be, the individuals will do the best they can. I understand, I understand, but I do believe that this is a democracy and citizens play a key role and communications has a role to play as well. But I don't think we're ready for the big tent yet. And so I think at this point where we're just in the preliminary steps, I would hope that citizens who are informed could play the role of citizen, informed citizen, and to take that back as I do as well as best I can. And I think that it takes all of us working on this. You've come with concerns. You do have some power in order to allay concerns and I'm asking you just as we will to use the power that you have as well. Citizens have a lot of power. Well, we will certainly discuss this on Thursday and see if we can find a way that we'll avoid this to the best we can. Sandy? I just wanna say, my best way of understanding what is being undertaken will be to look at the contract and then the revised contract. The scope of work, the deliverables, the schedule, the amount of money. My concern is that more than really getting clear on the needs and say how many square feet or whatever that would require or whatever is premature. That's what needs to be fed into the school process and they can figure out what we might do together and then we could figure out what we maybe need to do separately. My understanding is this contract involves a lot more than that. But if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to tell the world. So that's where I'll, that's the way I will understand what the cities has undertaken with the consultant by looking at the contract. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments about our collaboration? Okay. Number nine, consider and possibly approve a grant agreement resolution related to the Vermont Community Development Program and the Champlain Housing Trust Garden Street Housing Limited Partnership. No acronym for that. So this is the standard grant resolution that the agency of commerce requires for the Community Development Block Grant Program. That program is one of the many funders of the garden apartments project that is being built by Champlain Housing Trust. And so this is an acknowledgement and an authorization for the people named to fill out reports and provide input to the agency throughout the grant, which will go on for some years. You simply need a motion to approve this. Yes. So moved. Second. Any further discussion? This is for the Garden Street but building under construction, right? Yes. Yeah. You've already approved the, months ago you approved the grant application and the program approved it. We had one similar for Allard Square. Yep. It's the same thing. So it's the same process. All right, so ready for the vote? Yep. All in favor of approval of this grant agreement resolution signified by saying aye. Aye. Okay, that passes. Item 10, consider and possibly approve a resolution authorizing use of city infrastructure. Hello, Andrew. Welcome. Andrew Bullock, city attorney.  The city installed several conduits and vaults that are kind of open for use. This is a pretty fairly unique circumstance where the city is the owner of the conduits that are gonna be underground in the right of way. And so this established allows the city to essentially collect rents and the usage fee. I think there's a total amount of linear feet of about approximately 52,000. And so this will allow Comcast, they're already asking to get in to service market street. So this will allow us to negotiate and enter into fairly lengthy contracts with utility. Utilities, this is somewhat similar to what we talked about maybe six months to a year ago with the small sales. It's a similar type of formula to come to a rental amount. So the total cost of installation was around a half a million. Our cost for the cost for the infrastructure improvements. So what we would ask for and I'm recommending is a 19 cents per linear foot rental fee which is based off of the total amount of linear feet and the total costs of half a million amaturized over 50 years is approximately a rental fee of about 19 cents to recoup the cost of, it would take 50 years, but recoup the cost of the infrastructure improvements. I'd also recommend in section two of the resolution to also have an OR in there. The Public Utility Commission regulates polls and what the rental fees are for polls. So I would suggest that the calculation be in either or, whichever is greater, so either be 19 cents or the maximum amount allowable under the Public Utility Commission's regulations. Happy to answer any questions. I have some questions. You have some questions, I have some comments. So go ahead, no, no. So these conduits are they, do you know what the size they are to begin with? Are they varying sizes? They are varying sizes, yep. There are some that have, I may defer to Kevin's, it's only more on the technical size of it, but yeah, I think they are, some that have, some are bigger than others. Yes. And what will the city have in those conduits to begin with, power? No, this is just telecom. Well, this is just a telecom. Just telecom, yep. Okay, so it's along the street but it feeds every possible property that could be built out, all right? So it starts off empty per se from a city perspective but then as applicants come in and if they're approved and they pay the fee they can insert their wire. All right, so there's nothing that would prevent, let's say a Comcast and a consolidated communication and a Burlington telecom wire from all being in the same conduit. There's nothing that could impede that whatsoever. Or any other competitor, any other telecom company that wants to be in that conduit. Are there any considerations for the size of the wire that a company would wanna put in there? For example, worst case scenario, it's an empty pipe. And Comcast comes in and says it's a five inch pipe and they wanna put a four and a half inch wire in that only has a single strand in the middle because they wanna block all their other competitors out. I mean, that's a bigger expense for them to do that but I'm thinking of the worst case scenario for a company trying to block out other competitors. And are there provisions to isolate or to standards for what sizes of wires they would be allowed to run? That would certainly be a consideration under the negotiation of any contract that we entered into, which has, I think that the resolution has a very broad provision that allows sort of any consideration but director of public works. Our primary goal would be a competitive environment for the users. Right. We started out this discussion probably four years ago based upon the notion that we didn't want any one company to dominate service but that we would provide access to multiple companies up to the capacity of the conduit. I believe there might be individual conduit within the conduit that would then foreclose that ability to occupy the whole outer conduit. I may be wrong about that. But our intent here is to assure city infrastructure where we don't have telephone poles to assure that there's competition and availability, Friday. And what kind of indemnity would the city have in terms of leakage of the conduits over time? How does that work and who would be responsible? Telecommunication conduits. You mean a water leaking into it? Yeah, I mean, you know. Yeah, 50 years, the standard life of these conduits. The conduit, I mean, they're made of a PVC pipe as I understand, I mean, I think it would last, could last even longer than 50 years. It could last forever, wouldn't it? Yeah. But yeah, to answer the indemnity question, that would be again negotiated as part of the terms of each individual contract but there would be kind of a standard indemnity to indemnify the city from damages that are caused by external factors. Are these conduits under the road or the sidewalk or somewhere outside of that or everywhere? They're not in the road. They're not in the road, okay. Yeah, I would, yeah. Okay, I'm just, I understand. I think they're under the sidewalk or the bike path. I remember discussing this with, and I don't remember with whom actually. Because I would like to see more underground infrastructure as American taxpayer paid for in Europe with the Marshall Plan. And the response that I got, and this is from somebody who knows something here in South Burlington, was that there are too many critters underground that could bite, you know, and it could actually cut the line. So I just wanted to throw that out there. Now the PBC we're told is pretty impervious, but. I had not heard that. Okay. These grubs that have bleeped, sharp teeth or? All I know is moles, but I don't know how much. But that was the response I got. Oh, that's interesting. So why not? Yes, go ahead. So my one question slash concern is the language in front of us seems to be ready for that 19 cents but in your commentary you said something about with a caveat saying or the highest rate available for the polls. So my concern is locking in at 19 cents indefinitely as things could occur over the next 50 years be it a frost heave or so on costing more than the original 500,000. Are you proposing some alternative language which will give some greater flexibility where this would be 19 cents for 10 years with an auto grad, auto gradiation increase