your appendix is a lot of the other systems ranging from pumps our screening system to clarifiers that have significant deterioration of the metal works inside these all are critical treatment processes and if they go down we're going to be in trouble. There's a little bit of money in there for some planning studies that we need to do to really set ourselves up for success for potentially future borrowing in particular east plants has long been discussed whether or not because of the nature of the collection system if the entire approach for treatment should change there if that's the case we need to know that and then we need to not obviously be repairing things as it is right we need to know that early and then change our approach at a future date and only make investments that are necessary to get us to the next five years we've got about 2.5 million that we need to spend on the 10 highest risk pump stations these are the pumping stations in the low areas of the city pump the water back up to the gravity system on the collection system side we need to re-line about 6.7 miles of sanitary and combined sewer pipe valued at 3.3 million we have I think has spoken with you all and certainly with the mayor about the need for a comprehensive asset management system one of the reasons that we are in this situation and probably a lot of the other infrastructure deficit conversations you're having is that we weren't and haven't been doing the maintenance when we should have been doing it we haven't had the money for it we haven't had the system that would tell us you need to be investing X Y and Z and this is the types of maintenance that you need to do we are doing preventative maintenance but not in the sort of comprehensive way that an asset management system would be able to model that for you so you'd have these really tight numbers to plug into your budget I don't think anybody in the city know as of yet is necessarily taking a model of what maintenance needs to happen and using that to build their budget I will say that we usually build our repair and maintenance budget number in a much more flexible way the industrial wastewater so as I mentioned we need where we're at now we've sort of created in-house we really need to expand that program to make sure that we're not unfairly targeting only a narrow group of customers when there are many customers that are impacting our BOD we're also exploring with the state the ability to potentially have pass-through loans for capital so if we actually do raise the bar a great deal and require significant capital investment at some of these businesses there is a possibility that we could actually offer them low interest 2% loans in order to help them get going faster and then another piece that you'll see getting 30 million dollars is one thing implementing it is a whole other and one of the challenges with water resources is that we haven't always had sufficient staffing in order to get all of the things on the ground we're very busy often dealing with unplanned things and some of these planned things can fall by the wayside because we're constantly dealing with emergencies and so this proposal specifically over wastewater and stormwater would have about 1.25 million dollars to be paid for by TTEs over 4 years paid for from the bond next slide on the stormwater side our primary thing that we're going to be tackling are the stormwater outfalls this is the top 5 of the top 11 high risk outfalls these are very expensive projects GAISO outfall I think was in the $350,000 range there's like severe erosion tons of earth work we're talking about some of these outfalls being on the Winooski river so I'm not even sure how we're going to access them other than excavators on barges but they do become very costly very quickly we on the collection system side we are not doing we're not doing the full or not proposing the full amount of what needs to happen in the next 5 years we did pair that back a little bit to focus specifically on roads that have been paved roads that are out to be paved and then roads that we know have a significant history of breakage ones that are completely corrugated metal pipe and we've seen collapse in recent years one of the challenges with the stormwater system as I explained the mayor is that some of these pipes the corrugated metal is so rotten out from the salt that we can't even film them in order to really say which one is worse than the other we are mostly making these determinations based on the consequence of failure a really large pipe on an arterial is going to rank higher than a smaller pipe on a residential street just because the impacts of failure are typically less on a small street the next piece actually stay on that side please the next chunk of money is addressing stormwater in the combined sewer system we've gone through so with our integrated planning project we've actually started to identify specific opportunities locations where we think we know that water needs to be taken off and when we roll those up and I think I took about 75% of them knowing that not all of them would come to fruition we would like to be able to invest about 1.6 million probably with pine barge canal CSO as the priority trying to mitigate that one because that's the one that goes off the most frequently but anything that we do in the main plant sewer shed is going to help in the main plant a new well not a new concept but something that we are focusing on exploring is the concept of a CSO satellite disinfection station at pine street barge so to the extent that we know that it's going to be difficult because of the soils and the conditions in the south end to manage stormwater we are exploring the possibility that when those storm events where we can't manage it and we do have a CSO if we can mitigate the human health risk by basically disinfecting it before it gets to the pine barge and before it gets to the lake we don't know if it's going to happen our consultants generally say that they are a lot more problematic as far as O&M but we think it's something that we need to explore for the public because of the close proximity to the beaches there's a small nugget in there for potential funding for the great streets city hall park projects those projects are going to have amazing benefits in stormwater reduction in the main plant sewer shed and so we want to make sure that there is sufficient funding that stormwater elements don't start to get value engineered out when project costs may be larger than anticipated the last piece being the separate stormwater management it's not a lot of money only $300,000 $15,000 but again we want to make sure that we're making steady progress on that there's the rest of the cost share for the asset management and the rest of the cost share for the city project management staff with stormwater totaling about 10 million and a total for wastewater and stormwater of approximately 30 next slide so when we started looking at what the debt service is on that 30 million there were two main ways in which we mitigated the impact on rate payers the first is our commitment to use state water revolving fund loans those have a 2% admin fee instead of the typical 3.9% municipal bond interest that we're seeing it also has the benefit of deferred payback on planning and design money until after construction and you do not have to pay back the construction or start paying back until after you've completed the construction so it doesn't hit you all at once you don't have to start paying interest on the money even before you've spent it you actually wait until after you've spent it you are eligible for a 30 year payback on certain longer term assets there can be a higher administrative burden the approval processes the Davis Bacon requirements by America but we do think that those balance out with the large cost savings of approximately 8.1 million and interest savings over the life of loan and it would represent approximately almost $20 a year savings to the typical customer the other piece was to use existing Pago capital to offset some debt service costs as Chapin mentioned we have been increasing our capital line and we'd like to make that capital line go further by obviously using it for debt service we did need and we planned to maintain a sufficient amount for unplanned or smaller capital needs as well as potentially to repurpose for improved staffing resiliency again this work can't happen without boots on the ground and we are evaluating whether or not we need more boots using the Pago capital represents significant savings on the principal as well as the total debt service costs and the typical single family savings is about $26 a year next slide we have a couple of other ideas about minimizing the rate impact one being trying to grab as much of the state grants and loan forgiveness subsidy as possible that money is often capped and it changes every year so we can't necessarily predict what we're going to be able to be awarded but we are going to go after that there's also some upcoming we're aware of some upcoming green infrastructure system grants we know there's at least 1.25 million that's coming up this fall it is across five CSO communities and there may be another 1.25 in the years to come there's also pollution control grants those can be up to 35% of the project but it depends on where you rank in the priority list and we will be doing everything we can to improve our priority ranking including there's a new program to if you sponsor natural resource projects with your great infrastructure projects that will often bump you up we are working with the mayor to determine on the great streets project side whether or not it is appropriate for the enterprise funds to be contributing to those TIF projects or if TIF should be paying more of that but