Oh, wow, these got moved. Sorry, that's just noticing that. That's fantastic. Welcome, so we're going to call the meeting to order. So the first thing is to review and approve the agenda. So I am sure there's probably some folks here who are interested in the parking garage discussion. And the short version, so it was an addendum to our agenda as warned. But we're going to hold off on the substantive part of that discussion. But instead, I'd love to add a brief discussion about a process and a potential committee to talk about the facade, some cosmetic issues. If we could do that right after the consent agenda. That sound OK? Great. Any other changes to the agenda? We will have an executive session after this. Great. OK, so without objection, we're going to consider the agenda approved. So general business and appearances. So this is a time for anyone from the public to come and make comments or statements about anything not otherwise on our agenda. And if you do come to make comments, this is going to be true for any comments this entire meeting, as is our tradition, is that we're going to ask you to hold your comments to two minutes. And Donna will be there. Even when she flips to, so yeah, oranges, one minute left. Red is stop. And I usually give people a little bit of grace with this stop, but I will interrupt you if you just really keep going. So great. Steve, do you have something you'd like to say? Is that two minutes per topic, or two minutes? On your case, one minute. So briefly, an update on the communications union district of which Montpelier is a member. We met last night, and they finally voted elective treasure, et cetera. They finally voted to use the name CV-Fiber, which is consistent with EC-Fiber, our sister communication union district. They are working still on policy issues, and they formed a finance committee, et cetera. But what I want to specifically ask you all to consider is how Montpelier is going to be last in line the way that district is moving, because Comcast is here already and serves all of our streets. But Comcast is not. Symmetric service will not be symmetric service to meet the state statute. So I think Montpelier will have to be more engaged and more forceful if we are going to build fiber infrastructure here for Montpelier, which in effect will be the economic aggregation which supports the rural areas of the district. They aspire to build the rural areas, but you can't do that without the customers in the concentrated areas. So I'm welcoming you and inviting a discussion on an agenda in the future to get into real nitty-gritty detail of how that would work and what would be required by whom. But don't count on this layboard of volunteers with no technical expertise with few exceptions to get that. You know, one of the things that might make some sense is if a member of council, I mean, I volunteer myself potentially and either you or Dan Jones or both to just have a meeting ourselves to figure out what maybe some potential steps are and then come back to council with some recommendations. Does that sound good? Yeah, sure. Okay, so you have my email address? I don't, but. It's on the city website. Let's get in touch and we can, unless some other, I know I'm volunteering myself for this, but if anybody else- Now that you mentioned it, I can barely use the city's website because the search box won't let go and can't be deleted and it moves around and things are so slow. Well, we can talk about that too. And every looking for agendas you end up at the videos page and it's not well, anyway, it needs work. Talk about that off the record. Secondly, I heard from other folks while I was doing reconnaissance around the parking garage issue, folks are confused on the issue of allowing non-citizen residents to vote on issues. People are thinking that interpreting that to mean people in Barrie will get to vote on city issues. And I explained it, no, it's for people who live here who are not citizens, but who are affected by the city's services. But I think you all need to get that message out much more clearly if you want to informed support or informed decision-making on that. Fair enough, I mean this is by petition. So we'll pass that feedback on to the folks who are organizing that. And it's because it's not on the parking garage issue that is before you, I'm gonna ask all of y'all to take administrative notice to the plans that were done in 2016 by some unnamed private developer for the pit and hotel at that location because that is much more worthy of our consideration and our future vision for our city than the one that shall go unnamed. Thank you. Thank you. All right, anyone else? Okay, moving on. So on to the consent agenda. Do we have a motion or maybe like to pull anything? Yes, Jack. I moved the consent agenda. I sent the clerk an email last night with a couple of other typos from the minutes. He's looking kind of confused. Well, whatever they were, I would suggest approving him with those corrections. I don't see them. I'll find them though. Is that your motion? Yes. Second. Create any further discussion? Are you all in favor of please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. All right, so we have a number of appointments to make.  And so as we generally do, if there's anyone... Oh, I'm sorry. We were gonna do the parking garage thing. I just forgot immediately. We're not gonna do that yet. Okay, so I feel like I should turn this over to Bill. Yeah. We had laid out a process where we're gonna try to select the structure tonight and then look at design issues coming up next week in order to have a full decision ready to go for after that. We've been getting information from our architect. He's feeling like we're not... That there's a couple of things he'd like to research more before we can make a real recommendation. I mean, obviously, what it really boils down to is a four story ramped structure or a five story structure with some flat. Parking, the idea of adding, making it so that it can be converted to another use in the future is gonna add significant cost. The idea of planning for a roof is gonna add significant cost. So I think those are all the issues we'd need to work through. But those are essentially the two structural costs. The original plan had been to create a committee to then meet with the architect next week in a public session to talk through facade issues. One option, and he is amenable to this, is that either the whole council meets with them and with nothing else on the agenda and discuss the structure in the facade or continue to have a committee that does that. Obviously, it's open to the public. Anyone else can attend and then have that recommendation go forward the following week. But so I think that's really up to you how you wanna proceed with that. I happen to answer any questions. They do have some good information. He's dealing with a third party, the parking garage consultant who's also providing information. So my sense is that we should see if there are folks who are interested in serving on a committee that would deal with either just facade or the structure. And then if there's more than three folks, then we can schedule a meeting. Does that make sense? All right, so would anybody be interested in serving on such a committee? One, two, three, four. I'm interested, but I have limited time next week, so it may be that others should just do it. Okay, I would also be interested. So are you two amenable to like if we had a, we just called a special council meeting just to talk about this. And again, it would be open to the public, welcoming input. I am open to that, but I also wanna clear that I think public input is critical to this decision and I don't want it to be a decision where three council people meet and sort of talk about it. And then I want there to be a public input piece because I think, I mean, y'all know how I feel about this, but the fact that I'm willing to like be at the table, I mean, I think is important. And I think that getting other people involved in the process is critical. And that's the only way that I'm willing to participate is if there is a meaningful opportunity for public input about this. Cool. Yeah, I'd say that was exactly what we're hoping to accomplish by having the meeting in a public setting where people could comment. And the council ultimately has to make a decision but they need to get the input from people rather than having a committee meeting in a private room or something like that. So we have it with open comment. I guess it just strikes me then that it should be a council meeting in this format rather than something where only part of the council meets because I just, that's fine. I actually prefer that. Yep, that sounds great. So one possibility is that we could try to find like coordinator schedules now, another possibility is that we could just save that till the end and then we can publish it. But I don't wanna be, I'm not trying to like do it. We do a doodle poll and we all respond like tonight and or take like two minutes during a break. I don't know, I just, I think that's really important for the public to know when that meeting is gonna be so they can reach out to us. Let's start with next Wednesday. Just yeah, see if we can. 19. See if we can do it. You can call in. No. Sorry, that was a. No for Connor. Oh, Connor can't do it. Call in for Rosie. If you have opinions we could, you know, just let us know. That's what, that was a thumbs up. You're gonna call in unless we wanted to aim for, I mean, we have a meeting on 26 anyway. Ashley's not working. So the issue would, I think the issue is timing would be to try to get, if possible, we're supposed to permit stuff filed by the 21st. So some, some basic decisions would be helpful next week. Yeah. Well, let's shoot for the, let's shoot for the, the 19th. 630. Yeah, done. Special meeting. Special meeting. 630. Reparking garage only. Great. Okay. Thank you. Gotta get back to where I was. Okay. All right. So we're moving on from that. We said 630. 630. Yep. Okay. So we are up to Complete Streets appointments. And I think there's some folks here, at least one person here, I think, from who's looking to be on this committee. So if you are one of the candidates up for this appointment, if you wouldn't mind coming up and introducing yourself and tell us a little bit about why you want to be on this committee. I'm Harris Webster. The Complete Streets Committee probably has a name, that's not always fully understood, but it was made up originally of pedestrian committee, bicycle committee, and someone's believing Complete Streets would make that name. I'm really pleased. I hope we have some more appointees because one of those troubles with this committee was that we had two few members in terms of doing all the work we wanted to do, in terms of my qualifications. I've been working on sidewalks for a long time, and blocks, just do scrambles and various things to encourage walking. And I'd like to continue working, but I'd like to help. So this is, oh, anyone else? Okay. So this is a committee for which we advertised six seats and there were four applicants. So one hypothesis is that we don't need to go into executive session. I would move that we appoint the three people who applied, Gary, the four people. Sorry, I might be on the wrong one. Don't wanna say the wrong names, it's on the right one. I would move that we appoint Gary Holloway, John... I'm still getting used to the new application. John Snell, Teresa Thomas, and Harris Webster to the Complete Streets Committee. A second? I wanna be clear about one thing. There were some, the terms, which terms? There is a vacant two-year term. There are two... There's two one-year terms open and one two-year term open. Why don't we do them all of the two years and leave the one-years vacant? Fine. That's okay. That's okay. Any further discussion? Okay, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Great. Thank you, congratulations. All right, the Historic Preservation Commission. All right, so if there's anyone here who is up for that one, if you wouldn't mind coming up and introducing yourself. Work at the Lamont Division for Historic Preservation. I've been on the committee for 10 years, the commission for 10 years, and we're being to get to the finish line a couple of projects that have been a long time coming in particular, working on the design review process as part of the zoning range. So there's a lot of other good things that we've been doing and so just asking for a re-appointment. Thanks. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. And Eric. I'm Eric Gilbertson. I've lived in Montpelier for 43 years. I've been a Historic Preservation Professional for 45 years. And my main objective in being on the commission is to complete the rules and guidelines, the new rules and guidelines for the design review committee. Thank you. Any questions? I will again make a motion. Oh, hang on. Yeah. There's an amendment. Somebody else wants to talk. Yeah. See you. I'm Bob McCullough and I have worked in the Field of Historic Preservation for about 40 years. Former member and chair of the design review committee. I have been away from city activities for more than a decade and I think it's time to return. Great. Thank you. Any questions? Nope. All right. And I think there's at least one other person who applied. So are the other persons here? Okay. Donna. I just wanted to clarify. I spoke with Jamie shortly before the meeting started and there's actually four vacancy. One person resigned after the advertising. So even though we only advertise for three, we have four seats. So we could appoint all four of the individuals that applied. Fantastic. That was what I was going to move. Fantastic.  So I would move that we appoint Jamie Duggan, that we appoint Judith Erlich, that we appoint Eric Gilbertson, and that we appoint Bob McCullough to the four vacant two-year terms on the Historic Preservation Commission. Second. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? So all two-year terms. So, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Thank you. Thank you so much for your service. I'll point out. Yeah. I'm no relation to Mr. McCullough. Thank you. Disqualify. Yeah. Okay. The community fund board. And I know there were two people who were up for appointment that sent us messages that they couldn't be here. And there's a third person. I'm not sure if that third person is here. Okay. So since none of the three are here and there are three people for two seats, I would recommend that we go into the executive session for this one. So, I have a motion to that effect. Do you want to go first? Oh, what's the next one? Social. I think that's a, I think there are enough seats. I believe the committee voted to have up to nine members. I think there's still more applicants. Yeah. There was, there were five applicants for four seats. So, okay. The same executive session. Oh. Yeah, fair enough. We could do those both at the same time. So, for the Social and Economic Justice Advisory Committee, there were five applicants for four seats. So, any of those folks here? Yeah, coming up. Dr. Modagno, I'm a six-year resident of Montpelier. I have a daughter and wife, and we have just a group. And I'm the president and founder of a small and profitable group, EcoMedia, an advocate for environmental and social justice and film, so I'm looking for a way to get more involved with the council. Great. Thank you.  Not sure that I'm qualified, but I do have a, I have other very limited incomes, so I'm going to have a grasp of the needs and challenges of people, such as myself. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for either of these folks? Okay. Anyone else? Okay. So I think we could probably go into Executive Session to talk about both of these appointments. So do we have such a motion? I move that we go into Executive Session for purpose of considering appointments to board, and I meant to get out the site. Community fund board and the social academic. But I meant to get out this particular statutory section. I don't have it out in front of me. Can we get that added to our cover memos for these? I feel like we struggle with it every time. Sure, if you just say under statute. Pursuant to Vermont. Pursuant to statute. Yeah. It's somewhere in Title I, though. There you go. I'll second that. Okay. You were done with your motion. Okay. So we got a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. We will be right back. Okay, do we have a motion to come out of Executive Session? Second. One favor? Aye. Aye. Great. So we have a couple of motions to make here. Sorry, am I going too fast? No, no. I'm a little slow. I move that we appoint Christine Zakai and Judith Sturmer to the Community Fund Board for terms of two years through. Three years. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. And we just want to note that the third candidate, Renee Bordeaux, had also expressed interest in the Investment Committee. And we're hoping to make some appointments to that committee pretty soon. So I just want to make a note of that. And for the Social and Economic Justice Advisory Committee. Yes. So I would move that we appoint Lalitha Malaga-Wannam. Mark Hughes, Rebecca Tomizewski, and Neville Burl to the Social and Economic Justice Committee. Second. Further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, and we want to thank you too, Victor, for your application. I hope that you actually do attend some of these meetings. We want to welcome anybody from the public to go to those meetings. And yeah, we welcome all that input. So thank you so much. And OK, we're going to move on. Great. OK, so the begging ordinance repeal first public hearing. So the first thing I'm going to do here is open the public hearing. Public hearing. So I guess what I would love to do is actually, I'm curious, could I just see a show of hands? Anybody here from the public to speak on this? Or are interested in speaking on this? OK, great. Since there's not a lot of people here to speak on it, I might invite some public comment first, and then we can opine if we want to.  Do you want to do want to talk about it? Sure, I think this is when we've had a lot of coverage in this, in the press, and in other media. But essentially, the city's had an ordinance in its book since 1971, I think. And we have not enforced it for a long period of time. My panel, along with several other communities, received a request from the ACLU to undo this, since it's essentially unenforceable based on court decisions. Our analysis is that we agree with their summation. I know Brad will just remove theirs this week, I think, as well. So as on the agenda, first we did two readings to repeal this section of the ordinance. Great. So we'll start with comments from the public, yeah. Bethany Pombard, District 2. I just wanted to say I support the repeal as we hear, just to hear what the community might say, and I'm glad that the city council is leaning towards repeal. Thank you. Anyone else? Steve, did you want to say anything about this? No? Oh, y'all are on the right track. OK, anybody want to make a comment about where they're at with this? I mean, we don't have to. We can keep the crews right through. But yeah, go ahead. So these laws have been unconstitutional for a number of years at this point. So it's unenforceable anyway. So I just want to make sure that everybody understands that. I would like to point out, though, that this is a bigger conversation that we need to have with Montpelier. I follow Front Porch Forum religiously. While not an active poster, I'm an active reader, and I was really disheartened to see some of the patently offensive commentary from community members about folks that were panhandling in downtown Montpelier.  I think that's offensive as well. So I am making a conscious effort to not use that. I'm just using the framework that was presented. But I think that this is a bigger conversation that the city of Montpelier needs to have. And it's not just about the unconstitutionality of these ordinances. It's about actually putting our money where our mouth is and being the community that we want to be. And us repealing an ordinance is great, and that's fine, but that's not actually going to change attitudes and perceptions about poverty and poverty-related issues. And I just want to be clear to the council and to everyone here that repealing this is a no-brainer. It's unconstitutional anyway, but that if our work steps here, we aren't doing our job. Thank you. Further comments? Jack, go ahead. As soon as we got the email from the city manager saying, we've got this communication, my immediate reaction is, well, we ought to put this on the agenda. We ought to repeal this. And it's not because of the threat of being sued. It's because it's just wrong. People are very clear that it's a social ill that there are people in our community who are homeless or who don't have enough to live, but you don't fix that problem by passing a law against it. You know, we don't want people's houses to burn down, but we haven't responded to that by passing a law against having your house burned down. We want to be sure that we have the social supports in place so that people don't need to be out on the street. And I'm happy that we're moving forward with repealing the ordinance. Great, anyone else? Go ahead, Connor. Any way to suspend the rules and just put this to bed? I think it's unconstitutional anyway, so we can't even enforce it. So I don't even know procedurally if having a second hearing is required if it's unenforceable. Yeah, yes, don't worry. Just like several things that Rosie's brought to our attention, it's in our ordinance, so we need to officially take them out. So let's take them out and do what we need to do officially. I see virtually no support for it if we're able to do it tonight. Well, I think the process requires two meetings. Yeah, so. Isn't it repealed by implication, though? Yeah, it is, but you still need to, if you want to take it off the books, you should just take the steps and do it. Yep, I just want to observe, unless you had something done. No, I just was worrying about the date for the second hearing. If we need a motion, would we just do it at our next meeting? Yeah, I mean, the next. Oh, you could do it at the special meeting. We just do it at the special meeting. When we close this, the public hearing will set a date. So I would just observe that since this has come up, I've had a number of really good conversations with some people in the community about homelessness and begging in the community and I'm really grateful for those conversations. I think that that's really helpful to be able to have a framework for those conversations. So, yes, Steve, and then we'll move on. I'll be brief. I've been on both sides of this issue. I've been a benefactor of folks and I've had to ask for food and shelter before. Lived in the back of an unneeded garage on Elm Street for a while. I would encourage you, since you are acquired in order to repeal the thing to have two hearings is what I'm understanding that we don't just repeal it and kick the can down the road for our initiatives of what we're gonna do. There's support that could and should be designed for the people who are chronically under resourced. And it's not sufficient to just say, you know, state social services will take care of it. We could use this as an opportunity to design some of that outreach and figure out who in the community is gonna make these people aware of where they can wash up or where they can get to a telephone or where they can ask for some job training or whatever it is. That by basically repealing it and saying, yeah, we need to someday do something, we're missing the nexus, the motivation. So possibly before you have your second hearing, you could use it as an impetus to get something else in place. Jack. I like what Steve had to say. This seems like something that would be within the ambit of the social and economic justice advisory committee. We've got the committee fully staffed up to nine members plus council representation. I think rather than wait any longer than we absolutely have to repeal this ordinance, ask them to look at it. I'm sure they'll be here to do that. I put it on the list. Great, thank you. Okay, so we don't need to... If you vote to pass first reading, close the hearing. Close the hearing and then... Okay. Pass first reading and set the date for second hearing. All right, so I guess we're gonna do that. So I'm gonna, assuming no one else has any comments. All right, so I'm gonna close the public hearing and so we need to vote to pass first reading and set the second date for the next meeting. Yeah, next week at the special meeting. Just looking at the agenda for the 26th, I would say yes. Yeah, I don't think it's gonna be a long discussion, either date, so. So I think we need a motion to that effect, right? I move that we pass on second reading and pass first reading. Have it read the second time at our special meeting next week. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great, thank you. Awesome. Okay, so what do we have? Okay, so what are we finding? Welcome, Dan. Should I move? I should probably move. Are you gonna join me up here? Yes. Okay. So, it's Cory. Is everybody behind you? No, actually, hi Cory. That's a zero, right? Sir, do you mind? Okay. I can figure out how to get you to turn up.  Thank you for your patience. He was working before. Yeah. Thanks. I can't get my laptop. Can you? Do you want to go zip over again? Yeah. There's someone. Can you take like a three-minute recess? Because this isn't working. Someone. And council person. Mayor Watson. Can you take like a three-minute recess? So I can grab my laptop. This isn't working. Oh, yeah, sure. I'm just to say from here, we're gonna take a three-minute recess. John. John. John. John. John. I'm Dan Grubberg. I'm the executive director of Montpelier alive. And we are here today to present, essentially in final form, the bones of the wayfinding master plan. The plan was approved this morning by the State TSC committee. And what we are asking for from council is your approval to move forward with the plan, so that we can go out to bid and to fundraise any additional funds that we need to make the project happen. There is specific messaging and things that are referred to in this plan that can still change after this point and may still change after this point. But we're looking for your approval of the overall plan. Also, a few more things. One is that John made some changes to this PowerPoint this afternoon, but we were not able to get them up here. It wasn't working correctly. So there's a couple of changes we made such as Kara and Covert Library being spelled wrong, that you will see in here that we'll be correct before there is a sign in the ground. The timeline. Our hope and intention and goal, obviously anything can change, is that we will apply for the Downtown Transportation Fund grant in early spring of next year. And if that is successful, we will be able to have Wayfinding up by the end of next year. It's our hope that we do not need to ask council for additional funds, but I cannot make any promises, but I can tell you that we're not asking for any funds tonight. We're hoping to use some funding that's already set aside in the CIP for Downtown projects and some other funding we have available in addition to the grant that we hope we get. And our understanding from the state is that we will be strong candidates for that grant in the spring. So without further ado, I'm going to turn it over to John Sealy from Surface Matter Design who has been our consultant working with us on this plan. Thank you, Tim. Hello. I'm John Sealy. Our firm is located in Providence, Rhode Island, Surface Matter Design. We specialize in Wayfinding and informational graphic systems for municipalities, for developments, cultural institutions, and it's a very broad range of clients that we work with. We've been involved with Montpelier Alive and the Wayfinding Design Committee from Montpelier Alive for two years now, starting just about two years ago. We came up here for the first time and did a tour through Montpelier. We've gone through a fairly exhaustive audit of all of the existing signs in Montpelier as well as understanding the circulation both in the pedestrians and vehicles, understanding the entry points into and around Montpelier, identifying the moments of arrival, and starting to put together a recommendation of sign elements and Wayfinding devices to help welcome visitors to Montpelier and also reinforce all the wonderful destinations and things to do here in Montpelier. So what we're going to be showing you tonight is a cohesive master plan that shows all the kit-aparts that goes into this system, how they perform, how they look, how