or anything to that regard where the 19 cents is going to somewhat adjust for the anticipated maintenance of these lines over the 50 year lifespan. I think including the language referencing the public utility commission rule will give us some coverage. Is that in here now? I have a recommended motion. We'll give us some coverage to that but this is also a council resolution that may be amended from time to time. So if that number is no longer competitive at a later date as we negotiate these contracts we can certainly change. Have you been approached already by telecom companies about this? They're clamoring at their door. They're lined up. Yes. So those three that you mentioned? I know. Or can't you, aren't you free to share that? Maybe we should talk about that. Okay. We have a lot of interest, let's put it that way. Great. Well I have a question just and I don't know how it affects this but given the expected ruling by the FCC regarding the telecom companies being required, negating their requirement to provide funding for public access television, Comcast being the one the state of Vermont deals with for largely, I mean the Burlington telecom pays in as well but Comcast is where we get our money and the FCC with some of the new appointees are suggesting that that might no longer be part of the quid pro quo. It's been for I don't know how many years all those polls that go through the cities or underground conduits, the reason they can use them at a very low cost is that they agree to provide the funding for a number of things and one being public access television. And now that potentially can change and Comcast, I mean we're in court, we got a ruling and the state of Vermont supported their requirement to continue to support public access although it's based on the membership and that membership's going down because people are using Netflix or Apple TV or whatever their laptops or whatever it is, they're not using Comcast as broadly, not just here but I think nationwide. So I don't know how you put a caveat in there but that's a concern of mine to provide yet another very attractive apparently, conduit for this new development in the city of South Burlington when in fact if we wanna continue with public access to the degree that we have it, taxpayers are gonna be asked potentially our contribution or membership cost will have to go up to fill in the gap of a company that may be let off the hook nationally in completely. I don't know how the public utilities in Vermont, whatever it's called, they used to change their name and I can't remember if they can override the FCC or not but that's just a concern that maybe in your deliberations you can mention that that this is something important to this community and we're providing this continued access. Well, this is clearly the opportunity for us to say you can't run your wires unless you provide a wireless access point all along Market Street. So free Wi-Fi on Market Street. I agree with you Tim, that's what we need. Or you say you have to pay the 19 cents plus an extra charge to go into the South Burlington Telecommunication Wi-Fi Fund or for whatever fund it is to promote Wi-Fi availability throughout the city where there are problems getting it. I don't know what those problems are where they might be but your only opportunity to gain any leverage over the telecoms is this conduit because they want into it because it's a revenue stream for them. Why shouldn't we take that as an opportunity to generate some telecommunication stream of our own? Whether it be access, some sort of a discount for the city on all of their Wi-Fi access or their internet access, ISP access or be it to the non-profit buildings on that street? Well I heard in his comments that since this is a public service there are some limitations on the rent we can charge and that's that public poll utility fee that he's proposing we keep it possibly in step with which might be the maximum that we could charge. Well this could be a one time charge too, right? I mean you could say you need to put WAPS up and down Market Street with at least a five megabit per second access rate. You know because you've talked about that before Megan how you thought that there should be some sort of a public wireless access in our city center, right? Which is something that would be nice to have. I'm just spouting ideas here but I think this is the only opportunity we have for it. Well why don't we, you don't need to pass this tonight. There's some good questions that have been asked. Why don't we do a little more research around this, understand what our limitations might be before the Public Utilities Commission and with the FCC and research that and come back with a recommendation that takes those things into account. Does that work? I think that makes good sense because that's Tim does say if we can leverage this as far as we possibly can to the benefit of the community. Good, good ideas. There are people in Newport that don't have access and they only have it now because of a nonprofit started by a woman who's enabling mesh technology to link individual businesses and houses and daycares site by site together to give people basic internet service for the first time, right? And I'm not saying that we have that problem in South Burlington but I think there are a lot of people that have access problems. Mostly because of cost, right? Basic internet from Comcast is at least 50 bucks a month. Not including telephone or TV or any of that stuff. I can't even get it. You can get consolidated but you're limited your speed. I surrender. You know, they keep Vermont weird and I say get Vermont wired or get Vermont wireless, right? Because if you want this state to be competitive in a technological way, you gotta get DSL and internet access to everybody in the state. They keep whining how they can't do it. Well, let's try this opportunity. Well, see that's an interesting point that you raise. I'm just gonna again put this out there since you're gonna do some research on it. But thinking about it statewide, right? Why are these conduits local? Why aren't they state conduits? And why don't they use any kind of proceeds from user fee at the outset or some kind of tax? I don't know what would be possible here. But in these urban centers to give them prime access to big population centers where they all wanna get in in order to fund the outlying areas. That's a really good question. One thought that occurred to me during this discussion is perhaps a subsidy can be part of the individual contracts that we have. So we subsidize some of the costs or give a discount to what our rates are if they provide X, Y, X, Y, Z. Just a thought. But I will certainly go back and take a look at some additional research, Public Utility Commission and see what kind of the options, more options are. And that's state-based, the Public Utilities Commission. Does that mean that regardless of what happens in Washington, the state has some, I don't know, authority or is the federal? Yeah, whatever authority isn't superseded, the state has the ability to work with them just as we do as municipality. Okay, good. Thanks, anger. I might have some. Okay, moving on to item 11, public hearing impossible action on amendments or repeal of city ordinances. I move to open the public hearing. Second. All in favor? Aye. So this was the last second hearing was on. This is the sixth second hearing. Sixth second. Thank you. I thought it was ground hard day. I went back and it was on July 1st and I looked back and watched some of the video and Bob Britt raised some concerns about vulnerable users in the motor vehicle and traffic ordinance. And Amanda put together some language that is reflected in section 10A with a new B, C, D, or sorry, with a new B and C. And this essentially references the state statute, state guidelines around riding a bicycle and when you're at a traffic control signal, vehicles turning right or left shall yield the right of way to pedestrians in the manner required by state statute. So the requested amendment was included in this version of the ordinance. And other than that, there were no changes to the parking ordinance from the prior reading. Okay. Wait, did you say 10G or 10H? 10B, C, and D. D? The left, H here says turn left. Doesn't say turn left or right. Should. Which left or 10? C says turning right or left. From the box, the agenda item. If you look at 10C, whenever traffic is controlled. Left or right? Okay, left or right. It's controlled by, okay. Does that meet everyone's, okay. Are there any, do we need public comment? Pardon me? Public hearing, yeah. Yeah, is there anyone in the public who wants to comment on our motor vehicle and traffic ordinance changes? Okay, seeing none. We can move on to parking ordinance. Were there, we didn't have any additional changes to that, did we? No, okay. So if there's no public comment, we can move out of public hearing. I'll move to close the public hearing. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. So now before us is, sleepy eye over there. There are two of us. Approval of the parking ordinance. I move to approve the motor vehicles, oh, sorry, I missed that conversation. Are we ready for the motor vehicle and traffic ordinance? Are we? Yes. I am, yeah. I move to approve the motor vehicle and traffic ordinance and parking ordinance. Sorry. Any further discussion? So for the sixth second hearing, we have a motion that's been made and seconded for approval. All in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Bravo. Bravo, thank you. Man, I can sleep well tonight. Thank you very much. Right, you won't have to. Oh, did we do both or just? We did both. Oh, I didn't hear the both. But that's okay. I'm gonna bring one of them back for another session. Okay, thank you very much, Andrew. We appreciate your working on all of this stuff. And Amanda too. And Amanda as well, yeah. Okay, item 12, receive and consider requests from Suncap Property Group and Technology Park for the city to relinquish the irrevocable offer of dedication for a planned dead-end roadway and to request impact the credit for the in-kind contribution of intersection improvements to Kimball Avenue and Community Drive and Gregory Drive. So, Paul, are you gonna start this or leave? I think they'll start it off, but I'm happy to chime in afterwards. Okay, so please come forward and bring another chair up. And for the viewing public and us, would you please identify yourself? Good evening. I'm John Ellick, representing Technology Park, and with me is Kevin Dar, representing Suncap, who is the developer and his father, and Bob Rushford, who is our attorney. Okay. So we do have two requests of city council. Probably should talk about them, especially bundling them together. The first one is, I think, quite simple. When we got Technology Park approved some long time ago, started in the late 1995-ish, got sort of re-approved or modified a couple years after that. It was a 14-lot subdivision, and in that approval process, one of the lots was not fronting on Community Drive, so part of our subdivision plan was to create Community Way, which was a small short cul-de-sac, and it was for the sole purpose of accessing our lot nine, because there was no other way to get frontage. The current proposal before the DRB combined several lots, so we're applying for a re-subdivision, and then, of course, to build a building. And part of that re-subdivision is combining, I'll call it two and a half lots, so that this cul-de-sac is no longer necessary. It doesn't access anything. So we would like to remove the dedication to the city, and that's authority that you folks have that the DRB does not. So our request here is that you take whatever action is necessary to, well, what term am I looking for, Bob, to relinquish? Relinquish, that's the right term. Where is that on your property? Oh, it would essentially be, yeah, it would essentially be on the southeast corner of the property. It's sort of in a counter-clockwise movement. Borders the south and west portion of that fire pond, the big pond, so the road would start at Community Drive essentially right across Community Drive from the access to the parking lot to 30 Community Drive, and it would sweep in a southeasterly movement around the pond, terminating in a cul-de-sac. So on your map, is the pond not displayed? Well, the pond is displayed here. Doesn't look like it is. That's why I was trying to figure it out, and I sort of walked my dog there, or I used to a lot. It's not explicit on this point. Yeah, I was wondering if it was your building. It's a subdivision plat, so it doesn't show the outline of the pond, but if you look at what would be, where it says proposed lot A, B, 6.9 acres, that's the center of the pond. That word proposed is probably vestigial from the 1995 application, but that's where the pond is. And so the entrance to the new building will be a driveway instead of this road, okay, but approximately in the same location? Very approximately in the same location, yes. Through the application to the DRB and discussions with Paul and his staff, there was a decision to make sure that this driveway would line up with the driveway across the street. Not that it's an intersection, per se, but to sort of make traffic more logically accommodated. Okay, so that's item one. That's item one. Item two is probably a little bit more involved. And because of the traffic generation by any development, in this case, our development, there's a traffic impact fee required. And that's formulaic. There's a formula for paying, or for calculating this fee. It's roughly $1,000 peak trip end. PM, trip end. After the traffic studies, and of course, the city had their traffic engineer analyze the traffic studies, and then we responded to those. We've arrived at a number of PM trip ends times the trip end fee. It's roughly a $230,000 traffic impact fee, fine. One of the conclusions of the traffic study is that the intersection picturing community drive, which is a horseshoe, essentially, both ends connecting to Kimball Avenue. The eastern line would require improvements to that intersection. So it actually trips a warrant for a traffic signal. So we proposed a traffic signal. There's some current discussion. And I think you've got a primer on this two weeks ago at your August 5th meeting that when Justin Rabbit was here, along with Paul, and there's some discussion around about as opposed to a traffic signal, one of those two will likely be the solution. And there's more work being done on what makes the most sense, cost estimates, what the logistics are in terms of geometry and acquisition of rights away and so forth. But notwithstanding what the solution is, either roundabout or traffic signal, there's another cost there. By traffic study, our development would put roughly 15% of the through traffic of that intersection into that intersection. We're here now, so we need the improvement or would like the improvement. Would like to see a traffic signal or roundabout go in, but would like the share that we're not really responsible for to be credited against the traffic impact fee. Not sure if I made that terribly clear. We talked about last time. Yeah. Would you want your traffic impact fee to be credited against the cost of building the roundabout or the other improvement? Yeah, essentially, yes. And does this calculation, Paul, include the employees that go into all of the different businesses there and the planet fitness customers? And you have a good question. Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning. At all times, whenever John and his crew have come in for a project, we have evaluated the traffic associated with it. And so at various times, there's been payments for impact fees. There's been improvements that have been credited. And so everything that's there now has been accounted for. If a new building came in for another 50,000 square feet that it would be looked at, again, for its implications, impact, and any fees. If this particular development did not trip a warrant, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Paul would send us an invoice for $230,000. We'd write the check and it would be done. We would have met our traffic impact financial obligations. The fact that it trips a warrant, whether it's by one car or 230 cars, is somewhat irrelevant. It trips a warrant. So improvements to this intersection are necessary. We just don't wanna be paying both the traffic impact fee and the full cost of this, which we're not using the full value of in terms of traffic that moves through it. But more than 15% perhaps, if we take into account all the previous years, because 15% only represents the new building with all of the traffic it will generate. 15% represents, so the current intersection as it's configured can handle X number of cars. I don't know what the number is. Let's say it's 1,000 cars during. The new improvement is estimated to increase it by a certain amount. Let's say 100 cars additional can go through because it's a better intersection. Of that, using my made up numbers, 15 of those new cars that can now make it through that intersection at a good level of service can be attributed, it should be attributed to this new. So it's the increase. It's 15% of the increase. Of the increase. Okay. So therefore creating some additional capacity for whether it's future development or other users or addressing pre-existing levels of service. That's the reasons that one would do that. We are perfectly fine making sure all of these numbers are corroborated and acceptable to the city. Justin, Ravadu and Paul and your staff and team need to verify that all these numbers are correct. We've done a traffic study. The city has, at our expense, hired a traffic consultant to analyze that. So we're good with all that. Whatever the final result is, maybe 15% is 12 or 20. Whatever the final result that gets verified, we're good with. What we're looking for tonight is the concept that the city council approve a concept as opposed to a specific number. So I have a question in terms of the growth. So this is the new tenant will be FedEx, is that right? Is it a replacement of the current FedEx facility in Boston? Yes. Or is it an addition? It's a replacement. So I didn't mean to interrupt, but I just wanted to. Okay, so those. Boyer Circle has a FedEx facility now, right? There's actually two facilities. One is FedEx Ground and the other is FedEx. Might be, I'm not real sure, honestly. FedEx Ground, so this is FedEx Ground. Right. This is just the FedEx Ground. So the FedEx Ground facility is right on Marshall and it's replacing that one. So it's going to be semis and delivery trucks mostly? So big trucks coming in from. Yes and no, there's employees. Yeah, but employees are not the bulk of your trip ends. It's going to be trucks, right? So the employees during the peak hour actually probably are going to be the bulk. But they're driving delivery trucks. No, no, they're coming to work. Oh, so this is determined. But it also includes the box trucks and the big ones largely are not during the peak hours. Okay, so you're just talking PM, so it's employees leaving and. Right, the traffic impact fee is calculated on PM peak hour trip ends. PM meaning the afternoon evening. So the morning they get their things done. Which is essentially around four o'clock in the afternoon. And the highest 60 minutes between four and six PM. By the particulars of that year. So what happens throughout a 24 hour day is employees come to and from work and they're in an automobile. And then there are two different, essentially two different types of trucks, large trucks and delivery vans. And the large trucks are coming from the interstate where they're going back to the interstate, right?  