again we wanted to keep it in there to make sure that those projects happen next slide the other side is to find to cover the remaining debt service we have been working with the administration on whether or not there's alternative strategies to the current pilot program waste water currently pays 1.1 million dollars to the general fund in a pilot and it would be great if some of that money could be repurposed or at least the program changed given that it's linked to the asset value of our infrastructure and as we improve our assets our pilot actually goes up we also as we've committed previously are looking to develop additional potential fees for service for users of service such as folks who have fire services they don't get charged anything extra project review fees connection fees and so on next slide and lastly really for the residential users and the low-income users is making sure that there isn't a better alternative rate structure out there that might reduce the impact on residential folks as well as affordability programs for seniors and other low-income folks next slide so as far as our commitments we're going to commit to you that we're going to find at least another 1 million dollars worth of grants loan forgiveness or some other offsets we're committing to finding additional annual funding to offset that debt service we will be committing to minimize impact to single family residential ratepayers and low-income ratepayers and remind you as with most borrowing that just because we get the bond vote we're still going to have to come back to you for the little nuggets that we're borrowing as we borrow them that SRF requires your approval for us to both apply for the loan as well as execute any loans so there'll be ample opportunity for you to check in on these commitments before you actually let us spend the money next slide so with the use of PAYGO funds let's see so you can see here this is the annual cumulative debt service that's incurred it's an approximate schedule at this point with our focus initially in FY19 as planned currently on the disinfection systems and then just kind of splitting out the remainder of the cost over the next four years this is our cumulative debt service this column is with the 237 of sort of reappropriated or repurposed capital line funds applied and so with that you wouldn't actually see a bond a rate increase due to the bond until FY21 and we're looking at a total 12.2 increase over the FY19 bill which when all is said and done would be about an additional $51 a year for this needed investment next slide on the stormwater side because the bond the debt service is lower given the amount is lower and we have a little bit more PAYGO money to work with we actually wouldn't be incurring a rate increase due to this until FY23 and you'd be looking at a total 16.7% increase over the FY19 bill only $13.20 a year increase next slide we didn't want to being transparent we wanted to make sure that you are aware that we probably were going to be coming back to you with some other requests in the near term not necessarily as significant as the one we just spoke about we anticipate requesting at least board of finance approval for a contract amendment to have our third party consultant evaluate our staffing resiliency plan we have some ideas about the staffing plan that we need but we want to make sure that that's vetted by somebody with deep and national level expertise who can benchmark our organization against other similarly sized organizations we also are likely to be coming back in November of this year for some amendments to our integrated planning study scope and planning loan for a number of reasons there are going to be some additional planning funds that are going to be necessary we wanted to make sure that folks were reminded that drinking water is not included in this bond proposal it is possible that there will be additional money that's needed and beyond 2020 2021 we need to remember that this is really to for lack of a better phrase keep the wheels on the bus and in 2020 and 2021 is when we're really going to start talking about the better bus that will be reducing more and more phosphorus that still has to happen and right now we're talking about being able to maintain maybe slightly increased the level of service that we're able to provide next slide back to Chapin so we're finishing up here and you'll see here this slide speaks for itself there's no bond driven rate impact in FY20 with what we've shown you the cumulative impact for the bonds that we've proposed after the two rate mitigation strategies we've already committed to would be about 64 dollars a year per average rate payer and additional mitigation strategies will lower that further you can see the benefits there fewer permit violations and beach closures and a much more upgraded plant infrastructure that will be reliable during our stressful wet weather events and lastly there's a number of green infrastructure investments that will not only improve lake quality but improve the quality of our public realm more rain gardens and more storm water features to add value in our parks and our streets next here are our next steps we're planning to come to the board of finance on the 5th the council on the 11th for a vote we are going to have a town hall for quality on the 17th and offer tours of our main wastewater treatment plant so that the residents can take a tour of our main plant we'll be going to the DPW commission doing the NPA tours in advance of November 6 should the council vote to put this on the ballot next here is all our contact information and we're happy to answer any questions down at the bottom are a number of our team members who spent long hours putting this proposal together with us thank you thank you for that presentation you to be able to intervene and fix something the other piece is we don't have as much resiliency and redundancy there could very easily and with the upgrades that we're looking at be more backup so that things turn on automatically and there's a separate pump that if this one's not working the system knows it's not working and automatically switches it so that when people who live 30 minutes away or 45 minutes away have time to get in the other piece is that we're looking at our earlier notification methods right now folks get paged when there is a wet weather event only when sort of the water starts to hit the plants and we think that there may be smarter ways of knowing that it's raining and notifying our operators so that maybe they have to check the radar and can see is there a giant you know angry blob that's coming towards the plant and go ahead and leave and not wait until the rain starts I just I would like to understand so do you only staff it for eight hours a day we staff it for eight hours a day and then there's somebody on call right I understood that so with knowing the how how these events create such negativity from the community and surrounding communities have we calculated the cost of going back to staffing it more frequently or having people take call that are in closer proximity I just I guess I feel like you know I I know what we've done I kind of do because I was on the DPW commission I'm not going to say that too loud but anyway but I would like to I'm trying to figure out what we can do as an interim measure so that's number one and the second question really is if indeed we move forward with your plan what kind of timeline are would we anticipate the improvements to be done by so that we would see relief or the or desired outcome so we would largely the issues that have happened the failures that have occurred this year we would be looking to implement those in the very nearest term possibly certainly within 12 months if not sooner those are the focuses on the disinfection systems which are the it's the main driver the failure of that has been the main driver with the issues we've had this summer as well as the PLC and the SCADA system which would provide that additional intelligence that I was talking about so from my perspective we would be in a far better position just after spending that initial 1.4 million the other expenditures are to prevent future failures not that things have not had hiccups and problems they are just slightly less problematic than the disinfection system failures so for the director then have you have you calculated the additional cost to having staffing present more often especially even I mean the forecast is so unpredictable as far as actually becoming a reality but I'm really feeling like I would like to know that cost and I would like to figure I would like to know if we can actually accomplish some of that because I think some of it some of this could be prevented or reduced the impact could be reduced yes and so we have increased staffing so when there's a greater than 30% chance of an intense storm we are bringing a staff member proactively into main plan whether forecast change quickly but we are monitoring that we are bringing people in during off peak when a major storm events coming our estimate right now on what we're staffing is it's an extra $30,000 a year which is a significant scheme of the wastewater budget of $8 million but we also only have a limited staff and when we're bringing people in off hours we're having them come in at 2 to 4 a.m. and then they're back in at 7 a.m. to work and it can be very taxing on our small staff that said we are going to continue a higher level of staffing through this interim period in addition we have changed our notification protocol as quickly as we can Dr. Spencer, I'm sorry you got to have me pull that microphone in closer again Assistant Director Moyer talked about our work on forecasting but we've also changed how our alarm system notifies our on-call staff so we are