they're designed. As Dan just mentioned, we have started preliminarily looking at messaging and some of that is still going to morph and finalize itself over the next year as we get into production. I would say this is a design development exercise and we would love to hear your comments and we'll go into what the objectives are here. I think we can all understand that visitors do have certain frustrations here in terms of arriving, knowing when they're here in Montpelier, finding parking, getting oriented, and so this system is really meant to make them feel comfortable and make the community feel holistic in terms of a sense of place. So a cohesive design signage system kind of brings that all together and that's been proven in a lot of communities. We need to establish Montpelier as a landmark destination. So the idea of really promoting its cultural institutions, it being obviously the state capital, there's so much here for tourism as well as visitors and residents alike. And the sign system will help kind of promote that. Awareness in the community reinforces a sense of place. We'll do that through design and I'm going to show you how we attempt to kind of create this sense of Montpelier in the community through the design. And then this idea of scaling it in the future for future expansion into other neighborhoods potentially or with the new transportation center that's going to be developed, other destinations that pop up. How do we include those new destinations into the system and let the system grow over time? So this is the essential kind of bones that Dan was mentioning. It's really just a hit of hearts that starts with identifying the major arrival point at Montpelier with a landmark and then giving really solid and reinforcing wayfinding throughout, both for vehicles and pedestrians. So getting people to parking, getting them to the right area in Montpelier after arrival and then on foot how do we orient them and get them to their destinations or just to explore. And we do that through some parking identification signs and direction signs as well as an information kiosk. So these are really just diagrams that just show the bare kind of elements of the system. Excuse me. This slide is the only place I saw the big kiosk that at one point was like a granite. This is just an example of the types of signs and you'll see the design of the kiosk later in the presentation. But that wasn't changed, that still remains. Yes, correct. You both got there. So consider these diagrams and everything after this design proposal. The hierarchy in terms of how we name destinations on the signs are very important. There's Vermont statute that requires all messaging only to include nonprofit organizations and cultural destinations. So that leaves off businesses. But we include the businesses with the kiosk and ways of listing businesses in the pedestrian system. So we have this broken down into districts, public spaces and government, nonprofit institutions and culture and shops and restaurants, which we're not naming by name but by graphic symbol. Another part of this in terms of creating a sense of place is relating to the strong work that's been done by Montpelier Alive in the branding of Montpelier from a visitor perspective. How the logo kind of extends itself into a pattern and the typography and how it's used visually. We want to pick up on and make it part of that system. So we do this through taking that icon of the capital as well as the pattern language that comes out of that branding exercise. And we use that as the back of the signs for the vehicle signs as you see right in front and then also in the kiosk and the pedestrian signs. So this is a sort of a visual family of signage that starts with the vehicle directional signs front and back, the parking directional signs to get you into parking. Then we have from a pedestrian standpoint, we have the kiosk, a map, and so those are the, that's the kit apart from a design standpoint. I think this is what you're talking about, Donna. The freestanding landmark element we're proposing at the intersection of Maine and Route 2 Memorial is really one of the gateways into downtown. And this actually is also an opportunity where we have city property that we can utilize to put this monolithic element. The restriction that we have is that we're limited to 65 square feet per side of this sign. So we have looked at larger elements before, but we are limited by the state statute that freestanding signage within downtown be limited to this, which is still quite visible and it takes on the icon of the capital and is visually tied into the whole system. This is, we're going to go one by one now through all the sign types. This is the next vehicle sign type. There's going to be the most of these signs up to about 30 signs throughout downtown. And this will give vehicles clear direction to the various cultural destinations based on the hierarchy that we just showed. And then the back of the sign will have these visual patterns of the capital. This is a rendering in Photoshop showing the context of how this sign relates to the architecture and the space. It also includes an appendage that includes the bicycle path to get bicycles to the new extended bike path that's taking place. This is the color and material palette for the back of the signs as well as the pedestrian signs. So there's going to be a variation. It's not always the same color. It has kind of a range of treatment. So after you get out of your car and you start exploring downtown, there are several of these located that will get you to destinations. And they're two-sided. Sometimes they're two-sided with messages. If they're not two-sided with messages, they have the backside of the capital. These are just some details of the cutout lettering above. So a strong sense of craftsmanship in terms of how they are built. A couple of renderings that show them in situ with the information booth on State Street as well as on the corner of State. Parking signs. One of the biggest things that came up in our public meetings is no one knows where to park. There's plenty of parking, but where do we park? And a lot of the lots are behind buildings or tucked away. So this directional system will help people get there. Did you just say there's plenty of parking? There's been studies about that. It's interesting. It's a controversial subject here. That is not the position of my career life. This is the front and back of the kiosk. So this is something that would be maintained over time by Montpelier alive in the city to update businesses listed here in the downtown area only. And what we're looking at here is actually a placeholder for a map. The map would zoom in on the downtown and locate all the destinations and help warrant you.  How does that work when a business changes? Yeah, so as it's designed here, it can be updated relatively easily. And the idea would be that it would be updated on a regular basis perhaps twice a year. We are looking at whether that, even that makes sense because there is the cost and effort of updating it. So we may just include institutions and sort of districts rather than listing individual businesses. If you were going to update it, how do you do that physically? What is that process? Well, there's a lot of different ways you can do it. The map would have numbered labels potentially. And then those labels would be corresponded to the listing below, as you see in the gray portion of the sign.  So it's not the whole panel, it's just the directory. And if that becomes too cumbersome, then Dan and I are going to work on this and develop how this is maintained over time. But there are options where we can actually zone out certain areas where businesses are clumped together in different areas. And those areas get updated over time. So there's different strategies that can work here. It has a lot to do with feasibility and cost. But I will point out that the reason why we came up with this is because through the interviews and the public sessions that we had two years ago, it was very important for the small businesses to be represented in this system somehow. They can't be represented on the vehicle signs. That's not allowed. But to have some kind of either web presence or on-street presence in the form of this kiosk is the solution that we're looking at. While we're talking about this, would it be possible to do QR codes or something that people could then use to bring up a business directory on their phones? You know, QR codes, they were a great idea maybe five years ago, but no one's really using them anymore is what we found. Instead, they're using local apps, a lot of Google, Yelp, all these things that are really tied in. And actually won't necessarily replace what we're doing, but we'll add to it. You're always going to have the visitor that, you know, plans their trip, does everything online beforehand, and then has Google directions to everything, right? You're also going to have the people, the explorers, who come and just want to experience, be more spontaneous. And that's where this system will help them. But everyone has phones now and there's lots of different apps that can help you respond to the environment very quickly with what's available in the area. QR codes have become kind of cumbersome. You know, you have to have the software to scan it and then it sends you to a website. It was good when we wanted sort of direct, it's mostly for advertising is really what it's been successful for, unless about wayfinding and locale. But there's certainly the possibility that if individual businesses are not listed in the directory that we refer people in some way to the Montpelier Live website. To the website, yeah. So the next half of this presentation is fairly detailed. And I'm not sure if how much detail you want to go into, but it... I want to consider the time. Yeah, exactly. So it's... So what we have here are locations for all the signs and then cross-referenced with all of the messages with the signs including the pedestrian signage as well. And as Dan said, these messages are going to be refined and finalized over the next year. A couple of comments kind of about those last bunch of slides. One of which was there's a lot of references to the East Business District. And I have no idea what that is and I don't think a lot of people do and I don't think businesses refer to themselves as being located there. I assume it means River Street. Yeah, so the state prefers that signs don't refer to things by their street name unless they're known by that in master plan and official documents, which the East Business District... Cory, you said that you actually didn't see it in the master plan. Anyway, we're going to review that and look at whether it is possible to say River Street. I would love for it to have some kind of tie-in to the location so people know where it is. We can make it official by including River Street Business or River Street District? Yeah, it would need to say District. Okay. Yes, we can't just say River Street. I was a little surprised to see the Berry Street District. Yes. I mean, I was like, all right. That's the issue. The master plan refers to the Berry Street Businesses as being in the Berlin Street District, which... Yes. The Berry Street District is in the master plan, but then it's the Berlin Street District in the master plan. So we will review how to do that and if it requires the count of... It is Berlin Street until it goes up to hell. We don't need this done. Between now and spring, we can get it in the master plan. There you go. If we... Yes, if we learn that we can't just call it the River Street District, we will find some way for you to name it the River Street District so that we can call it that. Whatever works. I don't know if you all were done. I think we are. Happy to take questions. Sure. So I've got more. And I'm relieved to hear that this is sort of... I'm good with the overall plan. I think this is much needed and I don't have any problems with overall plan. I just had more kind of... More minor comments that I had sent along. One of them was about the bike path. I'm wanting to include that. Hopefully by next... When these are being located, we may actually have some portions of the bike path. Right. And so we'd of course want to point people to it and also have signs on the bike path pointing people to where to get off for business assistant stuff. So I'd want to make sure that we included that. And then I was really confused by the logos for the shopping, dining and parking. They were... Sometimes they were next to the business district. Sometimes they were below them and they were sort of inconsistent of how they were applied. So that would be an area for... Yeah. And that is what... There was one particular... There's small refinement changed already in the PowerPoint. Yeah. We couldn't get to load. And then one other comment that I didn't send along before is I would love to have restrooms somewhere in the pedestrian signs and also on the map. Public restrooms. Sure. We've got City Hall. We'll have the new One Taylor. And wherever else you've got public restrooms, the visitor center. That would just be, I think, a great addition. That makes a lot of sense. And we'll play about that recently. One of the things that I don't see on here, I don't see the train station listed. I know it's a ways out, but it would be helpful for people to know that that actually does exist. I wish it were closer to town. It's unfortunate that it's not. And also the bus portion. I'm not sure if all of the bus routes are going to transition into town, but making sure that people know that those things do actually exist in Montpelier is super helpful, too. And I just didn't see those on here and want to make sure. Yeah. We had conversations about that. And at the time the committee felt it was important to see how the transportation center would replace all of that to some degree. So this is an, it's a scalable system. So we can address that as it comes through. Yeah. I just, I think if our goal is to sort of increase reliance, we just got to let everybody know that these things do exist, although not at the most convenient place right now and we're working on it. Yeah. Good. I think it's a great plan in general. I'm also interested in while we add signs, this isn't necessarily your department, but potentially subtracting signs where they're duplicated. So for example, on the Photoshop. There's a bike sign, bike pass sign. That's an old photograph. Yeah, that sign is actually not there anymore. Okay. But yeah, that would certainly be part of it is once the way finding is in place. I know for instance that it would, the parking signs would replace the existing parking signs. There would be other signs. I'm sure as well that we'd find that.  