on parking. The parking facility in Courthouse Plaza is now being subsidized so that visitors can park in Courthouse Plaza parking garage at the municipal rate. We're also seeing that the downtown garage, which is only a four minute walk away from Church Street, is almost never at capacity. So I think that is helpful to people at the moment. In addition, my team through our Love Burlington brand, through all our social media outlets, has been addressing the construction and highlighting that businesses are still open for business. We have a very robust marketing plan and that is also being supported by a grant that I received from the state as part of their downtown vibrancy program that is going to help us expand the marketing efforts throughout the construction. Thank you, commissioners, and thank you, Director Alswari. Thank you guys. Thank you so much, Councilor Chang. If there are no other counselors who have any questions or comments, I would ask for a motion to waive the reading, accept the report, and place it on file. Anyone wish to make that motion? So moved by Councilor Yang. Okay, so Councilor Chang, seconded by Councilor McGee. Thank you for all jumping up at one time. Is there, if there's no further discussion, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. That motion passes unanimously. And with our thanks to all of you to Commissioner Bouchette, Holt, and Von Herman, and also to the entire commission, all of those that aren't here with us this evening. Thank you for your service to our community. Our next item is item 8.2, a resolution support for the redevelopment of the Memorial Block through further due diligence of a private, a public-private partnership. And for this item, we have Samantha Dunn, Assistant Director of Community Works for CEDO, Brian Pine, Director of CEDO. And I know that we have with us on, we do have with us, joining us by Zoom, we have Jeffrey Glasberg, who is the Development Consultant for Renaissance Development Company. I don't know if we have anyone else that is joining us, but if they, if we do, I'm sure you can, yes? Yes, Eric. Just present here are the parties that were involved in this project. Yes, by all means, I, something is in the way of me seeing the other person, but I'm assuming that Eric is here, is that correct? Yes, Eric and Joey. Yes, okay. Thank you, I see a hand. So, we have the council that approved the letter of intent on the development in November. We've met in executive session. We had a work session on the agreement in February. And tonight we are here to be voting on the agreement before we go to questions from the council and then a motion to be made by Councilor King. Were there anything, was there, were there any comments that you wish to make or perhaps the developers wanted to make? I think we're going to attempt to address some of the issues that have come up in the last few days and even few hours for you. Great. I think that would be most helpful. Really, the agreement before you is an attempt to provide sufficient time. That's why there's a nine month due diligence. So when you hear folks worry that we're rushing into this, I would hope you keep that timeframe in mind that this is actually a nine month joint process to assess the feasibility and desirability for redevelopment of the block. And when I say desirability, I think what I'm referring to is, is it in the city's best interest? Is it in the public's interest? It does not predetermine the outcome. Let me just repeat that. It does not predetermine the outcome of a nine month due diligence process. I think folks who've tried to represent that this does either have not read it or just have a misunderstanding of what it says because it does not do that. Let me just share if I could for the record. I believe it's important to read the memo that you all received today and was added to Civic Clerk under the documents that are associated with this agenda item. So it's addressed to the city council from Jeremy Farkas, MSK attorneys, dated today, March 11th, 2024. Subject pre-development agreement between the city of Burlington and Eric Farrell and Joseph Larkin as developer with respect to the potential redevelopment of the Memorial Block. The city council has requested a summary of the commitments being made by the city in the proposed pre-development agreement, PDA with Eric Farrell and Joseph Larkin as developer with respect to the redevelopment of the Memorial Block, the project. Well, the PDA commits the developer to conduct extensive due diligence at their own cost, I would note, with respect to Memorial Block and with respect to the project including to develop a project design and a program for the project for the city's review. The PDA only commits the city to the following actions. Allow the developer to enter onto city property and conduct due diligence subject to the terms of the agreement. Work with the developer to select an appraiser to determine existing value of the Memorial Block and its constituent parcels. Direct CEDO staff to timely review the developer's submissions and work product regarding the developer's financial capacity, the project program, design, construction phasing, infrastructure elements and deal structure and provide constructive feedback to indicate its areas of approval and any items of concern. Investigate the