trying to take the incremental interim steps that we can before we do this heavy capital investment it is important again that with many of the events even with staff there it would not have changed the outcome Yes I heard that, thank you Thank you Councillor Busher I'm going to recognize Councillor Nodal for a motion now President Wright may I ask the city attorney for a question? Yes Is it time sensitive to approve the collective bargaining item tonight? Yes it is So I move to spend our rules to continue our work and to complete the deliberative agenda that is through 6.06 and then also item 11 the executive session executive session around collective bargaining Thank you Councillor Nodal So there's been a motion to spend rules to act on the items going up to 6.06 including the executive session Is there any discussion? I need to have a second on that motion Councillor Pine seconds and although this needs a two-thirds majority vote is you okay Mr. Mayor? Thank you All those in favor of the motion to spend rules as Councillor Nodal suggested please say aye Opposed? That passes and we have suspended rules to act on this and the other items although one or two may be postponed I now have Councillor Tracy who is at an undisclosed location No I'm kidding Councillor Tracy Councillor Tracy is in Nepal I believe No I'm actually in New Delhi There you go New Delhi Where it's currently monsoon season so storm water is certainly on my mind also in my current location and I just want to thank the DPW staff for their presentation and for sharing all this important information with us I have three separate questions regarding this the first of which is we are considering putting this on in November and I'm wondering if there is a what the cost of waiting is is there a cost increase if we wait at all at any point on putting this forward I'm certainly in favor of dealing with this as soon as we possibly can but I want to understand what the costs are in terms of waiting versus doing it in November and if that changes because I think that helps to make the case to folks and then second does this include any storm water gardens because I know I've heard Megan Moyer talk about the need to slow storm water before it enters our system and then finally third and this may be something that we can connect with at a later time or in a separate issue because it's not directly related but our bond issues I mean our not bond issues but is is code necessarily part of the solution to this is it other things other than bonding and other than investing money that we can do to have you know buildings be built in such a way in the city that really help us to deal with help with the storm water issue as well thank you thank you Councillor Tracy great to quickly answer those given the time of the evening there is a cost for waiting I think the public is looking to us at least to deal with some of the short term disinfection upgrades we have projected in our budget you will see that there is a inflation calculation for projects that we're not going to get to until a year four five but it is ultimately the council's choice of when we come to the voters there is a very robust storm water component for Councillor Tracy about ten million dollars of storm water upgrades including some of the green infrastructure that he was referencing in the rain gardens in the detention ponds and silver cells for trees and the like the third one with other strategies yes we didn't talk about them this evening because time is short but in our previous presentation we have talked about other strategies for managing storm water including in chapter 26 we have fairly robust development policies in place that make sure that new development gives us a better storm water outcome than the existing condition before the development happy to talk about the details later I'll say Councillor Tracy thank you very much thank you Councillor Mr. Mayor I'm next to be followed by Councillor Shannon Thank you President Wright I just want to say a couple things first of all I want to really thank Chapin and Megan and the teams that they're here representing for working very hard for a staying period of time to bring this plan to the council so it's in position to at least consider acting on the November ballot and this was not if councillors will recall thinking back to the budget presentations you've heard each the last two years really nothing in the presentation tonight is a surprise virtually nothing that was mentioned here tonight is new there was anticipation of needing to make these investments but there was a belief that we had some more time the plan was to be coming back in the future future budget seasons the events of this summer certainly left me and I think many others like there was a greater urgency than when we were talking about this within the spring it was extremely frustrating I know for the public to see the multiple breakages that happened this summer it was I hope that the council knows that frustration was completely shared by the staff who have committed their careers committed themselves to perform these water services at a high level and they were hit with a series of different challenges over the course of the summer there were these breakages there were the CSO events and then there was this third significant item issue that really blossomed this summer around the high strength of waste and it was just very difficult for this team to respond to it all with these different types of things going wrong and I think they have really from my perspective risen to the occasion while dealing with all of these those urgent items of accelerating these plans coming together putting forward a comprehensive plan that would to address the current system to try to avoid the breakages and defects on our existing system that we experienced this summer from being repeated at least the same rate in the future years and we're certainly not in position to promise we pass this bond and we never have a discharge again that's not what we're saying but this will allow the department the resources to move forward with fixing systems that have not had investment with the case of the main plant since 1994 and with the case of these other pumps you know something I've learned in the process of this summer 25 critical pumps around the city many of them have not been invested in for more than 25 years and really held together with very insufficient means this would give the department the resources to address that and keep these kind of critical breakages from happening in the future while coming forward with this comprehensive plan I hope it's appreciated and appreciated and understood by members of the media that are still with us tonight that the work this team is projecting the strategies laid out here so to come forward with a comprehensive plan that does have at a top line ticket is a substantial number just short of 30 million had they not been also coming forward with these rate mitigation strategies that were committed to the impact would have been about 40% higher right around $100 for the average rate user water user the strategies they put together here the better interest rates the repurposing of existing resources bring that total big ticket price down considerably effectively it's about a 40% less than it would be without those strategies and I think that brings it down to a level that makes the year over year increases modest and a total amount when fully phased in that I think is reasonable for us to at least talk about and hear where the council stands at so I just want to hit those two points I'm appreciative of this team working many of them working seven days a week throughout the summer including over the weekend and putting us in position where we at least consider moving forward and acting on a plan that I think is essentially what the public has been clamoring very loud for in recent months thank you Mr. Mayor Councillor Shannon thank you and thank you both for your commitment to the city and clean water and I know it has been a very rough summer and frustrating for everybody and I really appreciate the long hours that you have put into this for the benefit of the city and this weekend so that we can have a clear understanding of what's needed to take the next step to achieve what I think are really our community goals and I think there's no disagreement on that. I learned recently that an issue that you touched on very briefly that the corrugated pipe that is there is how we ended up with a city truck in a sinkhole and that's an issue that you said we would address but I wanted to understand if you know where all the corrugated pipe is, if that's mapped yes? Generally, I mean there may be some that is not on a map but yes, yes. Okay and when you replace that are you digging up the streets to do that? If we get it early enough we can re-line it because it's similar to the water creates a whole new pipe on the inside that's essentially a plastic pipe if they go too far then we do have to dig them up because there's nothing to re-line inside you have to have enough of an outside of a pipe in order to re-line but the benefit of re-lining storm water and wastewater pipes is we do not need to dig up the street we have existing manholes and so unlike water mains when we re-line this can happen on a street that's actually just been paved we're still good. So we have a little bit more flexibility about when we do the re-lining if we catch it early enough if the pipe's deteriorated we've got to full dig and replace. That's a relief. Are we anticipating we've been doing so much repaving are we anticipating any digging up of what we just paved to do this? I mean not at this time the number that we developed and the ones that are still on the paving list to get in there and re-line them and