You have City Hall with food and shopping. You know that? Yes. So going back to that comment before, we're going to reorganize some of that. I believe that's the one we fixed where now the icons are under City Hall. I don't know when the obvious gets missed, but also within your map, I would assume you'd have a symbol for bus stops. Sure. Your transportation center signs are there, but the map itself needs to have bus stops. Yeah, the map has not been designed yet. So all that information is going to be, yeah. As a separate thing, I mean I assume you all have not gone to the design review committee. Not that you need to necessarily, but I'd like to make a recommendation that you do just out of courtesy. You know, anything, any other business that was putting up a sign in that area would go to the design review committee. I think it's probably a good idea, and they've got a lot of expertise in that in this area. So I think it'd be good to, I would encourage you to go. I don't think it would cost you anything since it's a city endeavor. So, yeah, I just want to put that out there. Yeah, right. Connor, and then I'd love to open up comments from the public. Yeah, no more comment. I think it's a great plan, fellas. I do think as we look at adding signs downtown, it might be a worthy endeavor to bring our legislative delegation in. Look for increased signage out on the highway there to mark all pillars, historic downtown. We can do all this stuff, but it's no good if people don't turn off the highway and come downtown. So I think that's something we can look at as a transportation and capital bills, so I'd be happy to help on that one. Right. Comments from the public. Yeah. I'm Eric Gilbertson again. I just got reappointed as Historic Preservation Commission and following off on your comment, I think you need to do something with the historic district and historic buildings downtown. They're part of the mapping or anything. It's a very significant part of what makes Montpelier what it is. And I don't know how to incorporate it into your plan, but you could do it in the mapping for sure. Absolutely. And there's some space on the back of the signs, maybe that you could have a history piece about the downtown and about Montpelier. Sure. So I think people would like to read that kind of thing. That's definitely something we can look at. Yep. That would be great. Yep. Thank you. Cool. Other comments? Jack. It's more of a question than a comment, but for many years, for most of his career, my father-in-law was a municipal traffic engineer. So I know that there are all these federal regulations and all kinds of regulations. I assume that all these signs comport with any federal regulations. Yes, we received approval from the state that we were following. The state guidelines are what would govern that. And we received approval from the state at a meeting this morning. Questions? What are the next steps? What happens between now and when we see them on the street? Yep. So we are going to put out bids, put out the project for bids hopefully next month, which will give us some idea of exactly how much money we're talking about. We have some initial estimates that were much higher than we were hoping. So we have made some changes since then and then also in the bidding process, hoping to do some cost containment. And then that will, once we get the bids, that will allow us to move forward in applying for that downtown transportation fund grant. The applications do, I believe, in March or April. And there's a pretty quick turnaround on that. And then... Can I ask you about that? Are you hoping to entirely fund it through that grant? No. It's a maximum of 100,000 with 100,000 grant. A match. And so we would be applying for the maximum amount. And we believe that we have... A good time ahead of time. Have on hand or will by the time we apply, have on hand the 100,000 for the match. Oh, okay. Great. Yes. And then assuming that we get approval of that grant, the fabrication would commence quickly after that. So between now and then obviously we'd be working to finish the messaging and all of those pieces with the goal of having all of the signage in place by the end of next calendar year. Which is the reason why the kiosk isn't fully designed. The mapping isn't done. The historical and the bus routes aren't... You're not seeing that at the moment. It's because we need to get commitment from our budget, whether we can, you know, how many of these we're going to build. And then we will design that. So we're doing this in phases and trying to be very cognizant of the money that we do have and how we spend it. Great. Rosie then Donna. Sorry. Go for it, Rosie. Yeah. Well, I thought initially your first price was over 300,000. So if you have 100,000 and your grant's 100,000, where's the third 100,000 coming from? Yeah. So we've made some changes to the plan that should reduce the cost. For one, we were initially going to have more of the welcome monuments, but actually the location that we wanted was not approved by the state plan. So we're down to one monument. There have been some changes that were actually required to comply with the guidelines from the state in terms of how big letters had to be and things like that that made us remove. There was some aluminum Montpelier cutouts at the top of the traffic. We've changed some of the things. 200,000 will do it? Well, we don't know that for sure. I think it's too premature to say. It is. It is. This is a, you know, as Dan said, you know, once this goes into a bid, we have the opportunity to kind of compare costs between the bidders as well as consider alternatives to get the costs down per sign type. So it is a process. Rosie, this may be sort of late to the game, but in terms of thinking about the fabrication and reducing future costs, if there's anything in the fabrication that can allow our DPW sign shop to do minor updates in the future if updates are needed or additions need to be made to an existing sign, I think that would be really, that would be a plus when considering bids in my mind. All right. So I think we need a motion about approving this plan. I would move that we approve the complete streets. Wayfinding. Wayfinding. Master plan. It's like, it's all part of complete streets for me. I would move that we approve the wayfinding plan as presented this evening. Any further discussion? All in favor? Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Yeah. Looking forward to this. It's going to be great. Okay. Onto the water resource recovery facility updates. Okay. Sure. Sure. Hey team, water resource recovery. We actually might pause on you for a minute. I'm so sorry. What's the penalty? So are there folks here for the UES reading? The ordinance. Union elementary school. Union elementary school. Nope. No. Okay. Okay. Just kidding. It's back to you. There's a little bit of ping-pong there, but you know, there we go. Back to you. Five-yard penalty mayor. I know, right? All our penalties are in time. Sorry about that. Two minutes off the clock. They do have a power plant. Set up. Oh, you have a presentation. We do. Yep. We now know the weakness.  Bring chocolate. Slide show. Couple over. Okay. I'm Kurt Madoka, city engineer. I've got Chris Cox, our chief wastewater plant operator here. And top venture finance director. So we've talked about this project a few times. Here to sort of hopefully answer any outstanding questions. And make a recommendation when we get to the end of this presentation. So starting off with the questions from our last meeting. There were three things that were asked to look into. One was the capacity of the existing generator at the facility to power both the existing and the proposed equipment under the project. The engineers from ESG have gone through that and they have confirmed that the generator will be able to run all the equipment. It would be running at 96% of its capacity, but it will be able to run the facility. The second item we were asked to look into was to go and visit another site that ESG has worked on through a similar type of project energy performance contract. So Chris and I went out to the Frederick Winchester Authority project, which is a much bigger facility. It was roughly a $46 million project with ESG. And they process about 12 million gallons a day of waste as compared to four or so that we have designed for. And just some of the highlights from that trip. We talked to the operators at the facility and they did make note that ESG worked through all the construction issues. There's always going to be construction issues on any project, especially one of that size. And one of the other real interesting parts of the visit that we learned is that ESG has a lot of pole with the equipment manufacturers. And they were actually able to work with them to sort of make some design modifications to the equipment, which the vendors then implemented into their manufacturing process so that those modifications are really carried through to the next project that they are used on. So it was interesting to see, you know, sort of that process. It's a little bit unique in that ESG really has purchasing, because they purchase so much equipment, they really have a lot of pole and are able to get the manufacturer's attention to come and help resolve any construction issues that arise, but also improve their equipment. And they were able to exceed their guarantee revenue by over 100% in the first year. And I believe within two years they were able to meet their entire guarantee for the project. And the other important part is that they are entering into a phase two contract with ESG. So obviously the facility was happy with what they got working with ESG and continuing to work with them. And the third item that we were asked to look into is the impacts of the appeal of our discharge permit. So some points, we did submit a tactical memo from ESG on this, sort of outlining the details of the appeal and what they're really looking at on the appeal. So Chris and Tom McCartle, the director and I, we went to the hearing. And really what we took away from that was that CLF isn't looking to lower our discharge limits of phosphorus. Really what they're hoping to achieve is a reduction in non-point source pollution. So that's stormwater and land applied biosolids. And part of what this project will do will give the city of Montpellier the ability to take land applied solids and process them at the treatment plant to really drop those phosphorus levels. So in a big way, this plant actually accomplishes some of the goals that we believe CLF is after through their permit appeal. The other part of the discussion here is that if they were to successfully appeal our permit, it could be years before we receive a new permit. So the judge isn't going to issue our permit. If the appeal is successful, it'll go back to the state. They'll have to rewrite a permit and then we'll get resubmitted with an appeal period. So that process could be years and it's really an unknown at this time what the timeframe will be. So those were sort of the summary of what we're asked to look into. Is there any questions on that or any more details that you guys are looking for on those questions? What was the term for the project that you looked at that met their guarantee within two years just to give that some context? The initial rejection. Of how long the guarantee was going to be for? I'm not sure, maybe ESG can answer that question. Five years? Five years. And ours is? Ours is a 20 year. Okay, so this is a summary of what we've been working on since we were here since May of June last time we talked to you. We've received updated pricing from the contractors. ESG has submitted a detailed engineering evaluation which went to the state of Vermont. They don't issue a permit for construction but they do a design review and write. They do write an approval letter eventually. We don't have that yet but we met with the state and they agreed with the assumptions in that report. So it looks like there's not going to be any issues as far as state permitting. We've received the contract from ESG, Public Works and our independent engineering consultant, Aldridge and Elliott have both reviewed and commented on that. We did have quite a few comments but nothing in discussions with ESG that we can't resolve at this point. We've also had a meeting and then subsequently ESG has developed the measurement and verification program for the savings and tipping fee revenue. So really went through each aspect of the guarantee, decided how we're going to measure it, how we're going to verify it and got that all into a document that we've reviewed. And we've also reviewed the guarantee documentation from ESG which we'll get into on another slide a little more detail. And we've had a preliminary meeting discussing public outreach on the project for the bond vote and MIAC is involved with that. So an update on the pricing of the project and what has changed since June. When we last met we were estimating a $16.1 million project based on a 5% escalation cost from the last contractor pricing. Currently we're at 16.2 million because actual escalation ended up being just over 5%. And then once we really reviewed the scope of work we identified a few things that needed to be added into the project. The grit collector is one of the original pieces of equipment at the plant that really needs to be upgraded. The gas detection which is for the methane needed to be added for safety. And then the other two items were for treatment redundancy. So we added a third polymer blending unit and a third dewatering thickening feed pump. So if we were to lose one of those two pumps we would still have the redundancy to keep the facility working. So with those add-ins we ended up at 16.5 million. And then the owner's reserve is it's essentially a contingency. If the city were to add scope to the work not identified in the contract. Or right now we also have the building permit fee included in that number which we're estimating right now at about $100,000. And that also will cover any overages and solids disposal for cleaning the digesters. So we add all that up and we end up with a total bond amount of $16.75 million. The additions, is that because of a deeper look by engineers what needed to be replaced or is it because sheer time has passed? No that was actually based on review by Public Works and A&E of the scope of the project. And we requested that those be added into the scope. So between now and when this project of it went ahead gets installed are there going to be any other pieces that need to be replaced that we're not considering now? Well we don't anticipate anything major but that owner's reserve is meant to cover small items that might be added. But we've done a pretty thorough review at this point. That's the same thing as contingency. It is. So if there are no identified items, not all of that $250,000 will get used it would go back to the city. These new parts here weren't part of the previous contingency so that's why I'm asking. Yeah we haven't conducted a real detailed review of the plans and the contract at that point. I don't like to hear that. Yeah we didn't have all the information we needed to do a full review. We do now. This is why Todd's up here with me. The budget and rate impact comparison. So this is really probably one of the most difficult things to predict on this project is what's going to happen to the rates. Because there are a lot of variables. There's usage fees and there's fixed components, there's commercial users, there's residential users. And then there's the question of do you pay for it? A lot of it up front. Do you spread it over 10 years? Do you spread it over 20 years? So there's many, many different ways that you could look at rates. And this is just one example of a potential rate change. I think really what we need to do is have a rate committee meeting and sit down and determine the best way to go about funding the upgrade at the plant. So just to run through it quickly. We're looking, one scenario like I said this is only an option is to have an 8% increase in the first year. And that's really whether we do the AI project, which is just what we have to do at the facility for infrastructure improvements. Or whether we do the AI combined with the Organics Energy Project. We're really looking at a very similar rate increase on year one. And even on the projected because the debt service on a $16.7 million project, you need an increase up front to cover the bond costs of the project, the principal and interest. And then going down to the average annual rate increases in years two through ten. Do you see a difference in the AIOE projected increase? We're looking at 5.5% versus a 7% annual increase on projected revenue. So I don't know if you want to speak to this a little bit. So there's just a tremendous number of variables that go into developing a rate structure, especially when you're trying to spread the cost of a major project over the span of a decade, essentially and not hit everybody with a tremendous rate increase all on the front side. What we did when we did the analysis to come up with the AI and the OE, AI is a given. So we don't really have any option for a zero do nothing approach. So there's going to be a significant cost, whether it's $8 million or $16 million in this situation. So it really becomes a question of if we go with the AI, there's no potential upside. It's a fixed cost. We know what it is. And then in year 10, we get hit with another $5 plus million escalated cost for additional improvement versus in the OE model. We're paying more on the front end, but we don't have that significant additional upgrade at year 10. And when I was doing my analysis to come up between the AI and OE at the guarantee column, I tried to look at it stripping out every possible rosy projection and no offense, I tried to strip anything out that wasn't like specifically guaranteed in writing. So just to paint out a worst case scenario, we're most likely going to do much better than that and based on the track record of ESG and the similar facilities in other parts of the country. I feel good about that, but I can't in good faith come before you and say, everything is wonderful because I had to predict what's the worst. I'd rather come back to you and say, hey, we don't have to raise rates as much as we were originally thinking. The benefit is that we also set rates annually. So we have the opportunity to look at this as it develops and each year analyze the revenue sources coming in and make adjustments kind of on the fly. But I want to be realistic about the fact that it's going to cost money to do either project and it's not necessarily fair to look at the primary rate comparison that we did was over 10 years, but that's not really picking up the entire life of the project. So there's a couple of different scenarios that we can do. When I look at purely the project, cash flow versus cash flow, AI versus OE, OE is the way to go. And you included the revenue and it still comes out the same? I included the revenue in... Everything but the first column has revenue there, but none of the rates reflected. I'm sorry, Don, I'm not sure I understand your question. This chart says the average annual budget impact increases. So one year is at $92,000, another year is $285,000. That's not cash, that's just benefit? So the $580,000 increase under AI in the AIOE at guarantee level is offset by additional savings and revenues to get to the net of the $92,000 benefit on the project. Where it becomes a little bit more complicated, and I don't necessarily want to dive too deep into the weeds, but from the financial statement perspective we still have to account for the depreciation expense of the project. So while on the cash and project side specifically, we can look at cash flow differences, we are still going to be investing in a $16 million plant versus upgrade versus a $9 million upgrade and that has to be amortized as a depreciation expense over the life of the project or the life of the underlying useful asset. There's a couple pieces at play here and the guaranteed revenues are significantly lower than what the projections are actually expected to be and then there's a compounding effect within the rate structure that occurs that the more we raise rates in year one, that's going to have a greater impact on the rates in years two or four even if we lower that percentage increase. So if we were to go up by 8% in year one, that then is the compounded effect that 3% or 5% rate is going to be impacted by the following year. So depending on how we structure that, that rate kind of dictates where we end up. I don't know if I answered your question or confused you. So I have a few questions. So Todd, I'll just start with my first question for you. So I'm a lawyer, not anything good at math, but $16.75 million for this project and $10 million makes it, well for the parking garage, makes $26.75 million is the, could be the maximum request for bond. So I know that we have as a council in the past agreed to have a sort of bond debt to grand list ratio. And I'm curious if you could give us the breakdown for where only bonding for this project, which I will totally expose my hand, is the project that I favor bonding for as opposed to the parking garage. And I have other questions about the sort of logistics of the plant upgrades, which I will ask both of you. So could you kind of give us the breakdown where just bonding this project, just bonding the parking garage and bonding the two would leave us in terms of that bond to grand list ratio? To some extent, yes. This project bonding at $16.75 million, in addition to the current debt that we have outstanding, keeps us within the city council's self-imposed policy of not exceeding 15% of total budgeted revenue. And that is assuming a 0.5% increase, so half a percent increase in revenue annually. When I add a $10 million forecasted bond for a parking garage and amortize it on a level basis over the next 20 years, just level payments, we tick up to just under 18%, but that does not account for any additional revenue that would be coming in from either the Education Fund under the TIF or any revenue from parking. So I really think that we're within the scope or very close given those factors. Alright, so for you guys, so how much new development could Montpelier sustain assuming, well I'm going to ask this in a two part way, so assuming that we only did the aging infrastructure project, how much new development could Montpelier sustain and have things continue to function at least at the most basic level, which I'm not saying is acceptable, but. Yep, so we have looked at this and I think, I'm trying to remember the exact percentage, but we had proposed to the state an assumption on population growth in Montpelier. So if you look historically at the census data, the population Montpelier has been stagnant or actually decreased a bit. I think at maybe ESG, Bob you can help me with this, I think is it one or two percent? We proposed a one percent annual compounding growth over 20 years. So and that would be for the aging infrastructure upgrades only? We didn't break it out for either, but certainly. Okay. Hi, Bob Wimmer with ESG. When we were doing the review with the state, we proposed a one percent annual compounding growth in order to evaluate whether or not the facility had all the capacity to continue treatment. Because we were only proposing on the total project to the state for review, we did not break out the two components of the project. Okay, so it's fair to say though that without the OE project that Montpelier, I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth and I realize I might be doing that. So please if I'm wrong, correct me. So if we don't do this project, Montpelier cannot sustain the development that we as a council had sort of anticipated based on the zoning changes and the sort of other things in the works. No, I mean under the AI project, the capacity of the plant to treat is still there. Under either scenario, we have capacity to take residential. The limits at the plant are based on what's called BOD, which is really like the concentration of the wastewater coming in. And residential has a very low relative concentration as opposed to dairy and other types of waste that we're looking to take in under the OE project. So I think under either scenario, there's room for growth for residential and a lot. Is that fair? Yes. My next question is commercial. So the proposal, the sort of other proposal that residents are going to be asked at the bond vote relates to the construction of another hotel and the parking garage, which will create runoff. And I realize that that's sort of treated a different way. But so does the existing facility assuming no additional upgrades? Let's just assume that of any kind, whether it's the OE or the AI project. What impact would that sort of commercial development have? Well, hotel is a similar strength of waste as residential because it's the same type of thing coming out. The problem if we don't do anything is that our existing equipment is at the end of its useful life. So we may end up in permit violations as equipment were to fail, not actually being able to treat any waste as equipment comes offline. So we can't, we don't think it's a reasonable option to do nothing at the plant to not do any upgrade just because these things are 40, 50 years old and just starting to really not work as well as they should. But as far as supporting that type of development, I think in either case we could support it. Assuming we do these upgrades and our equipment is kept functional. The type of high strength waste that would be difficult for us to accept through the liquid stream like through the pipes is breweries. Which we also have coming. But that will be so, yes. And if they truck their waste so that it goes through, there's sort of two paths at the plant. One is for solids or high strength waste and one is for the liquids coming through the pipe. If it goes through the solid stream, which is being upgraded into the OE project, we do have the capacity to take brewery waste, but it has to be trucked instead of piped. So with the OE we have, we gain the ability to be able to support brewery waste or that sort of discharge. That's the similar issue actually that Brawlington is dealing with all their brewery waste. I've got one about trucking it here instead of them having to spend millions of dollars. I just said that's the similar issue that Brawlington has with their brewery waste. There was a big article in Seven Days a couple of weeks ago about all the successful breweries in Brawlington and how it's creating impacts out there. So it's the same idea. They're working together on this. Can I just follow up on one of Ashley's questions? So what happens to the guarantee if we happen to have a ton of residential growth that means that we then have less capacity for the high strength waste? Maybe yes, you can speak to that. So we needed to present to DC a projection for growth because historically there has not been. So we elected the 1% just as a very conservative growth factor. There is more than enough capacity at the facility to go above that, but we wanted to present something that was reasonable and provided a conservative. Relative to the guarantee, your ability to grow does not impact our responsibility as part of the guarantee. We feel very comfortable that the facilities have the capacity to do all the treatment that's necessary. And again, because these are two different streams coming into the plant, the development is what comes in through the general sores, through the pipes coming in, and the other waste is trucked in. That waste is segregated and we believe that we can treat that waste even with the plant at full capacity. So our guarantee is going to hold even if suddenly a huge population increase comes here. Any other questions on budget and rate impacts? Okay. So this is just a graphical comparison of the three different scenarios. The orange being the aging infrastructure project. The blue line is the guaranteed projections and the light gray is projected or estimated actual revenue or budget impact comparison. The spikes are for maintenance items. We have to clean our digesters. It's a fairly high cost every five years. But really this is just meant to illustrate that there is a lower impact based on the projected