There's no, this is ground. It's just ground. No air travel associated with this. So do you know? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. How many trips a day are you going to have with semis? I don't have our traffic study in front of us, but we have that submitted to the city and we can get you those numbers. The RV have that number? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm just curious how many trips a day in or out are semis and or delivery trucks? That's all clear in the report. Yeah. And so. Looks like 90. 90, basically. Sorry, this is David Saldino, our traffic engineer with BHB. So. Ridge. What about the bridge? That's gonna be fixed, isn't it? What is the plan for the bridge? Cause I ride that bridge and it's pretty scary. I mean, I have to take the whole lane, you know, when it's still the, that's still the temporary bridge, the state owns. It's in our plan, our transportation plan to, I think we've dedicated, what we've identified our money in Williston has not yet, but it's a joint project with Williston and the state. Is it a 2019 or 2020? I don't know. I don't know. I'll ask, we can ask Justin and get that number for you. What I'm worried about is the, is that it's a lot of extra weight going over that bridge in terms of, you know, semis. So I'm sure that semis traveled that road today, but it's additional weight and it's a temporary bridge. And I don't know when they're gonna do their work and when the bridge is gonna be replaced, but we should probably keep that in mind. I will find out what a likely replacement of the bridge and get that out to you, you know. We made a communication with Justin. Justin's been involved in the discussion. I think that John and his team about their time here are two things. And then don't you have General Public comes into FedEx on a regular basis? This is generally not open to the public. It's just a private sorting facility. This is not where you would go to ship packages or pick up packages. It's for, I think it's where I've gone into that place on Marshall Avenue. You've probably gotten into one on Boyer Circle. Oh, that's the one, yeah. So I do have a question. So how in terms of the impact on the congestion, how do you factor in, let's say they really do a bang up business and they need to employ an extra 50 people or 100 people, I don't know. Business is booming for FedEx ground in South Burlington. So how does that, does that ever change or is it sort of the next person who buys a lot from you and develops and they're stuck with, oh. So now the peak time is, you know. That's a great question.  The methodologies that we use, that other communities use, have a number of different ways that vehicle trips can be counted. Almost always in South Burlington, we use square footage as the number. So whether FedEx hires or eliminates people, we don't normally, with very few exceptions, we use the square footage because that's a number that has been evaluated across a whole bunch of different businesses. We use statistical lines for different versions of the same, you know, various different restaurants have different methodologies of how much they, you know, how many people they want per square feet, so they take an average of the whole thing. The challenge with using something that can go up and down is that when it goes up, conceivably, if we knew about it, there could be a charge. If it goes down, then the city would then, have a credit provider, would we then provide a refund? And so coming up with something that represents a, as best as can be evaluated, average is what we've done across the board. Just to piggyback, unless you've got more. No, that's fine. Okay. And perhaps you said this at the last meeting, and I've just had a very busy two weeks and I'm tired today. There is, and the onus is on the business owner to do this intersection or would another option be we collect the traffic impact fee and the city that's going to be maintaining that road. We have a police facility that's using that intersection at the city. We're doing the intersection, right? It would most often be done where it is done by the applicant as those who physically do the improvement. So when Trader Joe's went in and the left turn lane to go into Trader Joe's and the Healthy Living had to be extended, that was done by the private sector. It's done in very close consultation with us, but it is done by them typically. So I think I missed the other half of your question. Oh, could it go forward? The challenge for the applicant here that I think John enumerated well. What was the question that you were answering? Could what answer was it? You asked about whether they could pay us and proceed. Pay the impact fee, okay. So the city as well as the state through Act 250 have a level of service requirement in our regulations. When John says that the intersection trips, what it means is that the intersection overall goes past the limitations in our regulations as it stands. So in some manner, whether, and it can be done in various different ways, although typically it's the private sector. In some manner, for this project to be able to move forward, that intersection will need to be done. Yeah. Let me try to address Helen's concern also. FedEx is very fussy about the accommodation to and from their facilities. And the trip ends that we're suggesting that we're gonna generate, actually exceed what the city would normally ask us to contribute to. And we're fine with that. So we've actually already taken into account seasonal employment through our traffic study. And it exceeds what ITE standards would indicate or the square footage calculations would indicate. So I don't think the city or this particular intersection in this case would be in jeopardy of having had us underestimate the amount of traffic we're putting. Is the dog path still going to be there? Pardon me? Is the walking path still going to be there? Yes. The walking path along Kimball? No, no, along the Whales Tales. So I talked about last time. Yeah. I missed the meeting. I apologize. Yeah. Yes. So our intended...  That would be nice. It would be nice. They're really annoyed. No good deed goes unmonished. We've tried to monitor that, but it's kind of tough, so we end up doing most of it. But the development will displace small bits and pieces of the path, which we're relocating, realigning it so that it will still exist. Well, thank you. I just, I think that's a really wonderful community benefit. We actually love it. And I appreciate it. We love that. And I understand that some people misuse it, unfortunately. It's the nature of the beast. Of those beasts. Yes. But it's more their masters. I mean... Well, yeah. I don't expect the dogs to pick up that. Exactly. Exactly. But I do expect the dogs to pick up that. Yeah, heck of a trick, but... Yeah, right. Yes, one more. Can you give us a couple of examples for what this has been done where there was credit given for the intersection work? Did it happen to Trader Joe's? Yeah, it did happen. In fact, Trader Joe's example's a little bit different in that the applicant was provided credit for the various different improvements that they made. So that was lengthening the left turn lane, adding pedestrian signal, and installing the sidewalk on the left side of... What is it now? There's already... There was a signal. There was a signal, but they added pedestrian signal part of it, which was a piece of it. The city council then agreed to a cross-share for the bridge, which was a little bit different from a credit because it went above and beyond this particular applicant's amount. And by doing the cross-share, it was recognized that eventually the city was going to be using impact fees to pull it anyway, and so it may as well get the project done now. So the question really before council is the... Oh, sorry. No, go ahead. Okay, in this instance, the question before council is, impact fee ordinance lists a specific subset of projects. These are priority projects for the city, that the city's identified for to be intersection improvements and roadway improvements. There's obviously, as we all know, a