we believe that we should be able to get in and re-line them it's why wastewater and storm water roadway infrastructure was postponed compared to the water infrastructure because we knew we couldn't access those systems via the manholes. Okay. Thank you. I'll frame this as a thinly veiled question is there money without the bond to address drainage issues on neighborhood streets that have drainage problems prior to repaving because we're doing a lot of repavement around the city and when we repave but there's an underlying issue with drainage on the street are we able to address those drainage problems before repaving without the bond and if not will the bond help that? These numbers are not specifically targeted towards drainage drainage is a key feature of a roadway system these are targeted towards infrastructure keeping things on a larger level draining and water quality investments with drainage improvements anytime we do pave a road we are working with the street paving program in places where puddles have been reported we actually have a puddle priority that we're going to list because not all puddles are the same not all drainage issues are the same a really large one that goes into the roadway is different than one that happens to be in front of somebody's house and unfortunately I don't know if we'll ever have enough money to fix all puddles but when and where through grading or potentially addition of a storm water inlet we're able to tackle those 100% we tackle them and just keep calling about them so it's fair to say that the more funds we have available at our disposal the more lower priority but still important investments we are able to make when we have less capital money we are focused entirely on the major streets on the items high consequence of failure and a modest drainage issue may not rise to that level thank you and my last question is the Pine Street barge canal outfall I understand that we discovered that in 2015 and it's kind of beyond my comprehension how we didn't know about that when we went through all of the EPA process with the Superfund site and somehow didn't know about this drainage outfall but in the it was a significant line item in the cost and is it I understand excavation is required for a lot of this work that's an area where excavation is prohibited as far as I knew and that's been taken into consideration so couple things we knew there was a storm water outfall so we can see the storm water outfall what we didn't know is that there was a pipe connecting higher up in the watershed a manhole on the combined sewer system to a manhole on the storm sewer system so it was kind of hidden unless you happen to be standing at the outfall when it was going off and seeing toilet paper or the occasional product you wouldn't know that it was there and that's what happened you didn't know what was coming out of it we knew there was a storm water outfall we didn't realize that sometimes it had combined sewer in it on the other piece what we've developed are for projects not in the super fund site the disinfection system would probably be in pine street outside what I believe at least to be the primary envelope of the super fund site and then all the other projects would actually be higher up in the watershed so projects that would benefit the pine barge canal are up on south prospects south south street way up there south east corner of the city those are the ones that we would be tackling okay thank you thank you councillor shannon I just wanted to ask one question did you say $64 at the full phase in that's what it costs for average residential repair like five or six bucks a month on the water bill can you give me I don't know fairly sure what will this of the $30 million bond approximately $30 million what's the impact on commercial business how much of that will come from commercial versus residential since we had somebody that actually asked us to put it all on commercial I think I just sent the I don't know if Beth can bring it I think our flows by flow which is surrogate for the proportion I think only 25% comes from commercial folks and the rest is residential we can take a look at it and get you the answer we don't have it right at our fingertips okay thanks councillor Hardinett thanks the beach is before I just touch on councillor shannon's point about streets and puddles and lakes I mean I just got to put this out there because gazel av is just it's a lake it's not a puddle after it rains it's a lake out there they've been dealing with it for five years and the taxes they pay it's just it's just really not acceptable and we had another water break out there over the weekend I mean it's a streets a joke it needs to be addressed but I don't want to start that getting back to here it's just frustrating you know out there the beaches and we talked about stormwater around the beaches and possibly you know looking into special ways that we could treat that and I just hope that when we put this plan together that we put a high priority on that like I really think it's I think it's the risk is worse the reward you know what I mean it's there and you know to have our beaches closed and you know I mean particularly this summer but there's been other summers as well I mean if we can reduce that number I'm not saying we're never not going to close a beach but if we could get that number down where it was once or twice a year instead of you know 15-20 times a year during the summer I think it would be well worth the extra money to go in and take a look at that so I hope we we take that approach in that particular area thank you thank you Councillor Hartnett Councillor Pine for the final question sure I think the one distinction that is always important to remember is that taxpayers and ratepayers aren't the same some people don't always think of it that way but it's really important to remember this this happened when the city was debating a franchise fee in the 90s whether it was fair or not so our institutions that don't pay much by way of payment in lieu or property tax payments our tax exempt institutions they are probably some pretty large users I would think in this case in planning block rates would get us there to at least capture more of the payment towards us on the bond from larger institutions whose ability to absorb those costs I think are much greater than average homeowners renters so I really think it's worth spending some time looking at the bigger users paying a higher rate basically so they can contribute more to solving this problem than folks on fixed incomes thanks thank you Councillor Pine with that I think that we are ready for this item thank you very much for the presentation we'll hear from you back on September 11 when we will be deciding whether to put this on the ballot in November I'll just conclude by saying this is an incredibly important issue no question about it we've heard about it it's been the news we've heard about it repeatedly and I will just say that while I've heard a mix of opinions about whether to put the high school fourth in November every single person has told me thank you and with that we will go back to the agenda for item number 6.02 this is an issue in regard to the council rules and we'll go to the charter change chair Councillor Shannon for brief remarks and a motion thank you thank you President Wright we put this on the agenda because the charter change committee acknowledged that there's three of us on the subcommittee and we have our ideas about how the council rules should work but ultimately it's going to come to this body and we wanted to avoid some sausage making on the floor give the council an opportunity to weigh in on what's going right what's going wrong with the direction that we are headed here and then we would take it back to committee to wordsmith need to be done on the council floor and we would still like you to weigh in but due to the late hour we're not going to have that conversation tonight there are two things that we talked about in our work session but we have not added them into these rules and regulations yet and those are policy on calling in circumstances under which calling in is appropriate in works and when it doesn't and also if you want to have consequences for not following these rules we don't have anything in there at this time and we would like to hear your input on all of these matters so contact your committee members I was going to make a motion to postpone I think what I'm going to do is make a motion to table our charter change we have two charter change committee meetings coming up September 12th and September 20th I don't think we want this on the September 11th agenda so we will take it up in our upcoming charter change committee meetings and we would appreciate any input you have so I hope you reviewed it for this meeting and can weigh in outside of the meeting thank you so I will make a motion to to table this item table until the meeting in September the last meeting in September well tabling would be until we decide to take it up again rather than to time certain just a motion to table and it's seconded by Councillor Dean non-debatable questions so all those in favor of the motion to table please say aye aye any opposed we have a motion to table this and we'll take it up another juncture item number 6.03 is a resolution establishing a really shouldn't have sent a Heineberg community senior center it really is a senior center senior center study committee Councillor Hartnett thank you President Wright I'll read the reading and ask for a second seconded by Councillor seconded by Councillor I would like to just really before I get into the resolution just say that I think the city really stepped up when it's come to seniors particularly over this last year but even over the last five or six