feasibility of relocating the central fire station to a new public facility to be constructed on city-owned property including by determining whether existing zoning and land use regulations and institutional controls permit the construction of a new public facility on the target property. Provide the developer with specifications and requirement for the new public safety facility. Coordinate developers planned improvements for the Memorial Block with the improvements the city has planned for Fletcher Free Library. Engage the public to solicit feedback regarding public uses to be incorporated into the program for the project. Investigate and identify potential funding sources and financial benefits that may be available to the project by reason of the city's involvement, support and or sponsorship including the identification of any requirements associated with particular funding sources and then communicate its findings to developer to assist the developer to develop its sources and uses proposal another term for budget. Work with the developer in good faith through CEDAW to develop solutions to or to overcome or remove municipal zoning limitations that would not permit the project to be developed as proposed with the understanding that only the Burlington City Council and Planning Commission have the authority to adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance which must be adopted in accordance with a book of laws, ordinances and regulations. If at the conclusion of all due diligence the city council ultimately determines that the project is feasible then the city will negotiate a formal development agreement to govern their future actions. If at the conclusion of all due diligence the city determines that the project is feasible but that a formal development agreement is not necessary then the city will negotiate either a ground lease or a legal structure acceptable to the city to facilitate the project. There were comments made earlier about what the agreement does do which I wanna just clarify a few of those. First of all, somebody used an analogy that it's a bit like getting the engagement ring and then canceling the wedding. I would say it's actually more like this is an agreement to be pursuing this path without if you're gonna use a dating metaphor we're not two timing. We're agreeing not to two time. We're agreeing to be sole partners in this process. We are not agreeing to have other entities come in and explore the feasibility. So this agreement does not consummate the city does not require the city to consummate a ground lease or any other contract to allow development to happen on this property. We does not obligate the city to repay the developer's due diligence costs does not require, repeat does not require the demolition of Memorial Auditorium or the central fire station does not require us to sell any land or buildings does not actually require the relocation of the central fire station. If the city deemed it is not in the public's interest. Lastly, it does not give anything to the developers other than what I've just listed here as far as obligations and commitments. I think it's important that we also address the question about of the voter approved bond for a million dollars to shore up the building at Memorial Auditorium what has been spent to date and so Samantha Dunn is gonna run through that. Thank you, Brian. This was also a late date memo that came to city council and has been added to Civic Clerk just to provide that clarification. There was a million dollars approved for stabilization and assessment of Memorial Auditorium of that one million dollars, about $350,000 of it has been budgeted to those activities with 200,000 of that actually being drawn down. The main cost to date was to reinforce the roof structure which was the most pressing stabilization issue in the building. The next major piece will be the fencing that goes up around Memorial Auditorium which is scheduled for this spring and is actually a protective measure in case bricks fall from the building so it's to protect the public. The other money has been spent on engineering and legal and consulting services. So that leaves obviously about $650,000 that will be dedicated to the preservation of the veterans memorials. Critical capital needs the building and continued pre-development work so just wanted to clarify that. Great, thank you. Before we go to questions and comments from the council, Joe, Eric, thank you very much for being here. Did you wish to add anything? I'm sorry, what? Okay, great, okay. So are there questions and comments from the council? Starting with Councillor Bergman. Thank you, thank you to Eric and John. Thank you to Brian and Samantha. Please, that many of the questions that I asked in this extensive document before were reflected in revisions and so I really appreciate that. But one of the questions which is still lingering and at Jeremy's memo actually made me more concerned I was really hoping for much more clarity but perhaps lawyers can't do that so well. Is the question of our absolute right to reject a development agreement without qualification if we decide that it's just not in the city's interest and the concern that I have with his memo actually is it focuses on feasibility and also the term viability which we start to get into the details