revenue and savings option over time. Yep, especially as you're getting out here as it really spreads out. So this graph looks at the three components of the guarantee. There's operational energy savings and revenue. And really what it shows is that the upside to the project is really on the revenue of the tipping fees, that there's a lot of potential to exceed the guarantee level. So that's sort of what Todd was talking about is that there is a big upside to the OE project financially for the city. As compared to the red is really demonstrating what the AI project levels would be. The upside is all to the city. That's right. Not a split with ESG. That's right. And above the guarantee level is 100% goes to the city's fund. So a little more detail on how the guarantee works. The total, that last graph we showed, adding up the different components of energy savings and tipping fee revenue comes to $516,000 of annual. That averages out to $92,000 above the AI project only. 100% of the energy savings is guaranteed for the term of the contract. The operational savings are made up of sledge disposal, chemical use, and water savings. And the tipping fee revenue of $255,000 is guaranteed for the term of the contract. And as Jeff noted, the city retains all of the upside revenue above and beyond the guarantee. There is a cap on shortfalls of 5% of the contract price for the first five years of the project. It comes out to $825,000. And then that cap reduces in the out years. And one thing that we've talked about with previous council is a third party surety. Right now we don't have a third party bond built into the finance, the cash flow. It's relatively low costs if the council were to elect to have a third party surety bond. I think we looked at some rough numbers and it's probably under $3,000 annual costs to have an outside bonding company back up the guarantee by ESG. So what that would do essentially is protect the city if ESG were to go bankrupt. And really that's pretty much the only scenario that we would use that third party bond. And we have asked our attorneys reviewing the contract to make a recommendation on whether or not that's something the city should pursue. Options for phase two, the drivers for doing a phase two project is moving towards net zero goals of the city and then the potential for additional savings and revenue. And really we've narrowed it down to three options that are the most beneficial. The one new development since last time we talked is the opportunity to wholesale the methane. If we were to clean it and compress it, it could be sold as natural gas. And the company DCP Midstream which actually has a facility right across the road from the plant has expressed interest in purchasing natural gas from our plant. So we're going to be meeting with their regional sales manager hopefully in the next few weeks. So it's a really great potential opportunity which we expect would have a high upside to revenue. The other two options we're looking at is sludge drying and power generation. So those obviously would be a separate project. We're not going to be constructing those under this. We wanted some time to really see what the gas production levels are going to be so that we can right size equipment for the selected alternative. Next steps. Like I mentioned, we do have a legal review underway of all the contract documents including the guarantee and the measurement verification document. We do still have to get our final permits which include the Act 250 amendment, a floodplain permit and building permit. And then they talked about the wastewater management authorization. As far as the schedule, October 3rd is when the bond warding would need to take place. October 24th would be the public hearing, the second public hearing and then bond vote on November 6th. Just one minor correction to that. The second public hearing actually has to be between October 27th and November 5th. So we've already talked about the need to create a special meeting for that. We haven't set the date yet. That would be for potentially both bonds and any charter changes. That would normally be the last council meeting of the month. Okay. And then the last step would be approval of the actual contract with ESG which would take place after the bond vote. Are the permits doing this period or after the bond vote? Well, ESG answered that question as well as far as the schedule. The permits in the time flow are they being done now or after the bond vote? We can start the permitting next month if you like. It's up to you. I mean the permitting has already been started so we had discussions with Act 250. We've met with the state on that permit. The billing permit is relatively short for the simple in-house city permit. So we really have started them all. How far we go before the actual bond vote approval? I think probably not a whole lot further. I think maybe a little more work on the floodplain permit. But other than that, I think we're in pretty good shape to meet timelines where we're at now. So the recommendation. So if you really look at the project as a whole, if you consider the rate impacts, they're going to be the same whether we do an aging infrastructure project or an organics energy project. That the unknowns and delaying. So if we decide not to go forward with an organics energy project, we've sort of got to start over. We've got to get a design engineer back on board. Do final design. It's going to be probably a couple of years before we are ready to go out to bid. And there's risk of escalating costs, which we've seen is happening now. And potentially equipment failure. Getting into the market of high-strength waste early puts us in a good position to build relationships with clients. And really get it, you know, get our foot in the door on this sort of business. And the project is particularly phase two. But also, you know, this project by using methane for additional heating at the plant, reducing our oil use. It does move us towards, you know, closer to a net zero community. So we're recommending approval of the bond warning on October 3 for the organics energy project. For the $16.7 million upgrade. But that would be contingent on successful final contract negotiations with ESG, including comments from our legal review. Questions. Thank you. So first, I know we've been sort of asking questions as we've gone, but any further questions from the council at this point. And then I'd like to open it for the public. Yeah. First, a question that just came up. Thank you guys. That was great. So one question about if we go ahead with organics energy between now and potentially moving on to phase two.  What do we do with that methane in the meantime? Are we just storing it or? We will be storing it. Some of it will be using for heating additional buildings and then the rest will have to be flared. And also I've had a couple of, I feel that some concerns from residents who see potential danger in collecting more methane and storing it. In terms of what happens if something explodes. So I'd like to just check in on that and also with this fairly involved and large improvement to the plant. I've had some concerns voiced about whether this will require additional city staff or staff hours. Is that going to happen or not? So first on the on the methane risk, the project, all the improvements are required to be in compliance with the National Fire Protection Association standards. So really the plant is going to have improved safety. Some of the examples of that are explosion proof electrical equipment in hazardous areas, new gas monitoring equipment, but probably the most significant improvement is moving the flare away from the digesters, which is where the methane is stored. But currently that flare is right basically on the digesters. So that's a big component of the OE project is relocating that. Quite a bit of safety improvements. So I think the risk is actually going to be reduced. I know it will be reduced from this project. And as far as staffing, there's a lot of automation incorporated into this work. So there's two sort of labor intensive things right now that take a lot of staff time. One is dewatering the solids. So that's not it's it's not automated because there's no level control as we're putting the solids into a box. So we have to have staff present anytime we're pressing solids. Whereas with the upgrade, we'll have level monitoring equipment on that. It could be done partially off hours. And right now we spend a lot of overtime on weekends pressing solids out to keep up with the septic that we're taking in. So there's actually potential to reduce overtime hours in the weekends. The second item that takes a lot of staff time is when the waste comes into the first set of tanks, the primary settling tanks at the plant. We have to have staff manually turn pumps on switch valves to pump that waste to the digesters. That again will be set on a timer system so that it can be done off hours on a regular basis without staff having to necessarily be there. Again, something we have to do every weekend, which requires overtime hours. So I think there will be some additional demands as far as, you know, managing high strength waste and coordinating with haulers, not tons. But I think that will be offset by these by the automation that we're going to have from the project. So don't do not anticipate additional staff needs at the plant recently upgraded. I just want to point out there's one graph in here that I think is so important for people to understand. I know you've closed your laptop. I don't want to necessarily make you open it again. There was one graph that had bar graphs of the break even savings, the guaranteed savings and the projected savings. And that to me spoke really strongly to the fact that we are guaranteed to do better than breaking even on this project. And that the projections are even better than the guarantees. And with that difference, I mean, and all of that's going to this, the difference between that would go to the city and that that makes this it feels like an easy choice for for me on this. You know, one of the things that I think it is just prudent for us to have a surety bond. And so, you know, if it if this passes in November, which I hope it would, I guess I would want to recommend. So you we had so Kurt and I emailed a little bit today or yesterday about the surety bond and what that would mean. And I don't remember if you discussed like how much that would cost roughly, but it wasn't that much. So I think we could maybe refine some of those numbers. And then I mean, as we talked about that it was in the ballpark of $5,000 a year, which is really pretty, pretty reasonable. And so that's even something that I would suggest be considered as just a part of our, you know, the annual budget as a just as a safety net. But yeah, with that bond, we would have to carry it until ESG met the guarantee and then we'd drop it. So that's correct. It's an annual renewal. So if we decided that everything was meeting all of our expectations in year three and that we couldn't foresee any reason why we'd want to continue to pay the premium, we could opt out at that point. Actually, so I, I guess, Bill, my question is for you. Is the request then that we move to approve the bond warning and then set this thing else or what so procedurally what what would I need to move if I were to make a motion before you do. I mean, well, but I also want to give public opportunity to comment as well. So can we do that first? Okay. Comments from the public. I just want to say one thing that speaking for the energy committee and who are Jeff Fitzgerald and last couple of months, we have not had a lot of involvement with ESG and DPW. They've really been working together on the technical and numbers involved in this project. And we kind of sat back and haven't done much, but you shouldn't take that as anything other than our unequivocal support for this project. And I think, you know, talking to Todd and talking to Kurt, I think you need to really recognize what Todd told you. And that is that he was really using the most conservative numbers he could when he was pulling out and saying there's not going to be a rate impact if you go what we as opposed to just the AI. And, you know, I've been thinking about this a lot over the last couple of years. Just sitting here tonight, I was thinking, how do you really just kind of anecdotally think about this? So we need a new car and you need a new generic sedan, right? And we need it. So somebody is coming to us and saying, look, buy the Tesla and I will guarantee you that the costs are going to remain the same for the sedan because of the savings I'm going to achieve or you're going to achieve through the Tesla. And they're not only giving you that guarantee, they're also projecting that their savings are going to be way in excess of that. And in the end, you don't have a generic sedan, you have a Tesla.  