years and so this resolution is really not a reflection on really I think some of the areas that we really have approved on with our seniors but I think it's really kind of looking forward about the best ways best best practices you know sharing costs going forward and as a city how can we address these issues and I think you know some of the people that worked on this resolution they wanted me to make sure that you know I relayed that message here tonight this is not a critical this isn't being critical of the city that we want to work together in junction with the city for all the seniors across the city so I hope we can do that we had a resolution like this maybe a couple years ago and it kind of spun its wheels a little bit didn't go anywhere but I think now the fact that United Way has cut the funds and so many people are fighting for the same money that we have to work smarter together for our seniors and it's a growing population in our city and our state I think it would be well advised to put this together really get some great feedback from this committee and really act on it and so I'm hoping that councils around the table will support this thanks. Thank you Councillor Hartnett. Discussion from the council? Hearing none we're ready for a vote. All those in favor of passage of this resolution which creates a senior center study committee which will meet a number of people will be appointed as it says in the resolution and they'll meet over a period of months and report back to us next spring or at the end of next winter in March. All those in favor of that resolution please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you and now we will move to the last three items which are dealing with the town center. The first one is item 6.04 it's a communication regarding the side letter to clarify development agreement for city and city. So we will move to the next item. No. I have a question. I will have to recuse myself on items 6.05 6.04 and 6.06. Councillor Dean recuses himself for professional conflict of interest and thank you very much Councillor Dean. So item roof. Thank you President Wright. I will move to authorize Mayor Murrell Weinberger to execute the attached side letter modifying and clarifying the development agreement for City Place Burlington with BTC Mall Associates LLC. After a second just to the full back. Seconded by Councillor Shannon and back to you Councillor Roof. So this side letter this is gonna be quick I'm gonna hand it over the side letter was put together by the administration and so I'm gonna ask members of that team to come up to go over the letter and be available for questions and while they assemble I'll share for those who are not already aware that this side letter is in essence an amendment to the development agreement that was signed in October of 2017 by the city and the developer of the former town center property now known as City Place. This letter as well here details deals with the changing of the sequence of events related to the release of the foundation permit by the city as well as adjusting the share of responsibility for much of the design of the public improvement aspects of the project. Thank you President Wright. Thank you for explanation Councillor Roof. And so we have the attorneys here and if you go ahead and give us some further elaboration on this issue. Attorney Farkas and Blasper.  So the side letter does two things. One is it reassigns the responsibility for designing the streetscape improvements for bank and Cherry Street. Under the development agreement the developer is designing the two new street segments of Cherry of St. Paul and Pine Street. And after the city delivered concept designs for bank and Cherry Street the developers team was then to take those concept designs to 100%. In order for the city to manage the design process itself which the city prefers because it can control the outcome and the cost better if it's doing it itself. This letter agreement reallocates the design responsibility for bank and Cherry to the city and more narrowly defines what the developer is going to design for St. Paul and Pine. Most of the developers designs for St. Paul and Pine are there's something like 70 or 75% complete already so it made sense for them to complete that work and then the city would take on the rest. It also restricts what the developer is doing so that it's not inclusive of intersections so the city handles the intersections and the city believes it will result in a better product. The other thing this does is it establishes internal milestone dates for when each party is going to deliver 75% drawings and 100% drawings and specs and it establishes requirements for what those drawings will include what items will be addressed in those plans and it also requires both parties when they deliver their plans to also deliver originally engineers estimates for the cost of construction and then as the work progresses to report on actual soft costs expended and then to update the estimates as the as the designs are refined. In each case there's an opportunity for the party receiving the plans to have a chance to review them to value engineer is necessary because ultimately the requirement is to devise a budget for all of this work and the goal for the city is to get as much done as possible and deliver the best possible streets using the money that's available in the TIF budget. The other thing accomplished by this side letter is to permit so right now is to permit the release of a building permit for the foundation work in a way that differs from what the development agreement would otherwise require so the development agreement is written wouldn't permit the release of a building permit for the foundation work until there's a guaranteed maximum price contract in place for the public improvements which are which is defined in the development agreement to mean Pine and St. Paul Street and also those blocks of Cherry and Bank that are immediately adjacent those half blocks that are immediately adjacent to the project. Because the design for those streets isn't yet complete it's really premature for there to be GMP contract for that work and it's really not exactly possible for that condition to be met for a little while because the design work's not done. The other thing that the development agreement requires right now is for the developer to have in place a guaranteed maximum price contract for the entire private improvements meaning for the entire rest of the project and also to have it bonds in place for a construction lender. At this time the construction financing isn't yet in place and there isn't yet a contract in place for all the private improvements so at this time the demolition work is done. The developer is ready to begin foundation work and he won't be in a position to satisfy those other conditions. You know I have a GMP contract for the balance of the private improvements for a few months rather than allow the site to sit idle for many months while the rest of that progresses. This allows the work to continue in a way that is not detrimental to the city because the foundation work will continue to be benefited by you know there's a GMP contract for that work. It'll be bonded and at the end of the day regardless of anything else the city is better off with a site that progresses with a foundation in place that would support a very robust and large building than to just have it sit vacant for a few months. Thank you Mr. Farkas. Questions from the City Council? Councilor O'Dell. Thank you President Wright. Towards the end there Mr. Farkas kind of made the case for the side letter. The case really assumes I think I want to interrogate a little bit more of this issue around the foundation because when we wrote and signed the original development agreement we expected that at the point in time that we issued the the permit for the foundation that all of the construction financing would be in place for the all the impromptu improvements in the foundation on so we're weird that's not the situation we're in and so we have to think about what kind of a worst case scenario might not be a profitable scenario I'm not necessarily think it is probable but we have to think about what could go wrong and what if you had a scenario in which the developer was unable to get the construction financing would we still be better off the city still be better off with his foundation the foundation for this project then with potentially no foundation he was unable to complete that stage so my question for Mr. Glasberg which gets to this question of on net you know is it how is can you help us understand the factors that would that that drive a judgment that it's pretty flexible or not what are the limits of the flexibility can you help us understand that place sure so the question specifically is what might be the value of a foundation in place anticipating a worst-case scenario in which the developer is unable to proceed with the balance of the project that's the question yes sir correct so the foundation is based on a lot line to lot line development of this particular parcel the perimeter of the parcel will be developed the foundation will take up that entire perimeter and that is a condition both of zoning and the outcome that the city seeks for the entire block to be developed so it's unlikely in a scenario in which there might need to be a programmatic change to the building that the perimeter of a foundation would change from a technical perspective the point loading associated with the foundation where columns come down and those loads are carried down to footings could potentially change based on a different program of uses for example hallways and how those are laid out and those loads come down could potentially change however the uses that are assumed for