of the agreement and it's not as open as I'm really feeling very comfortable with as I sit here. I believe that the intent is that you all do your work and we do our work and if we then here at the debate we say this doesn't work, the program doesn't work, the mixes of the units are not right, the way that you're negotiating it with the library and maybe even the church and the green space we just don't like it, it's gonna, we've got some issues and the majority because obviously it's about a majority says no that I have come into this believing that this pre-development agreement allows us to say no and I wish that it were really very explicit in here and I actually asked for that in my previous request. So somewhere along the line, I would love for that to be answered. I love for the other, the parties, both sides to understand that that is the agreement that we're getting that we are making. I mean, I've got a list of other little things but at the end of the day this is the big question for me. I think that's very clear and we've heard that it might be a little bit of a semantics thing. I think what Jeremy laid out in the memo is what we are bound to and not all the things that we are not bound to. So if we, the only way this moves forward is if the city council and the administration determine that the city wants to move forward. So I don't know how else to say it. I mean, we could ask for Jeremy to add that clarification to his memo but I think the way I understand it again is that he's not dictating what we aren't bound to only what we are. We are not bound to move forward and all parties understand that we can't move forward past this agreement without the support of city council, the majority of city council. So thank you, I appreciate city staff saying that is what my understanding is and I don't know if it is appropriate and it would certainly be appropriate for the other parties to say we're not gonna talk about this but it would be great to get on a record here that this is also the understanding of the developers so that we're really clear. Joe Larkin, that is my understanding that the city's not bound to anything else other than it was laid out in this document and it's what we are, time to do the due diligence and we'll present options and concepts as they evolve. Thank you very much. I mean, actually most of my other questions would relate to the discussion around the development agreement and if we actually decide to move forward and how that process is going to move forward. The sale or the firehouse and I just wanna say I believe that the way that this is structured should give us a firehouse at the end of the day without cost, if I'm reading it correctly because we're gonna be paying for all the costs that are associated and we're going to be transferring land so that it could happen and maybe that will be a detail that will get into a nuance and it may not exactly be like that because of the way that we're retaining property rights to the central fire district so I understand that. Given that, that was the big question. That's the thing that's hanging over my head. I think that from my perspective, this allows us to move forward. The one, I guess other question that's out there relates to the bid, no bid decision. We've gone ahead and we did a letter of intent but I think that it would be important once again for the public to hear why it is that we're not doing an RFP, why we had this discussion but here we are about to vote on this so I think it is worthy of repetition. Sure, I'll attempt to do that and I'm gonna ask Samantha to pitch in. Unique challenges to the block being that the city owns the corner of Winooski Avenue and Main Street and owns the corner of Union and then there's two parcels, three parcels actually between our parcels makes the challenges of getting a request for proposals very challenging because what we don't have is the ability to put out for proposal a redevelopment of property we don't have a controller interest in, right? So we would have that challenge as well. We have a history of seeking proposals for memorial in 2022, proposals that came forward were the ones that came forward and the marketplace speaks somewhat when it responds and those responses were not adequate and turns out not to be feasible so both of those were pulled off the table. So there's really an attempt to look at the entire redevelopment opportunity and when we talk about, I understand there was concern about the use of the word combining land and combining parcels, it has been raised that that's unclear but it's preceded by a sentence that essentially says in order to get the most comprehensive redevelopment vision for the entire block running from Winooski Avenue up to Union and to coordinate that with any future improvements that the library makes and workarounds with the church, it needs to be viewed holistically and comprehensively and to take parcel by parcel and approach it that way doesn't give you that ability. So I think just from an urban design, urban redevelopment standpoint, you can gain all types of benefits around shared access to parking that's behind the building, freeing up green space near the library and the church, a whole range of benefits that you can get from that approach that you really can't get if you start to do parcel by parcel. Thank you. So I'll be supporting the agreement before us. And we could talk more about the bidding process and what have you but I do think that this is a reasonable amount of time for us to see whether this project meets what we think is important and meets the public interest. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilor Bergman. So we'll go to Councilor Hightower and then Councilor Doherty. Thanks for presenting this earlier. So we've all had time to look at this closely and review it. I also have to say that I would have the same concern as, thank you, I was like, Jean, what's his last name, Councilor Bergman? Um, had on the memo, but I do read and I just want to like read this again because this is what gives me reassurance is it talks a lot about viability and the schedule and termination on page 10. But the fact that it says that, you know, if we see it as viable, we can move forward. So I think the exact phrasing is they anticipate completing and submitting, but then it not only says that unlike the memo in the agreement itself, it says that if any party determines that the project is not viable, so not just to develop or any party or, and this is what makes me feel okay about the agreement, it cannot provide the resources time or continued strategic direction to undertake additional joint efforts. That feels like an internal examination not an external examination. So that feels sufficiently strong to me. I would say that I was disappointed that we didn't reopen the RFP. I think it'd be really comforting to be able to look at my constituents and say like, we actually reopened it. We actively pursued like different types of agreements and rather than the like passive on the website and I'm disappointed that we can't do that, but I do think where I think where that we're partnering with local developers that we know is at least a comfort. And then I also think I definitely would be more wary of the current administration weren't leaving. I both trusted Councillor Shannon and now elected Mayor Mulvaney-Stanik to have a more critical, this is not their agreement. This is, this would have been whatever, they would have been picking this up from the previous administration, which I think does have a more objective eye on what follows. So I'm, I'm much, I feel supportive of this knowing that I trust the next administration to take a more transparent approach and say this is what we're planning and maybe hope that we can, that criticism will be taken as amendments rather than disregarded. And so I thank you all for the time for this. I'm glad that we have a plan for the gateway block or whatever we want to call it. And I look forward to seeing what comes out of this process. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councillor Hightower. We'll go to Councillor Doherty, then Grant, then Traverse and Barlow. Yes, thank you all for being here and for your continued work on this. My question also dealt with the RFP process. And I think Director Pine, you answered this, but as usual, I'm one of the first to fall off the back of the truck. And so let me, let me sort of say it back to you and see if I understand it correctly because I really do think it's important. A number of folks have raised with me the objection to this pre-development agreement being that we didn't have, we had an RFP process that was derailed or abandoned. And I think that I heard you say that the RFP process that was begun in 2019 and then proceeded over the next couple of years did yield requests for proposal, but that they were not ultimately viable, is that correct? I'll just clarify, there was a previous iteration that had Memorial Auditorium, there was one that had Gateway, I'm sorry, when I said that, I mean the parking lot, but there wasn't one that looked at the entire stretch. So this is that, this is what makes this particularly unique, but the 2022 process that sought proposals for Memorial ended without a viable path forward. And I think I understood you to say that, at least in your view, the reason why we didn't get viable, effective, or one of the reasons perhaps why we didn't get viable and effective proposals during that process was because we did not have site, we do not have site control over these three interior lots, is that correct? I would say it's probably more accurate to say we didn't include those other properties because you can't put out to proposal what you don't control. So it was just Memorial on its own, and so as a standalone, that was really not very attractive to entities that would undertake a development of that scale and complexity. It just didn't generate much interest. And in your view, that dynamic hasn't changed.  Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councillor Doherty. We'll go to Councillor Grant, then Travers, Barlow, and Carpenter. Thank you. So the discussion we just had was one of my issues. I actually remember reviewing one of the RFPs along with Jim Lockridge. We had had an email conversation about it because this project's also very important to him with regards to is it possible as part of public space to have a youth space? So I remember there being some grumblings because the RFP only yielded, was it two or three total? Two that were truly responsive, and then there was one that was just for a youth center, which wasn't really a redevelopment idea. Yeah, okay. So there was regrettably not a response that we could accept, and then one of them back out. There was a, but we deemed a successful proposal, but just before bringing it to City Council for approval, that group had started their own feasibility and due diligence and determined. It was financially infeasible to be able to renovate the building. Okay, thank you for that. I think I know I remember feeling like I wish there was more opportunity for more RFPs, but I wasn't, I don't know what my status was on the council if I was in the middle of running or what was going on at the time. And I know that one of the issues that we've had ongoing are issues around transparency and RFPs for a whole variety of things, quite frankly, not just something like this, which I hope will get better. But having said that, I will support moving ahead with this for the following reasons. Having the local developers have site control is clearly a huge influence in making this project work. The firehouse, it's a beautiful old building, but quite frankly, that firehouse is not safe. I just can't believe we have people working in there. It's not safe, it's like memorial, it's a victim of deferred maintenance. So then memorial, I think we have to, because we're really not looking at memorial, the building itself surviving, right? I mean, it's too far. I think we need to be definitive about that and maybe this process will help us be definitive about that because that is really important for the public to know. The deterioration in that building is horrendous and the money that was put in was just to keep it from falling apart and hurting people who were walking by it, which is how that, and so that's why we've kind of been like, if we commit to calling it the memorial block, let's do that so that it's always in our mind in terms of what it means to the community. I do like the idea of maybe somehow doing a replica of it that someone mentioned earlier, so we don't lose that classic architecture, which has historical significance here, so throwing that in. The other thing, I think when people say to a giveaway to the developers, I understand why people feel that way, but I don't think that is fully true given the situation. What's there right now is not nice to look at. I think we can all be in agreement. It is one of the main, next to the pit, probably second to the pit, it's one of our major blight coming out of COVID as we all know a number of projects got derailed and we're just left with this blight and it's had the issues of people breaking in, try to live in there, it's just something that needs to be dealt with so that we can move on in the community and as it is now, this is still gonna be taking a while, so the thought of starting with something new and someone not having site control and that would just add more years to this, so that's another reason why I am supporting it and these other two things I had, you've already addressed, so thank you. Thank you so much, Councilor Grant. We'll go to Councilor Travers, then Barlow and Carpenter. President Pollock, can I just respond to one? Oh, sure, of course. Sorry, quickly, Councilor Grant mentioned that it was, I think like a known that the building wouldn't stand and that's not accurate at this point. What was then said, which is accurate, that during this due diligence period, the developer in consultation with the city will be determining whether or not it's feasible for the building to be redeveloped and stay in place or a portion of the building. Okay, thank you so much. So we'll go to Councilor Travers, Barlow, Carpenter. Councilor Jang, I also see your hand up and not sure if it's up for a second time or if you just hadn't put it down, but we'll get to you in a little bit. Councilor Travers. Thanks, President Pollock. First of all, Director Pine, Samantha, thank you so much for your work on this. I know it's been a slog.  It is quite the feat, obviously far from done yet, but I'm excited about this next step. And Eric and Joe, I'm excited by our taking the steps here to provide you all the opportunity to review the feasibility of developing this block. I will say that wearing my lawyer hat, I've reviewed the pre-development agreement up and down many times and agree with the comments that were made this evening, that we are only committing ourselves to that feasibility review. I would not be supporting this pre-development agreement if we were locking ourselves into any particular vision for this block. I suspect Eric and Joe also would not be supportive of this pre-development agreement if it was locking them into any particular vision for this block. Ultimately, it's after this due diligence period that I'm confident any next steps are going to require both the support of this city council and the next mayor and of course, Eric and Joe. Many of the comments we've heard around this project have reflected some understandable skepticism. I appreciate and understand that and this is a building with history. It's a war memorial. It's been an important community gathering spot. There's many people in our community that have lived here for some time that clearly have special memories and feelings and attachments to this building. I'll also say though that for me and many folks in the city who've arrived in