much longer list of roadways and rec paths to do improvements upon, but these are the ones that have been listed as priorities. A different way of stating the request is that by making this intersection eligible for the credit, it's raising its level of priority to where the city wants to see this take place. I think I mentioned in our memo that this whole area is in the process of being studied for long-term transportation needs. When I say the whole area, I mean basically everything from Meadowland Drive to Tilly Drive, Old Farm Road, Kimball Avenue, Kennedy Drive, that whole part of the city. This intersection of these among those areas that are preliminary results indicate we'll eventually need some improvements, especially when, if you want Tilly Drive connects over, because that sort of moves a lot of traffic out from going all the way up by the old farm road to Kennedy Drive and to Kimball Avenue. So that's for you to consider. It's also currently listed as a potential project in the conference plan. So it's, if you were to decide that it was a worthy project, it would be consistent with the conference plan in that way. How many intersections are on that list? On the current impact field list, there's six transportation improvements on there. Some of them are specific intersections like Van Siklin and Heimsberg. Other ones say City Center Road Network, which is really a whole slew of intersections on roadway. So it's, I can't give you an exact intersection number, but there's six project areas plus the rec paths, which are a separate sector. Tim, if I might address the question of have we done this before? Not only is there some precedent, but the traffic impact ordinance and the comprehensive plan prescribed that this is an alternative that can be utilized. The traffic impact ordinance identifies these very specific priorities. And if you're not on that list, then it would have to be added to that list. On that list is the Tilly Drive connector. We would suggest that this intersection, without improvements to this intersection, you're only addressing half of the Tilly Drive connector because that's where it ends up. So I would suggest that this particular intersection is part personal of that. So no additional, nothing would have to be added to that. In the comprehensive plan, it specifically states this particular intersection. In addition to the Tilly Drive piece, it specifically says the community drive and Kimball Avenue intersection should have improvements and would be entitled to this quid pro quo. Your argument is not that the Tilly Drive needs to happen. This happens. Your argument is if the Tilly Drive is currently on the list of priorities, this thing when Tilly Drive comes through would have to happen. So this is really an extension of that Tilly Drive priority. Right. I'm not in any particular like, unless we can get 12B, I'm not in any particular yank for the Tilly Drive connector. Happy to have it. It would come through our property, which doesn't excite me necessarily, but I think it's good for the city. So sure, bring it on. You're asking, what we're being asked to do is just to prove this concept, right? Well, I think that we're asked to do a couple of things, right? We're asked to say it's okay to get rid of that dead end or cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac. We're also being asked to, let's see page two of the demo, to direct the staff, our staff, to work with CCRPC to figure out the traffic capacity and which improvement to use. Right. So I think what we'd be looking for tonight is your guidance on. And then whether to use the- What direction do you want to go with respect to the cul-de-sac to work with our various folks to bring to you in a formal way an ability to do credit, essentially. We haven't worked out the detailed numbers because there's a lot of moving parts to it. But essentially, if you were to say yes, we would move forward. If we were to say no, then we would not pursue it. Because it says the city attorney is reviewing the process, right? It's still- Right, it's an unusual circumstance. The yearbook will offer normally, if a road exists, there's an entire specific process for you to follow about public hearing and site visit and all these things. This road doesn't exist. It's a little bit of- So what's the pleasure about- I'm inclined to have us agree with the cul-de-sac and to move forward with discussions about- Yeah, it seems to make- The intersection fees and the intersection. We've had a pretty good discussion. It seems to make an excellent sense and it's fair. And it seems to be good for the developer, good for the city, good for traffic, and et cetera. So let's keep going. Okay, I'm gonna- I generally agree. No, I just want to, I'm trying to put it. But we would have to add this intersection and delete something from this project list, right? For it to be- The CCRPC's project list? Yeah, so- Our project list. Yeah. Well, there's a few different ways it may happen. The reason that we flagged the possibility of removing a different project is ultimately when the whole basis of this thousand dollars per trip end is the total costs of the improvement divided by the number of trips that it creates as a benefit. So we'd have to rework that math. We are mindful that, or I don't think that we're not recommending a massive policy change to where we're saying all of a sudden every developer in every trip costs $1,400 instead of $1,000. So we're looking at ways that the total cost implications to all developers would remain largely the same. That's sort of what we're at so far. No, I get that. I mean, the reason for the impact is to take care of traffic problems that are developed in the future, right? So this is a problem because the intersection is going to have D or E performance, right? I mean, by the time they have their PN trips, right? So I get that. But I'm also thinking about the once proposed BJs, right? That something's going to go on. There's 10 acres of grass sitting there waiting for the right project to go on. There's a lot of grass sitting around the community drive, park, community park, right? Then the DRB had several plans that came in showing a full campus of buildings behind the Pizzagalli buildings at that front onto Kimball, right? The whole series of eight buildings that created a complex with a quad in the middle. I mean, those haven't been built yet, but. So those are all things that happen in the future that will trip something on the other end of community in a drive that I'm concerned about. Or perhaps they don't. And if they don't, then they would still pay impact fees which would then fund a project somewhere else in the city with the generally accepted understanding that traffic moves around. And so in this case, there may be a very specific project right next to this proposal that it makes sense. The next one, it may be that it's, it makes sense to fund the white street as opposed to road intersection, even though the project is a little bit further away. For the cul-de-sac, is there a way to word it such that if, let's say this project just falls apart and goes away, we haven't already committed ourselves legally to doing away with the cul-de-sac or is it contingent upon, you know, completion? I mean, I don't know what the. So good question. If this falls apart for whatever reason, I don't wanna take the cul-de-sac back from you because I need access. You know what I'm saying? I wouldn't wanna combine the lots together. I'm doing that for a specific project. So if this particular project for some reason fell apart, I would abort the request to consolidate these two and a half lots into one. And I'd want that cul-de-sac. So, however it's worth it. Let's work on that. It's a little bit of a catch-22 because the DRV needs this decision in order to get it. You're there to say you're right, which needs this decision. I'm not saying that there's anything that can happen. I guess I just have one more. The intersection, were we to wave the impact fee and let you design it and build it? Would that, if there was some change where the city said we need to work on that intersection again, would there be some ownership issue there? We don't own it. It'll be done. There's a city right there. So there's no design ownership issue? There's no ownership we would own there. None. We were closer to dictate how we wanted it to happen. So that's where the DRV approval comes in. Oh, so the DRV says it's going to be around about or they say it's going to be, okay, all right. Reviewed by the fire chief, by the staff of the World Sorector. Right. And then after it's completed, then we also act on it. Okay. All right. So do you have what you need? I think I have a concurrence of the council Okay. If you have what you need, then I have what I need. Because I need what he needs. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Item 13, receive proposed amendments to the LDR 1901-01, LDR 19-05 from the planning commission, consider warning of public hearing on this same. I move that we approve Can we wait? All of them? Can I just go ahead and make that motion? Sure. I move that we approve all these proposed land on relation changes for a public hearing in the future on a certain date. I don't know what the date is, but we can also wait, hear the discussion. Let's do that. Let's do what? Let's listen to this. Okay. So we have a motion on the table. Does someone want to second that? Sure. Okay. We'll have a discussion and a, okay, carry on. Did you get a date for that public hearing? No, what do we need it to be? Two weeks, that's right. Advizable date, if you want to proceed, would be the third Monday in September, so the 16th. That's a good date. Okay. Okay. 730? Yeah. Okay. So that's an extra meeting, right? No, that's our. Nope, that's your regular meeting. That's our regular meeting. Do we need a date? No, it's the other day after Tuesday. Oh, that's right. Oh. Right? Yeah, so then this would be the third Monday, the 16th. It's all right. Okay. So we got that motion, Paul Connor, yes. Go ahead. Did you approve that motion? Not yet. Oh, right, that's the motion to actually do it. That's the motion to do it. We're now going to be. Discuss it. Polite enough to listen to you. Paul Connor, director of planning zoning. And Jess Hill, we chose to chair the planning commission. And we've done this different ways in the past. So sometimes when we bring these to you, you just accept them more in a public hearing and then we have a bigger discussion kind of as part of the public hearing when people are here to comment. And sometimes you have some initial questions. So I don't, I guess I'd like to hear a few questions or if you want us to talk about these or if you want to hold till the public hearing. It's really your preference. I have a question. Okay. I just wanted to mention to everybody and Tom actually reached out to Regina Mahoney at CCRPC and she copied me on her reply, which then I forwarded to the three of you, which I thought was a very helpful reply. Yeah. I don't know if the two of you saw it or not. I just sent it shortly before I, you know, before five, I think. No, okay. Yeah. I just, I wanted to direct your attention to that because it was, and maybe did you receive it, Jessica? I don't think so. Paul received it. Kevin received it. I did pass in the law too, Jessica. Okay. Do you concur with what she wrote in that? Can you tell us what's the content? It was referring to the minimum parking requirement. And what she said was, with regard to commercial properties, Regina Mahoney. Okay, from CCRPC. Yes. And she said that, I mean, I can't remember exactly verbatim, so I'm obviously paraphrasing. But, so correct me if I misspeak, please, Paul. What I took away from her email is that businesses are investors. And so it is in their interest to build a building with adequate parking that could then be attractive to a future business owner, right? That they would sell to, right? Or whoever. Or whoever, right? And so that these minimums that have been set have always been arbitrary. And that there are certain factors that make parking, you know, the minimums that we have required up to now less necessary, let's say in a city center, as opposed to, you know, out where you don't have public transportation, you don't have infrastructure for biking and pedestrians and all these things, right? So there would be need, for example, at Tilly Drive, for there to be more parking than at an office close to a city center. For instance, okay. I'm just throwing that out there. That doesn't come from a Gina's email. It's not an email. She was, what, that she supported the minimum? She did support the minimum because she thought that business owners, I mean, she, her intended to support the minimum. What she said, her opinion is that we've over-regulated development in a variety of ways. But she did not say she's read these LDRs, nor did she say she endorsed them. She just said it's a worthwhile conversation with valid concerns being raised. So if I might chime in and I did forward these to you, I do have some persisting concerns and I'm open. I'm literally on the fence on this thing. I'm reading Frank Cochman's article and I spoke with another DRB member and they're just raising valid concerns on this. So the three persisting concerns that weren't in that and I hope I'm not jumping in too much here, Councilor Henry, but just since there was the email thread that was originated by myself. As I'm trying to understand this, I reached out to a variety of individuals, people that understand LDRs, including CCRPC, who I was directed to. I'm still concerned that the profit motive is gonna compete with the public interest and that eliminating minimum parking standards is gonna motivate development to externalize. So my long-term five-year concern is that over the next five to 10 years, people are gonna build facilities, thus minimizing their parking burdens because those things that cost money, land cost money, tending to the property cost money, and that's gonna create more and more of a need for public infrastructure. Parking garages aren't cheap. So I'm worried that it's creating a long-term demand on our city coffers to build the infrastructure that could be directly assessed of the entities that are building these businesses developing or so on. My other concern has to do with fairness to recent development. So I've heard from some SP business owners that have recently done some development and they had to come up with a minimum amount of parking consistent with our current LDRs to just change this in a somewhat drastic or short-term manner quickly like this. It would create an unfair competitive advantage to new businesses that would come in which wouldn't have that same cost of those parking spaces built into their business model. So I would be much more receptive to a phased approach and that's where I think Frank Koekman's ideas about looking for ways to maybe do this gradually over time, softening the requirements makes sense. And then the last outstanding concern, which again I'm looking to resolve before we take action on this, is I'm always concerned and uncomfortable if development review board members are speaking up so adamantly against a notion because as I've respected your opinion on this board many times, Tim, with your years of experience on that body, I just, I want the DRB to feel in step with the PC. So I would love to work through that. And I've spoken to one other DRB member and they echoed the same concerns of Frank Koekman. So before I'm gonna be ready and I'm just one lonely little voice on this council, but before I'm ready to support this parking minimums elimination for all commercial properties, I would need to resolve those issues because I could just see this being painted in a lot of different ways based on how it's being presented and if not, it's timeline for implementation. So those are my concerns. I intend to share your concerns to an extent because if you're a developer, you're gonna say, we really should have a few more parking places. But you know, it's gonna work out. And you know, I can say it's kind of just in the back of your mind, you wanna do this project, move the project forward. And under the current regulations, you've gotta have X number of parking places if I'm not mistaken. And if you do away with that, it could be, well, yeah, but I think we'll be all right. I mean, that's just a subliminal thing that a developer might tend to think. Yeah, we'll be all right short for parking space. It's gonna work.  So I see, I share that concern. I really don't know how it would work out. Well, just push, you know, just for me to push back a little, if you look at, I can understand that in a small, I don't know, a doctor's office or a small shop or something. But of all the larger developments I've been to, even at Christmas time, there's always empty parking spaces. Oh, in the large, in the large. So I think we pave over a lot of extra ground to make sure that the one day a year that you need 500 parking spots when on average, if you have 275, it's a good day. No, I think that's extremely. You know, I think you have to balance that. I understand what Frank is saying, but I, you know, I think a smaller business would be more inclined to make sure they have probably what they're required to do now, cause they look at their parking lot and they know how often it's filled and how often it isn't. Sure, I was thinking of all is like, they could have eliminated a lot of parking spaces. Of course, that was before malls fell apart. But I was actually, when I was concurring with Tom, I was thinking of, I wasn't even thinking of the big businesses, I didn't even cross my mind. I was thinking of the smaller ones. I mean, like Jane's business is in one of the ICV buildings, as you know, the corner of Kennedy Drive. And they've got a big chunk of empty space in there that they can't rent cause they're short of few parking places. You know, if they had a few more parking places, the building would be full. And so, you know, there's an issue that. Well, how does this change relate to something like that? I don't know if it's grandfathered or not. And you have a, depending on why they can't rent it, it might actually change it for the positive. We've had a couple of businesses come to us and say we wanted to expand the kitchen to improve worker conditions. We're not actually even expanding capacity of the restaurant itself. And in order, because the square footage of the building, you know, the parking goes up. Right, so it's the diner. And the parking