this development residential office and retail are the predominant uses that can occur in this zone were there a scenario in which industrial uses could be introduced then loading could potentially be different but at this point the building is designed to maximize height and in turn maximize loading so it's not as though the design that is completed is one in which it leaves potential for development on the table it's already maximizing the amount of load that can occur on that site and all of that loading is based on the facts and circumstances as discovered by the geotechnical work what the soils bedrock can withstand how deep we have to go to carry some of those loads on those on those footings so in summary there's value to that foundation from a building perspective the risk that you're identifying is one in which perhaps development has stopped and we'd be looking for a new party to come in and try to pick up the project and proceed and realistically in that scenario there's either a lender or the current owner who are trying to recover that value and someone walking into that situation would seek a negotiating advantage and would likely in their analysis indicate diminished value for that foundation but from a physical perspective the range of potential changes to that foundation are relatively small the uses that are likely to occur there are the uses that are programmed now what could occur is there could be more office or more residential or more retail than might be expected but none of those are big drivers of loading and loading is just that an example would be if that became a storage facility you'd be increasing the loading because you'd have dead weight that's sitting in at all times the types of uses that are going to occur there are interchangeable in some respects thank you as I've tried to kind of understand this is you're on the foundation this has been very helpful I come to the conclusion that the risk associated with committing to this foundation is less than the risk of this site potentially sitting sitting idle for the next few months potentially if we were to say no to this and I think it's significant that that that we are requiring the developer to have a guaranteed maximum price contract for the foundation and all the financing behind that work so we have we know that the foundation will be completed I also think that the equity we have a very engaged equity partner that gives us I think a fair bit of confidence that that we're going to get to the end end of this of this project so I'm prepared to support this president right thank you councilor Nodell councilor Tracy would like to ask a question or make a comment councilor Tracy I have a question and a comment so my comment is my question is there's been a lot of rumors and I'm getting questions from folks in the community about the status of the contractor and I'm wondering if mr. Sinex is still working with PC construction or if that contract has been terminated we're not aware that there has been any termination of that contract and PC construction remains under contract as the construction manager at this time okay thank you very much for clarifying that I certainly appreciate that I think that'll help the public in their answer now when I talk about the when I think about this project I am sort of mixed on the the question that's in the letter because on the one hand I am certainly in favor of the city having taken greater design control over the streets and having making sure that that's built exactly to our standards so I don't have a problem with that however I do have a significant problem with adjusting the terms around the the permitting process such that we would all that we would allow mr. Sinex to construct a foundation without further without further funding already in place for the rest of the structure I think that we would be best served by having a flexible site if the project were to fall through such that we would be able to allow a potential new party to have complete ability to redesign the site and not have to potentially remove that foundation or substantially alter it to fit their needs we can't necessarily predict what a new project would do and I think that our our stake as a city would be best preserved by allowing by making sure that mr. Sinex follows that that portion of the agreement such that he would have to have funding in full funding locked down in order to proceed with the project I'm very concerned that this has happened at this point in the project I understand that hiccups do happen however this is I think that there's you know that there's significant risks moving forward and I just want to put that on the table right now and be very clear that I'm very concerned as to the weather as to the the continued viability of this project and I certainly hope that it's able to move forward given that that you know we've gotten this done even though I did oppose it I think that you know this is this project is started and so you know I don't want us to have an empty hole in the ground in the city but at the same time I also want to hold the developer to account and make sure that he has to meet the key condition of this agreement which is that he has funding in place such that we're able to counter and getting the project actually fully completed so I hope that we're able to do that but I will not be supporting the side letter however we'll be supporting the other aspects that that are in future items because as I said before I do support the city taking further control of the streets because I think that we absolutely want to have sure that the design to our standards and that we have control over that timeline given that we've seen this delay from Mr. Sinek's on this funding piece at this point so I certainly appreciate how others could reach a different conclusion and respect that conclusion but I'm just deeply concerned about the continued viability of the project given what we've heard and what we've seen regarding the inability of Mr. Sinek to secure full funding at this point given that this project has been ongoing for for several years and that the city has made many many special accommodations to Mr. Sinek's already at this point so I think that we need to hold him to account on this get full funding in place and then allow him to move forward not allowed to move forward in a piecemeal fashion that may result with a partially completed project that might not be necessarily able to be adjusted or flexible to fully flexible to future uses we have in the current situation. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tracey. Councilor Pine. Thank you. I am speaking partly in response to Councilor Tracey's remarks but I wanted to also just add one myself. The just to be clear the side letter is a package deal. I believe the way I understand it is the design work and it has the foundation piece as a package so it's not as though we can pick one and say we like it and we don't care for the other and necessarily get what we want out of that so I think it's to be clear we're voting on this side letter that's what we have in front of us. I think it's hopefully becoming clear to Councilors who've been engaged in this process for longer than I have that the chances for this project to succeed or increased by allowing it to move ahead despite the fact that that was not the original intent and that was not the original wording of the development agreement. The project's viability is improved and is increased by allowing the developer to move ahead and put 56 million the remaining portion of the 56 million dollars of equity into the property. There's no doubt that the property will have more value and is more likely to result in the outcome that we all I hope are on the same page about and so I think as the Council we need to you know provide our support to move it along in that way and I think that's where I'm at at this point. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Pine. Councillor Buscher and then Councillor Hartnett. Thank you. So I will be supporting the side letter and I think that there are relative risks and I think what we're trying to do is evaluate those risks and we've heard from an attorney giving us guidance as to the pros and cons of having a foundation in the ground in place and the ability that a foundation what a foundation can and can't do as far as a flexibility of a building that's put on top of it. I am satisfied with the fact that there can be some flexibility if indeed it is not the building that we believe is going to be built and so I do feel like I think it is in the city's better best interest or better interest to have something in that spot as opposed to just leave it vacant for a prolonged period of time. I think that you know we heard statements around delays that have put the developer in the situation and that that he is confident that he will have full funding. So I feel that this side agreement is something that I believe protects the city and brings us to the next step in the process and I want to be really clear as most everyone knows but maybe the interim CEO, the CEDO director doesn't know is that you know I didn't support the project to begin with. It's not my favorite project in the world but I it is the project that the city supports and I want to move us forward so that we have retail and office space and and living accommodations for people downtown and so this step seems to be the right next step so thank you. Thank you Councillor Bushard. Councillor Hartnett. Thank you President Wright. I'm one that glad that is a package deal with the streets and the foundation because I'm voting no you know on this and probably because I've kind of lost confidence in our streets here in Burlington as well so I'm not confident that we are in the best position to have