I have no plans. I have no plans. You just did me on leaf. That would do. I also just want to commend these three guys here and anybody else who's really been working with them because they've put ESG through their paces. They went down and saw this other plan. I have talked to them and I felt very comforted by their experiences and all the details that they've made these folks go through. And I've also been very comforted by ESG whenever I met and talked with them. Thank you. Hi there. My name is Teresa Thomas. I'm a resident of Opulier. Also very much in support of this project. And I also want to echo everything that was just said that I think these guys have really put in a ton of effort to try and find the best alternatives. I guess I just have a question and it's for Todd. I have a question related to some of the rate projections that you put related to the debt service. So I wasn't for sure if I'm just like tired and not understanding it or if it was what I understood. It appeared that you were giving rate projections based on debt service for 10 years. Is the plan to actually have this 16.7 plus plus million paid off in a 10 year debt service? Or is it actually going to be for the life cycle of what the project should be 20 years or 20 plus years? The debt service as we've modeled it right now is expected to be a 25 year repayment cycle. Okay. And modeled the rates for only for the first 10 years because beyond that I don't feel comfortable making assumptions for something that far out. Okay. So the upside from year 10 out is marvelous. But I just I don't feel like I can make that leap. Okay. I just I just saw that 10 year projection and I was like I hope they're not looking for 10 year financing. No. Okay. All right. Thank you. One thing I would add as well that hasn't come up. Jeff maybe think of it was in terms of a phase two under an AI option. There is no phase two. I can't hear you. Sorry. In terms of if we went with an AI option or the aging infrastructure only there's no opportunity to do that. Opportunity to do a option two for any sort of energy savings whether it be utilizing the methane ourselves or selling methane or anything else. We would be limiting our opportunities. I'm Kate from the energy committee and I just wanted to mention Kurt had a tiny bullet point in the presentation that we had met to talk about outreach to the public. So just to let you all know that the energy committee is ready and ready poised and ready to start a major campaign between now and November 6th. Once we know that this is really going with the ballot we do want to do a lot of outreach because it's a confusing thing to explain to people. And so we're you know we're talking about. Just have Jeff do it. It's going to promise everyone a Tesla. No way. He's part of this. So you know we have been thinking a lot about what the messaging is how to explain this to everyone. I look forward to spending the next two months working on that. Thank you. Jack. I was thinking about outreach to and I was thinking back to earlier in the year when some of us got to go on the tour of the of the plant and see all the operations how it works. And an explanation of it and 8000 people in the city aren't going to go on a tour of the sewer plant. But if that tour could be reproduced as a video and put on the city's web page I think that would be I think there would be people who would watch it. I don't know how many. I'm the kind of guy who would. But it might be worth thinking about. I think you're probably right. Okay team. Ashley. Motion to make. And I would move that we give preliminary authorization to move the organics to energy project proposal to the October 3rd bond approval. Agenda item meeting. Second. Question to preliminary approval. Okay. So preliminary approval. Preliminary approval. That's that works for you for you. Okay. And that's okay. Great. Thank you. Any further discussion. All in favor. Oh yep. So I've been skeptical of the project all along and as a lay person trying to ask as many questions as I can. And I've asked every question I can think of. And at this point they've been answered satisfactorily. And so this is the point when we have to put our trust in the staff. And so I am doing that. And I'm trusting you. And so that's why I'm willing to support this at this point. Makes me very nervous.  So yes. It's a big deal. And for those that are curious why we're doing this preliminary approval is that there is a legal window when the council can actually vote to put something on the ballot. We're outside of it. And what they are saying is we're going over this project and on October 3rd when we actually when we set those warnings it's our intent that we will put it on the ballot then but they can't do that action tonight. So just in case just to eliminate confusion this is I interpret this as the go ahead. And just before the vote I want to thank our team. We did get great questions from the council in public. I know I pushed them really hard and probably ESG really hard and they're very responsive. I think we have the whole office here right from ESG. I've never seen so many of them. But I think in the end we got good answers and we didn't have them in the spring. So I'm glad we got to where we are now. Great. All in favor please say aye. Great. I'm so looking forward to this. Union Elementary School's second reading of the new parking ordinance. So I did mistakenly think that some of the ESG staff were Union Elementary School people. So my bad. We actually passed first reading for these ordinances at the last meeting. They've been in place. We've signed them with your permission. We have it seems to be working as well as could be expected given the start of school and confusion and changes but no major problems. And we recommend proceeding with second reading. So I think we have to officially open a public hearing. So we're going to do that right now. Any comments from the public on this ordinance or change really. Okay. With that I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm getting back to figuring out what we need to do. Do we need to vote to approve? Approve second reading. Approving new ordinance. Approving new ordinance. Okay. That would be great if we had a motion. Go ahead. I would move that we do the thing. Can we put that in a minute? I would move that we approve the temporary parking ordinance as presented at the second reading. Second. Further comments? Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? I have to abstain. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. And proposed charter change language for sustainability. Another suggestion. We've got all the tree folks here. Oh, we should do that first. Let's do that first. So we're going to skip the charter change stuff and go to the emerald ash borer recommendation.  At the, while they're coming up at the last meeting, we had a discussion about issues with obviously the issue with the ash borer itself and ways to approach it now and in the future. And I expressed concerns about committing to a long permanent, a new full-time employee. These folks, but came up with a plan. I met with Jeff. I fully support the plan that came up. The minor thing that may or may not come to fruition is the reallocation of D2BW staff. But I think we can make something work. I wouldn't advise you to hold up on this without just because of that. So I recommend that you approve the 8,000 from the reserve fund, 12,000 from our general reserves. With the plan as outlined by Jeff and the tree board. So we don't have anything in our packets about that. You should have one list of where the funding was supposed to. We don't have anything. There's nothing. There's nothing on our. There's your words about. We're not. Recommendation, but there's nothing. Should I, should I email it? If. I could, I could read it or I could email it. Uh-oh. Let's see. Have anything that looks like this? Nope. Sure. Shoot. Okay. A lot of people are on it. Right. Um. We could do the charter change while James. We could do the charter change while James is making copies. Right. Sure. We have all this in there. What's this? That is not indicative of our approach though. I just want to point out. Okay. How do we feel about that team? Is that okay if we shift gears while we're making copies? Okay. So, um, the charter change language for sustainability. So, um, just for a little context, we had one of our council goals was to, um, work towards banning plastic bags, um, in Montpelier. And our charters not currently allow us to do that. And so, um, but there was talk of their, uh, that there may be other things, um, that we may be interested in doing. And so this is the, uh, charter change language that we got back from our, uh, lawyer. And, uh, had a good conversation with him about sort of some of the specifics as to where this came from, um, just the other day. Uh, but before we get into it, I'd be curious for your general impressions. Um, do you like it? What do you want to change? What's okay? Et cetera. Rosie. I feel like this is way too broad. Um, it gives us a lot of powers that the state agency natural resources currently holds. And I, um, don't think that the state is going to look too kindly on giving us those powers. So I'm in favor of us doing a charter change to allow us to, to do stuff with plastic bags in the future. But I think we need to really scale back. Do you have any suggestions as to what that would be? Um, particularly negative impacts to wildlife. Um, that's one where, obviously. There's a lot of state regulation around that. Um, and that's when I would, I don't think it's necessary. We can talk about the other stuff. Okay. Noted. Any other thoughts or comments? I'm just going to offer a process comment. Yeah, sure. Um, and that is you need to, or you should adopt language to file with the city clerk tonight. That can be amended. You can amend it in August, October 3rd when you choose what goes in the ballot. But in order to, you are required to file language within certain timeframes. And tonight is the night. So whatever version of this you come up with, you should pass that and file it knowing that you still can change it before it goes in the ballot. So yeah, I'm looking at it again and I might suggest that we even like after it it says promote to results in unreasonable litter or waste and kind of strike everything after that. Because what we're talking about is litter here. There, there may be some parts, um, after that I'm interested in. Um, but it does go beyond so we can have that conversation. But yeah. Um, other comments? Donna. I like that first sentence. I don't think we're talking about the first sentence. Can Rosie repeat what she was proposing? So if you, I'm sorry. Let's just be clear about what, which part we're talking about. Rosie, you're to be where we've inserted a bunch of additional powers. Um, so we have the power to regulate or prohibit any condition, activity, enterprise, public nuisance or matter concerning public health, safety and welfare. And then the addition is within the city, including any condition, activity, enterprise, public nuisance or matter that promotes or results in unreasonable litter or waste. I'm okay with keeping that. Um, but then the, um, the degradation of natural environment, negative impacts to wildlife or increased costs, whether tangible or intangible, that city taxpayers and residents to clean up, manage or recycle as a result of such condition, activity, enterprise, uh, public nuisance or matter. Um, I think we could get rid of negative impacts to wildlife and possibly some of these other, uh, pieces as well. Um, and still have the power to regulate plastic bags. Um, just to follow up. That was the whole sentence that I liked. That is all one sentence. Oh, you're right. It is all one sentence. Okay. So you like the rest of it. Yes, so we may have to talk more. Okay. Um, yes, actually. So I echo Rosie's concern, and I think it could just be, for me, the placement of the within the city. Um, if we put that in a different place, I think that would, would make much more clear exactly what it is we are trying to do and why, um, commas are significant in these things. And, um, I just, I think, I think I'm inclined to agree about the negative impacts to wildlife. Um, but I think that it's really, for me, this Charter Change is about, um, the plastic bag issue and other sort of single use plastics. Um, and I, I know that those have an impact on wildlife, but if we are trying to get the state to approve a Charter Change, I think we need to be as exacting as possible in that language. Um, and so as with the understanding from Bill that we have the ability to tailor that sort of understanding what's on the line. I, what I don't want to do is be in a position where we put this up knowing that there's sort of no conceivable way that the legislature will approve it without sort of that narrowing that happens. Um, I would be comfortable voting right now to get that language to the city clerk and then working as a council through that and, you know, and coming with proposals to the, to the meeting then to make sure that we kind of get the most exacting language that we can make that a reality. Um, Connor than Jack. Yeah, I think I'm, I'm saying the same thing. I'd be hesitant to strike anything without hearing the rationale of why it was included in the first place. So if we get another bite at the Apple, I'd be inclined just to approve it tonight. Yeah. Um, Jack. Um, the one thing that I'd want to ask Rosie to clarify something, um, you, you would still support keeping that last sentence, the sentence that starts out in furtherance thereof, right? Because that's the one that gives us the, uh, the chance to collect, uh, taxes and fees, taxes. Yes. Okay. I think as I was reading this, and I apologize and because he said, showed this to me a week or two ago and I didn't focus it as much as I could have. I was sort of playing out in my mind, well, what happens if this is in the committee and the legislature and they're saying, well, kind of like part of this, but at that point we don't really have the ability to negotiate with the legislature because what's, what we pass is what we pass. Um, so, so I think it's worth, uh, talking about how, how we can tailor this. So the, and they do have the power to amend it. Um, and the most recent thinking has been that they wouldn't change it substantively, but if there are tweaks that they need to make then that they have the power to do that. Okay. So that said, what I would, I move that we, uh, adopt this as is for, uh, discussion, uh, at the October 3rd meeting. Uh, it's not part of the motion, but my suggestion is that we'll be discussing it, the language. So if you could, the motion would actually be that you move to file this language with the city clerk. Okay. I'll second. So we're filing language with the city clerk. That's this. And then we can have further discussion about it. Okay. So is second in further discussion? Just that I won't be here. I'm putting a lot in that agenda. Okay. Um, yes. So I just want to clarify if, uh, we can't come to an agreement on that, at that point about what we want this language to look like, where does that leave us? Great question. Because I'm willing to support it, you know, basically if it's a motion to have a further discussion later, that's fine. But I don't want to support it if there's a risk that this is what we actually file. You all still have to approve the warning. You can just leave it off. Yeah, I don't. It's all on that day. It's on that day. Yeah, yeah. I mean, there'll be something that four people put their hands up for. Well, unless if Don is gone. And if you don't agree, if you don't have four votes, you won't be on the ballot. Okay. I mean, that's what it comes down to. Okay. You need four. Okay. Just because you file the language, you still have to vote to put it on the