requirement goes up. So now all of a sudden they have to create more parking in order to make this improvement, which is an expansion. You know, so if there wasn't that, if the parking wasn't tied to the square footage, you know, there's a case where the business could make that expansion they wanna do. It also happens with use. Right now it's tied to use. And you know, with a lot of our other things we've been doing in the regulations, we're trying to get away from use being, you know, a big part of it and having like, you know, form-based code is about the form of the building and any kind of use that fits in the building makes sense. But if you're still tying your parking to the use, you can have trouble because if you have a business that's in there that has X amount of parking required and now a different business wants to come in, but it's one of these uses that has a higher parking requirement, all of a sudden that new business can't go in there because there's not enough parking where they need to create more. So it is, you know, it might actually solve that problem depending on why they can't run to it. But in both those cases, I would just say I would support a reduction in the minimum requirements, but to just eliminate the minimum, I feel like we're just creating headaches for tomorrow and it just, it seems too fast. And I'm looking to understand it. I wanna see the rationale. I'm literally on the fence. And so I'm glad we have a full month for me to do some more background research, but I have some serious concerns about just dropping the parking minimum. Well, where has this been done before? In larger places that have done it, Buffalo has eliminated it entirely. The city of Houston about two months ago eliminated it for their entire downtown and sort of their mixed use sort of up and coming neighborhood. I'd have to, I can't remember all the other ones off the top of my head, but I think we're talking about city wide and we're not Houston, we're not Buffalo. No, I'm just, I'm asking for, you know, for, I've seen Walcott did it too, but that's probably not as helpful in exactly. Walcott? Well, there's a good example. I mean, I could see Aarons or a phased approach. I'm just concerned with just city wide. So we've actually, we often have LDRs that nobody really comments on at all or they only comment because they're upset about it. This one, we caught significant people of many different backgrounds coming in support. They just showed up at our public hearing last, you know, on the 13th to say, I'm in support of this. And it wasn't just this, it was a mix of, you know, an engineer on behalf of a developer, someone from the energy committee, a public member who often speaks in support of conservation, you know, a city lawyer also who seems like they've been talking in terms of conservation. So it's been a whole mix of people from kind of, who usually speak on behalf of different values that all came specifically in support of this, which is interesting. We did have a conversation at one point about imposing parking maximums. And we actually heard from, you know, over the years a lot of negative comments about that, that there's certain employer or certain businesses that actually won't move into a spot unless they're allowed to have X amount. So, you know, there was definitely negative feedback about maximums, so we're not doing that. That's not part of it. But elimination of minimums, you know, kind of until this conversation, and Mr. Kaufman, who you're referring to, we haven't had a lot of... I would just encourage you to talk to all the DRB members, because the two I've spoken to just have concerns about this, and I'd really love for you guys to be in step. This is just new developments, right? New construction we're talking about? It'd be new development than any changes that existing development wants to make. So for example, we often see properties, say, on Gregory Drive that were a auto mechanic now they're becoming a light industrial, or they were a light industrial, they're becoming a yoga studio, or... Change of use. Change of use. In those cases, what happens is, as Jessica said, let's say it's going from a light industrial to a personal instruction. There's a higher parking requirement. Applicant then has a choice. They can either hire an engineer at $800 or $900 to make a change to their site plan if they can find the space and property, get their approval, build the additional parking, and then move forward, or they can go to the DRB and seek a waiver of up to 25%. That can happen, and they have certainly the authority to do that as long as they're not already at their 25%. Realistically, that involves somewhere between as four and a half and eight and a half weeks of additional process before a new tenant can come in. And that's some of the feedback we hear a lot at our end is, boy, you know, small business is trying to come in. That's eight and a half, four and a half to eight and a half additional weeks beyond what the normal permitting is for things. And that's some of the feedback we hear is, you know, how are we supposed to get small businesses going in South Burlington? You had feedback from some of the lessees that the Klingers, Dominoes, Rev building in the last two months? We have been communicating with them quite a bit, and that's actually a really interesting case study. I don't know if... Which building? The Klingers. I thought you said Klingers. So that's, we've not talked with them specifically about this proposal, but it's a fairly good case study in this issue. They have met their minimum parking, but in this particular case, the minimum parking for one of the uses in there is something like one per instructor or something, which is not at all related to what is actually going on there. So there's a situation where they have, at certain times of day and at certain times of year, not enough parking. Twin Oaks. We've seen the property owners been working with their various tenants to figure out how do we balance these things? How do we make everybody happy because different people are open at different hours? And what we're seeing on the private sector side, which we've been helping to facilitate is the property owners reaching out to adjacent property owners, Vermont Gas, Blueprints, et cetera, to talk about leasing extra spaces that they have, which is, in our view, a good private sector solution to a problem that if somebody has too many, somebody has too few, initially, there are some challenges, but long-term, folks are working some of these things out. I just don't see how eliminating the minimums fixes that. And just your other point about the cost for small businesses, that's my earlier point. I'm gonna be in South Burlington, maybe not here for the next 24 years, and I'm just concerned about putting these true real costs of parking onto the taxpayer when it really should be to support the commerce that is requiring these spaces. Well, so two points to that, maybe three, if you'll indulge me. The, right now, we just completed a study, we haven't done it city-wide, but we completed a study of the city center area, so from healthy living, both sides of the street, up Dorset Street, Olive Williston Road, and Market Street, examining parking usage four different times, Saturdays, evenings, weekdays, and they all averaged somewhere between 34% and 30%, 37% used at any time. So, and that's in our downtown, so there's a lot of parking currently. Last thing I'll say, I promise, I feel like we're taking a sledgehammer when maybe we need to use a scalpel and define in certain areas where we could reduce the minimums, but I could be convinced, I just, I'm not there for September 16th, but I'm just one lonely little bull. Am I, if the same token, the Planning Commission has spent how many weeks on this? We've talked about it many meetings over two years. We can always change it back if we don't like it, right? Sure. I just think the impacts are gonna be so, there's gonna be a five, 10-year lag before we're gonna feel the impacts and we're creating tomorrow's headaches, it's my concern. So I think a point is we're not eliminating parking, we're eliminating the requirement for a minimum that's, it's really designed for peak shopping day of the year. I mean, they're really designed for the day before Christmas shopping, those big, big days that you wanna make sure you have enough parking. So I mean, if we're seeing that on a regular working days, 30 to 40% is being used. I mean, it feels like we're just not, it's just not, and if we're then limiting businesses that can go in based on parking when we're also trying to like reduce our stormwater runoff and all impervious surfaces, we're trying to say that we wanna be more sustainable.  