great streets from what I've seen over the last couple years and I think where we're headed so I'm not convinced we're on the right course there as well but as far as this project is concerned I'll start by saying I'm really been disappointed in Mr. Sinek's his lack of communication with the council forthcoming his timing I think has really been subpar not to the Burlington standard and I've been really disappointed in that and I hope going forward that he can work on a partnership that I think that we entered into Mr. Sinek's here in the city I feel I certainly have entered in a partnership with him because I support this project I still have you know I believe in this project and I want to succeed but I think Mr. Sinek's has to realize is that he's in a partnership with us in this city and the city of Burlington as a whole and that's contractors and that's whoever he does business with and there's a way that we do things in Burlington and quite honestly I don't think he's he's really done it the right way so far and so I hope we see a difference in his approach as far as that as far as that is concerned but I I want to see total financing in place I don't want to be in a position I do have a question for the attorney I don't want to be in a position where if something happens and a different developer comes in and he and he looks at the foundation and he's like this isn't going to work for me and and so I think you said at that point they would enter into negotiations to figure out you know I guess who would be responsible for either removing the foundation or changing I mean are we on the hook as a city for this foundation once it goes in as far as you're shaking your head that we're not no so if a if a new developer came in and said this foundation doesn't work for me and it has to be removed that would be part of that developers cost of that developers project okay and solely their cost we wouldn't have anything okay all right well that does make me feel a little bit better but still I don't want to be in that position and so I don't support this and quite honestly I've been I'm disappointed that isn't it's in front of us here tonight as well I didn't expect this I didn't see it coming I knew about it probably a week ago when we were updated by the administration but I'm in a position tonight where I just feel like I'm gonna be cautious here I'm gonna be patient and I want to kind of see this unfold and so we're talking about a lot of money and millions and millions of dollars that we're investing in our downtown and is seven months really gonna make a big difference I don't think it will so I'm I'm I'm wanting to to wait it out and and to see where the financing goes so I'll be voting no on this thank you thank you thank you counsel Hartnett mr. Glassberg if I may just offer a point of clarification going all the way back to counselor Tracy my understanding of this side letter is it does not address the requirement that the developer demonstrate financial capacity in fact that was satisfied as a condition precedent prior to the issuance of the demolition permit so the developer has satisfied the requirements of the development agreement with respect to documenting financial capacity what the side letter is addressing is an extension of the period of time during which the developer has to achieve a guaranteed maximum price contract for construction of the entire project those are two distinct issues so I don't see in this side letter unless I'm missing something anything which addresses demonstrating financial capacity to undertake the project that has been satisfied previously thank you mr. Glassberg mr. Mayor and then counselor Mason thank you president right I just wanted to share a few thoughts my thoughts on where we are and clarify because I think it can be confusing in the conversations I've had with members the media today and others exactly what is being contemplated here and I want to start by going back to what we tried to accomplish with the development agreement when we negotiated it and together set down this path about a year ago nine months ago we were very aware we were taking on a sizable project project that was in some sense a public-private collaboration and we sought to protect the city in that effort in every way that we could and as a result and because we were entering into an agreement in which the city was taking certain steps and there were you know elements of this being again a collaboration we asked for and received from the developer agreements that amount to very high standards that this project is being held to that go well beyond what a typical project a typical construction project in Burlington or really most any city would be expected to meet and I think you see those that high standard being and that trying to that attempt to protect the city really succeeding here in the conversation that we're having tonight first of all typically once a construction project secures a zoning permit and then a building permit they go in and pick up the permit and it really isn't any concern of the cities what the situation the status was of is of their financing and their ability to complete it the kind of protect the construct contracting that they have in place none of that is is something that the city normally involves itself with in this case because again because the city is pursuing certain elements is making certain investments and because we are aware of the sizable impact of this project on the downtown we were very careful and required the developer to meet these additional conditions of ensuring that they had all these elements in place at this point in the project when they are seek when he is seeking to go forward with the foundation contract the foundation construction and if he didn't have it it required him to come and get special approvals from us and and have a conversation with us and bring us in into that project and that's what's been happening here it's what's allowed the conversation to happen tonight to really explore whether there's anything problematic about moving forward as is being suggested to analyze that and to review the situation tonight this is not a this is not a opportunity we would normally have the development agreement the way we negotiated it gives us that opportunity and and we're using it and we are essentially adding an additional condition here we are saying because of the analysis provided by Mr. Glasberg and and Mr. Farkas we are comfortable moving forward with this foundation permit which will is in the city's interest to get built it will add value will literally be millions tens of millions of dollars new dollars invested in this community when it's built that will be of value that there is really no downside that we've been able to identify to being built but it doesn't let the development off the hook it says to go beyond that point all of the additional conditions for building the full project remain in place and he's going to have to come back to us again and secure that additional additional permit that would not normally be required before going beyond the foundation stage another element of the city's ability to really protect itself here they just want to make sure is clear to everyone is what is being contemplated here what what I support and I'm hopeful the council is going to support is allowing the developer to go forward with the investment of tens of millions of dollars of additional capital of theirs in this foundation the basic financial agreement of this development agreement is the city is responsible for some costs we are responsible for the public improvements the streets the sidewalks the trees the stormwater provisions but we do not pay for them until the end of the project until they're completed and they're built to our standards and in fact until the private improvements are there and complete to a level that they're generating new property taxes that allow us to be able to pay for those provisions and that remains in effect here that is not being changed in any way by by this agreement so just this is this is for these reasons and more I am I am strongly supportive of moving moving forward and I'm hopeful the council is as well and this continues to be a project that I think ultimately we will all be very glad to have seen built for the benefits it creates for this community thank you president right thank you mr. mayor any other councilor with that thank you very much I think we're ready for a vote and I mean my only comment without talking about how I'm going to vote is to say that the mall has been demolished it's gone and the success of the city going forward and being is I think the vitality of their downtown is critical that this project does move forward with that I would ask the clerk's office to call the roll councilor Bush or yes councilor Hartnett no councilor no doubt yes answer Mason yes answer Paul yes councilor Pine yes councilor roof yes councilor Shannon yes councilor Tracy councilor Tracy no thank you city council president right yes eight eyes two nays one absent one refusal the side letter passes by the vote just by the city that was just suggested by the city clerk's office with two no votes okay we move ahead now to item six point oh five no six point oh five that is resolution authorizing Bank Street and Cherry Street design consultant contract amendment councilor roof thank you president right I'll move I'll move to approve the creation of a design budget for FY 19 of $1 million for the Great Streets Bank and Cherry Streets project and approve an overall design budget of $1,454,824 motion has been made by councilor roof seconded by councilor no doubt council roof would you like to floor back no thank you okay do we need anything further on this all right I guess we're ready to vote I think we still