ballot. That's what I was asking. Okay. Okay. Great. Oh, we haven't voted yet. Okay. So any further discussion? On-fever please see aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Great. Thank you. Thank you for bearing with us. Okay. Back to you. Emerald Ashbor. Take it away. So as I was saying, we had worked with them. This wasn't in. I'm not sure why that is. We certainly thought we'd uploaded it. But anyway, we'll check the technique technology on that. But this is the list. As you can see, they've given this a lot of thought. And it all seems reasonable. And none of it puts us into any kind of commitment position beyond, you know, going into next year's budget, which was my concern. And this could start anytime potentially. I just want to make sure that we are going to be able to implement this by May. Tomorrow morning, they'll be out branch sampling and. Okay. Ashley, and then did you have your hand? Yeah. So I am supportive of this. I want to, a couple of things. One, do you think that this addresses the most pressing needs? Does this prioritize the things that are like most critical right now? I'm seeing some nods. Okay. Additionally, I see that you are looking for interns, which is very exciting. I teach at CCV and have for years and there is always a pool of interns who are looking for stuff and things to do, potentially in this vein. So I would encourage you feel free to reach out to me in my other capacity. And we can get that sort of started, but also Norwich University and a few other places around. Yes, UVM. Yes. Sterling College. Rosie. So I'm just a little bit confused about the additional 12,000 that's needed and where that's coming from. You'll become from our fund balance. Our general reserves. And we have that available. Honestly. Is your statement here about training and working with DPW, is that a reality? Do they actually have bodies that are? Well, so the proposed, how I proposed it to Tom McCartle and Brian Tuttle, sheep of bezzers. If there was times of year like between flowering and streets like November, December where we weren't getting snow. If they, if it was possible that they, you know, they knew a couple of days ahead of time that they might have a couple of guys that would be, they could free up for us to use for some tree work. It's that kind of a thing. Not, not that they would give us two days a week through the year because I know they can't do that. Well, there's, there's inventory. They wouldn't be involved in inventory work. That would, that would be an intern and staff. Okay. That's listed here. That's all. With, with the, with the DPW. Okay. Yeah. That, that might happen with branch sampling and pruning because that can happen at the same time. You can go along and neighborhood and do pruning and do brand sampling when you come to ash. So they could be involved in that kind of thing and then updating the inventory as you go. But the systematic inventory that would likely not occur till spring again, that would be best done by Park staff and the intern who was trained with Park staff to do that very type of thing. And that would not be as efficient with DPW. What would be efficient with DPW and doing this, if this worked is because they often are doing work along city streets. And if there was a couple of guys who had the training that could actually help, it would actually help in a synergistic well for them to be able to do professional pruning because right now they don't have the training so they often leave stubs that we have to come back and hit a second time which isn't as efficient as if someone was trained to do it properly. I've also talked with, I'm not sure if we run in trouble with unions and I haven't, Tom was thought it might be a good idea but I haven't had a conversation with Brian Tuttle so I'm not sure how realistic that is. And of course it's all weather depending. You know, we might get a lot of help or it might be a really snowy winter and we might not get any help. But the rec department talked with Arnie, he hasn't talked with Rick but it also there's another possibility of doing something similar with the rec department. Again, offering a stipend when they have free time and in between seasons sending some money over this. Even without putting a specific person on the inventory, I guess I thought the adult for was a real issue this fall and that there needed to be someone out there. No. Spring. Spring. Spring is for that part. It's great. So we probably, oh any further questions? Assume that we need a motion to approve this $20,000 bill. I'll make a motion that we approve the $12,000 bill as outlined and presented by the tree staff. $20,000 bill. $8,000 bill. $8,000. $8,000. $8,000. $8,000. That was already set aside. $20,000. $20,000. $20,000. $20,000. $20,000. $20,000. Great. Thank you. Thank you all. It's very helpful. Okay, so that is the end of our regular business. So, on to council reports. We'll do all that and then go into executive session. Who would like to start? I'll pass. I'm also passing. I will also pass. All right. I'm not passing. But I'll be brief. First, just that I've been excited recently to see the physical changes downtown with removal of a couple of buildings right next to where I work and pylings going in for the transit center. That's all really personally entertaining and also encouraging to see that really getting started. And I'm enjoying trying to see all of the projects together as much as I can and kind of further out into the streets and sidewalks and intersections. I went to the Montpelier Transportation Infrastructure Committee's scoping study presentation a couple of weeks back. It feels like ages ago, August 29th. And it was great. And I'm really looking forward to what comes out of that process as well. I think that there have been a lot of unnecessary friction points through downtown that I think we may be able to deal with, especially for example, the Barry and Main Street intersection. So all of that is kind of connected in my mind and I'm enjoying watching it change. And as usual, I'll be at Baguitos tomorrow morning, 8.30 to 9.30. And I look forward to seeing anyone there to talk about that and everything else. I'll pass. I would like to unfortunately pass on a complaint that Rosie and I got that we had a complaint about late construction noises on the French block. We're talking about 10.30 and later welders and such, and also about the dumpster. So maybe we can have a conversation about that. She said she's tried to talk to people about it, but it's an issue. And likewise though, I do want to appreciate out loud and refer people to your PowerPoint that you presented on the city parking garage this last week. It was very good. And people should go on and look at that, spreadsheets, the graphs, the information. I think it can cover a lot of questions. It's well done, Bill. Thank you. I would caution people that some of that PowerPoint just had questions that I then answered verbally. So I'll probably have to convert those and actually put the answers to the questions on them too. I think the next bridge article will probably be those questions and answers. So if you're looking and you see a couple of pages of just questions, there were answers. The graphs were very good on it. Expenses and revenue. Thank you. Sounds like you've been fielding some questions. No, just she mentioned. I saw Donna at Rotary the other day on the same topic. She said something about my PowerPoint. You asked if it was on the website. And then afterwards I walked off.  Like these PowerPoints will be on the website, right? Yeah. They're just great. So I want to gauge people's interest. I know the last time I had a council report I mentioned, you know, is there interest in citywide compost? I just want to mention that there is a grant out there through the Center for Mott Solid Waste District that could potentially fund a study to look at some options. And I think if we want to go down that route at all, it would be good to have some information. And so I just want to gauge your interest. Is it worthwhile to have you write a grant to that end? And this is not necessarily an approval of that, right? Like they would come back to us with a grant and we could approve it. It would be official then. I've got some nods. Rosie's. I'm a little skeptical just because currently the state law does require that the commercial haulers start providing domestic pickup in 2020. So I don't want us to spend too much. I know that there's a potential that maybe legislature rolls that back or it gets pushed back further, but I don't want us to spend too many resources, you know, planning for something that we may not need to do. If it's not a matching grant, if it's a, like, they'll give us all the money for it, I would be more interested. Okay. I also, you and I had talked about the fact that city buildings are going to need to comply with the compost law. And I might be more interested in directing our efforts on that route because that's also something we're going to need to deal with. We should definitely be looking into that for sure. I saw nods over here. Thoughts? I would support looking at it sort of generally. I think if one of our goals is to be much more conscious about sort of the ways that we produce as a community, we have a community garden space. There might be ways where sure, hollers are obligated to pick it up, but what is the city, can we be doing it to, you know, for folks who don't have trash service? Like what else are we offering as a community? Actually, I should be clear too. So I know Lucas Herring and the Barrie council has been talking a little bit about this, but they're also talking in general about the possibility of doing all three trash recycling and compost. And I think, you know, as long as we're, if it's not a matching grant, right, then I don't think it hurts for us to ask for a comparison of, you know, is it better to just do compost or there are efficiencies if we did all three. And I, again, it doesn't obligate us to anything, but having information I think would be useful. So any further thoughts on that? Yeah. In the time I grew up in Northern New Jersey, mostly at that area, municipalities do garbage collection, just as part of the city services. Are you thinking that that would be the plan? Well, I'm not, I mean, I'm going to speak for myself here, right? Like, I'm not particularly interested in getting the city, specifically, involved in waste hauling, but I could picture that as a possibility that we could have some kind of a contract with the Center Vermont Solid Waste District and they could be the contract holders and go, you know, go through the process of putting it out to bid and, you know, changing, you know, providers if there was a problem and fielding plates and that kind of thing, but that we might, you know, be a vehicle for that. That's a thought. It's not, we're not obligating ourselves, so I'm really not interested in that. Okay, no, that's fair. Okay, great. Thank you. I think that's it for me. Just a reminder that water bills are due on the 15th, which I guess is a Saturday, so it'll be that Monday. Also, in case people are curious about the status of the other charter change, which, you know, is coming from petitions, I didn't need to prove to send that language to me. The language has been in my office for some time, but just to punctuate that, I actually received most of the petitions today, so that language was handed to me with signatures on it. I've only gone through and verified about 210, 220 of the signatures. I think as it stands right now, it's going to need about, it's going to need 302, 303. Based on the quality of the signatures, and I know there's more out there, I have no reason to believe that they're not going to make the threshold in plenty of time. How long do they have to do that? They have until the 20th to do that, so plenty of time. You all are curious too. I also got to look at the Winooski's language, which is quite different and has very different sort of implications to it I could mention, or you could talk to me. Just one minor correction to something you just said. Actually, the water bills are due on the Saturday, either postmarked or in the Dropbox. They're not extended until Monday. Oh, they are.  Really? That hasn't always been the case. That doesn't, and how we always did it though. Did you have a question, Stephen? I really want to protest formally that I haven't been able to hear half of what's been going on tonight. There's nothing wrong with my hearing.  I see you've moved them. I still don't know what he's doing with the levels, but it's not working.  You need to change these mics. They're just no good. The speakers point in that way. I'm sorry. No, thank you. That's useful feedback. For sure. We'll have some further conversation about that. I'm sure. Yeah. And for those listening at home, the comment was that it's really hard to hear. So we'll talk more about that. Okay. Yeah. Well, I don't have a lot other than what's in the weekly memo. I will say that as we work through the various items, just so I know this is something we've been talking about, we actually have a big group effort plan for Friday afternoon to do ordinance review. We've got our manager's staff. We've got city attorney, police chief, and we're just blocked out the whole afternoon. We're going up to the city attorney's office and we're going to start plowing through as much of the book as we can get to. So it hasn't been forgotten for those that had it on the list. Awesome. Thank you. Oh, and another point. This is also just a minor thing, but we've had some questions over the years, not sound system things, but over the last year or so, but different technology that could be used like C-click fix and some other things to track requests and those kind of things. So we'll be attending next week or so, the national conference for city managers and I've flagged the vendors that do that. So I'll be making special effort to talk to them directly about the services and if they're feasible for us. So that's another. I don't know if I'll open up on. Okay. So I think we need to go into executive session to do a city manager check-in. I'm moving on to executive session pursuant to 1VSA 313A3 to discuss the appointment or employment or employment or evaluation of a public officer or employee. Second. Further discussion. All in favor please say aye. Aye. And we will not be coming back.