And if we're really inhibiting our businesses and development that might not contribute to the grand list by requiring parking, like it just doesn't feel like there's a really good fit there. So I mean, there's a lot of different things that are maybe side issues to the number. So this is a great issue. I mean, I remember being on the DRB just arguing about eliminating one parking space that we didn't feel they really needed, because they get back or having them rip up asphalt to put in grass for two parking spots on an existing or whatever, some other property, just to try to give some space back to the grass to make it pervious, things like that. Our main conversation about design and working with landowners and working with the DRB is about parking. I mean, we're taking away from all that time they could be working on a smart design and really thinking about what they need for flexibility with future tenants. I don't think parking is important and I could support a reduction, but just the elimination seems extreme, but I'll stop talking. I really appreciate knowing all of the background to, you know, these proposed changes. Thank you, Jessica. Are we interested in having a lengthier conversation about these or do you wanna wait for the public hearing? Yeah. Wait, I've never got some rating putting on, I understand. I mean, because we can chat for another hour, but. It's a good discussion. It is. It's been a very good discussion, because I think that's the most volatile issue, if you will, on any of these. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think it's volatile. I don't think it's volatile. I think it's concerning. Concerning? But hardly volatile. Conflicting for something? Not gonna blow up. Okay. So unless there's some, I see a little twinkle in your eye, Dave. You've said those words before. I just had one other thing. I did say at our commission meeting that I would pass on this note. Someone, Mr. Seff came when talking about the dash 02, the second one on the list here about amending the TDR progress. That's something that you would specifically ask us to do with the whole of the city attorney. So it is on here. We all voted for it to pass it on, but I did just say that I would pass on that. He had a couple of concerns about how it might cause some confusion, because there's also work being done in the TDR interim zoning committee. So I said I would mention that, but I think that's up to you to decide. We didn't hear that from anyone else. I mean, I think we had multiple commission members who were really in favor of making sure that the current program was legal and functioning, so that then we could make changes to something that's functioning. So we didn't, as a commission, have a concern, but I just wanted to. I think that was our conclusion as well, that we understood that IZ would be looking at the TDRs, but going forward as quickly as we could, we should be in compliance with state law, and then we'll figure out whether we'll have the program or not, but at least what we have will be accurate. Great, well thank you very much. It's a lot of work. So we have a motion, can we have a second? Yes. Are we ready for that vote? The motion is just for the public hearing. Yes, September 16th, 7.30. This means you support every single word. Just like to be precise. September 16th at 7.30 p.m. All in favor? Aye. Okay, see you in two weeks. Thank you. Okay, consider and possibly approve recommendation for banking services. So you got a letter from Tom on this. Oh, that's right, yeah. I would note that the, just underline that this is something that affects not only the city, but also the school district. School district was, pardon me? Yeah, they're also under the system. School district was involved. Their staff were involved. Our staff were involved. Tom, Sue, and Martha, and of course the folks from City Clerk and from the school business office. So we did receive six bids. It was narrowed down to three, two, there were more significant discussions with the recommendation tonight. You've got Tom's memo. Our recommendation tonight is for the city council to approve TD Bank as our, as our bank. So. Second. I'd like to. Any discussion? Yeah. I just want to disclose, I received a voicemail from a board member of one of the applicants. This afternoon I didn't call them back, but they basically asked me to, they offered some input on this. Again, I didn't call them back, but I did receive some. I think it's fair to characterize as lobbying on this point, but I think this RFP process is designed with the exact intention of putting decision makers in an impartial perspective to make this decision. So I am going to support the recommendation that comes to us from staff. Okay. You're ready for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Great. Thank you. Let's see. The council discussion and possible action regarding a funding request for the South Burlington master naturalist program. This is for next budget. This is the other going to go through a second course, a second round. I move we approve the funding requests for the South Vernon master naturalist program for fiscal 2021? Second. I think it's for this year. I think it's starting in September, actually. For this year? Second. Yes. And so that was the question I had too, is do we have $5,000 to cover? Is it five or is it 35? It's five. But we could do anything up to. I mean, they're happy to receive whatever we're willing to give. And I think that Helen was eager to have some numbers from the auditors. Yeah. That's, I mean I'm supportive of this if we had the money. And I thought we should wait until the books closed. And we got some final numbers to say, okay, we have access to receipts. Then we could decide whether it's 5,000 or 2,000 or whatever it is we felt. When did the books close? Should be done on August 30th. And we received the second check of the year from the state for... Not as of Thursday. That's the last big revenue source that we expect. We had not gotten that as of Thursday. So I agree with Helen. So we'll hold off then till we have the... Yeah, let's see what kind of a surplus we have. So let me get a note out to you when it looks like we'll have those numbers. And then we can, the next meeting after that. Okay. I don't think we've had any other requests that I can recall.  We got a five gallon donation from the CSWD of local color because she applied through their program for, I forgot what it's called, but it's some sort of a, yeah. So we got that and the GoFundMe is well over 300. I haven't looked in a while. It's gonna be well close to $400. Good. And people continue to approach my wife or her agents on the street and just hand them cash. Wow. Miss, thank you very much to everybody who has handed cash to the box bidders. And then when is this trip that you've been talking about? The trip to Niagara Falls. We're just seeing what the minimum parking standards have had in Buffalo. Oh, paint, paint that. Hey, I gotta put a plug in if I could. Paint that town. I bought two five gallon pails of maple cream from color, maple cream color from local color for the food show. If you've seen it today, it's yellow or it's maple cream. It's not black anymore, but it worked great. So the public should be aware that CSWD and various outlets, resource and restore and others have this available. Right. And it'll work great. Just make sure that if you buy more than one bucket that you mix the two buckets together first before you paint your item because you'll never match that color ever again. Right. I think they're pretty close. I don't know. I don't know. For this purpose. Maybe they mix up a wall. Well, do one wall with one bucket and then flip. It's a shadow. Nobody will know the difference. Okay. Is anyone concerned about the $5,000? So if we have that money generally speaking, people would like to support this. Okay. Do you want to vote tonight if it becomes available? Is that what you're meaning, Helen? Is that what the council would like to do? Just to authorize the city. Okay. So I would entertain a motion to authorize the city to support the Vermont master naturalist program to the tune of $5,000 if- In South Burlington. In South Burlington. If the final would be the record. Members. Recordings. So moved. Budget for this current, or this past year. Has adequate funding. Has adequate funding. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay, great. Okay. I move that we convene as the South Burlington Liquor Control Commission. Second. All in favor? Aye. Did you guys get the packet in your packet? Yes. Yeah, it was a separate document. I move we approve the liquor application for MIMOs, replacing Ilceriso on Shelburne Road. Second, and I just want to say I love MIMOs in St. Albans. Huge fan, glad to see you in South Burlington. What about MIMOs in Essex? I don't know. I've never been there. Well, you have to go there too. It's the same place, right? Well, I mean, same place. No, it's the same place, right? We're hoping to open next week. Ready? Thank you very much. Okay, all in favor? Do we have a second? Do we have a second? Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. I move we convene as the Liquor Commission. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any other, oh, you had one other piece. Oh, that was after. After. So is there any other business? Thank you very much. Thank you. I have your patience. My pleasure. Is it really 8.40? We're about to wrap up? I know, we have one. Okay, so if there's no other business, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. But don't leave, because we have this. Second. All in favor? Aye. So, I move we convene as the Liquor Commission. Is that a motion to adjourn? Yes. We'll go into. Yeah, go into adjourn. No, that was adjournment. We could deliberate without warning if I understand correctly. Okay.