may need well councillor is councillor Tracy still on the phone okay so we need he still wants to okay so we still need a roll call vote then so sorry we need a roll call vote with the clerk please call the roll call councilor Bush or yes councilor Hartnett no councilor no doubt councilor Mason yes councilor Paul yes councilor Pine yes councilor roof yes councilor Shannon yes councilor Tracy council roof we need to hold the phone to the to the microphone please we got it yes by councillor Tracy City Council continue right yes nine eyes one absent one recusal nine that passes nine to one the final one so nine eyes one day point of order point of order councillor roof what is your point of order I believe there's an additional motion that needs to be made on this item and I'm going to ask City Attorney Blackwood to give that reason okay attorney Blackwood yes the board and the board of finance adopted a second motion to go along with this with which had to do with authorizing director Spencer to execute a contract amendment and this was in the memo it appears it did not get on board docs unfortunately but it was adopted by the board of finance earlier tonight it was in the amendments read by councillor Nodell it was it wasn't when he just read the motion now right but it was in our actual amendments that was that was read into the record by councillor Nodell earlier yes and I believe council roof just made a kind of shortened version but his intent as I understood it was the full language as adopted in our agenda amendment I read the recommend councillor I read the what was on the recommended action but yes the assumption was to include what the consent agenda or the agenda was said at the beginning of the meeting so your call I think that's fine as long as you've clarified the record to that extent so you're not suggesting we need another vote you're saying as long as as long as both the movement and the seconder understand that was the motion they were making everyone understand maker seconder everybody on the council understand that so okay so we're good all right so the last one item 6.06 council roof for a move move them or as move it and explain it move it and I will move correctly this time that we accept the excuse me that we wave the reading and accept and adopt the resolution seconded by councillor Nodell who would like to respond this one I'm not asking for the floor back Mr. Mayor the way you've just approved and we've been talking about is with regards to this change to have separate from the the second issue the issue of the city taking over design responsibilities because the city wants those design responsibilities and thinks this will allow us to avoid mistakes and get a better get a better product the we are contracting we're expanding the contract this design contracts the city has this inner fund loan for sixty six thousand dollars would be part of how that additional contracting is paid for on an interim basis and there was again there's hours late there was extensive discussion about this and the inner fund how we do these inner fund loans at the board of finance tonight and this was unanimously recommended by the board of finance thank you mr. mayor any discussion by the city council councillor Nodell just a point of clarification so we were going to be paying for this at the end if this the design work had been done by the developer we were still going to be paying but at the end that's great this is unlike the construction costs in the design costs which again we are doing not because of any of mr. Sinex's reasons but because the city prefers this this route the essentially what this does what the change you just voted on does really is accelerate the takes the city takes on this responsibility and more of this responsibility we already were doing some of the design this has us take on more of the design and because we are taking on more of the design we will pay for that design over the next six to nine months as opposed to a couple years from now when we would have previously and that that is essentially the change here it's a modest acceleration of some yes design costs and if I may so there are I think some modest interest costs that we will be taken on that we wouldn't have taken on but in my judgment they're overriding benefits but I think we just need to be clear that we will be borrowing up for a short term period of time and repaying out kind of closing out that debt when we issue the tiff debt there costs that we don't reimburse for until the end of the project we are responsible for some financing on that as well so I don't see that as a substantial additional cost here although you're right this 66,000 will there is some costs associated with it yeah thank you thank you councillor no doubt councillor Hartnett thank I just want to point out when I think about this whole project and how we sold it to the public and how we talked about these great streets and the best part about it was we're not going to pay for until after the project's over and you know that's that was the selling point of this and I just see us you know being so inconsistent here tonight really on this project and it really strikes a core with me right that we we use it when we have to sell it to something but then when we want wanted our way we we can justify it by saying well we're gonna control it now so you know we're gonna have to pay for it or we're gonna have to we get can we get control now we get to the design way we want and I just I just think it sends the wrong message right to the voters I think it's inconsistent and I think it's unfortunate that we're here doing this tonight thank you councillor Hartnett any other city councillor councillor Shannon thank you I just want to say that this is an extraordinarily large project the largest probably ever taken on in the state of Vermont and I think that while we are making some adjustments we did the best that we could with all of the things that we knew at the time that we entered into the development agreement and each step along the way as we go through the construction process we're going to learn more and we're probably going to make adjustments all along the way so while I will support this one I also am not supporting it expecting it will be the last thing to come to this city council and I think it's prudent for us to make modifications when we have more information and we will be continually getting more information so thank you thank you councillor Shannon any other councillor before we go to the vote hearing none the clerk shall call the roll please Councillor Bushore yes councillor Hartnett no councillor No-Dow yes councillor Mason yes councillor Paul yes councillor Pine yes councillor Roof yes councillor Shannon yes councillor Tracy yes city council president right yes nine eyes one day one absent one item passes my vote of nine to one that concludes our work except for item number 11 which is an executive session and before we take the motions going to executive session I want to take presidential prerogative to say one quick thing our next meeting is September 11th this is a special meeting called by the mayor to deal with items that may will be voted on potentially to go on the ballot we know that there will be two I don't know if there's any others but I will not be entertaining other things going on that meeting that is going to be primarily for dealing with potential ballot items for November with that committee can no those are all eliminated they were they were all eliminated councillor No-Dell's motion didn't eliminate those sorry the we need a motion from who wants to make the motion to councillor No-Dell I would move that premature disclosure of contract negotiations would put the city at risk okay findings have been moved by councillor No-Dell seconded by councillor Bush here any discussion hearing none all those in favor of police a I any opposed and now with the findings have been acted on councillor No-Dell president based on that finding a move we go into executive session to include members of the mayor staff and members of the city attorney's office and the CAO okay most have been made to go to executive session councillor No-Dell seconded by councillor Bush here discussion hearing none all those in favor of moving into executive session please say aye any post we are moving into executive session but to make clear we are expecting you to come out and take action and we will be coming out to take action when we come out thank you so channel 17 will take a break and come back to cover our action when we come out which we hopefully will not be too long so channel 17 all right and we are back from executive session and we are looking to a motion from councillor Bush here so I'm going to do one at a time the first is a resolution it's the ratification of tentative agreement and authorization to execute collective bargaining agreement between the city of Burlington and AFSCME this is July 1st 2018 through June 30th 2022 so I'm going to move to waive the reading and adopt that resolution okay moved by councillor Bush here seconded by councillor Roof any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed and we have passed that unanimously and the second okay second one councillor Bush here resolution ratification of tentative agreement and authorization to execute collective bargaining agreement between the city of Burlington and IBEW once again dates July 1st 2018 through June 30th 2022 and I so move to waive the reading and adopt the resolution moved by councillor Bush or seconded by councillor Dean although any discussion all those in favor hearing no discussion all those in favor please say aye any opposed passes unanimously and motion to adjourn moved by councillor Nodell second by councillor Roof all those in favor we are adjourned