Burlington in the last 10, 15, 20 years, I've only known this building as a place with no future. Lots of ideas, but no paths forward. And while some of the comments that I have focused on again, some understandable skepticism, I also want to take an opportunity to really express how grateful I am, Eric and Joe, to you all stepping up and coming forward. I know that you have many development opportunities around this city and this area, but you've chosen to take this on. I believe in large part for the betterment of our community. I think similarly, I'm very grateful for the local partners who've taken on the downtown city place project. And I believe again there, it's not a project that they had to take on. It's been a significant, I think financial burden for them in many respects, but they've taken it on. Again, I think because they've committed themselves and just as you have over many years to showing that you are community stewards. And so I appreciate you stepping up. I trust you all in taking this on and look forward to what's to come. I will say, former Councillor Busher mentioned in public comment that in this pre-development agreement there's some discussion about you all prior to entering into the design phase needing to engage the public right up front at the commencement of this to hear their feedback as to what this should look like. And I do wanna stress that I think that that will be very important. I think there's a number of projects that have proven to be successful throughout the city because they did really vibrant, robust public engagement very early on. I'm remembering in the South End in the last 10 years or so in developing the South End city market there, there were multiple meetings in the South End where our community was asked to really be part of this design process and to buy into that project. And I think it was incredibly important to the ultimate success of that effort. And so I just wanna take this opportunity to stress that as we move forward from here, I think that frequent early on public engagement process will be incredibly important to the ultimate success of any next steps. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councillor Travers. We'll go to Councillor Barlow and Carpenter. Thank you, President Powell. I am also supporting this. I'm excited to see what Joe and Eric come up with. And I appreciate the additional clarification that we've received, especially Jeremy Farkas's memo. But I had one question about one of the scenarios that in that memo, Jeremy anticipates as a potential outcome that the project is feasible but that a formal development agreement is not necessary. I can't imagine a scenario where that's the case. So I didn't know if there was something he was thinking about that the rest of us might not be. He, I think he's referring to a scenario where you've got such good alignment that you really can move to a contract that is more like a ground lease, if you will, for instance, that's probably the most typical outcome that would lead to that rather than necessarily, you can include in the ground lease a whole number of public policy objectives could be embedded in the ground lease. Okay, but it's probably safe to say that a formal development agreement would be the likely outcome. Yeah, okay, thank you. Great, thanks so much. So now we'll move on to Councillor Carpenter and then I'll see Councillor Jang if you wanted to speak and then we'll go to the mayor. Councillor Carpenter. Thanks, I don't wanna repeat what my colleagues say, but I have just a couple of questions. Although I wanna start with thanking Eric and Joe. I really see this as such a good opportunity. We have so struggled to get anything that would work on that in my old hat with VHFA. I can tell you a number of housing developers that looked at it, perhaps on the back of the envelope and just didn't even wanna bother with it. That building was built as a public auditorium. It's got too much volume really to lend itself to housing, which we all want. It just doesn't work. I mean, the Y looked at it so they could put a swimming pool in it. That's the kind of building it works for. And I just wanna keep reminding this. We would love to have a public auditorium that we could afford, but we can't. So one quick question is, did the CETO office ever do kind of a back over the envelope on what it would be just to keep it as a public auditorium? Yes, I don't have those numbers in front of me. It was estimated to be, this was in 2019 between 12 and $15 million to bring the building up to code essentially and continue as a public auditorium. As you know, I think most of us know prices have escalated pretty significantly over the past five years. So we would anticipate that would be more like a $20 million project at this time, $20, $25 million. And I think that's just important to keep in mind because to return it to what it wanted to be, we're talking $20, $25 million and we could not get the public to even come up with Ken. And so the public will has not been there for the city of Brillington to spend its own nickels to renovate. And that's not the first time we've tried. So I really, really am excited and we need to move on. And it will bring us something we very much need in housing, I believe, because we're gonna have to reconfigure. I think the addition of a hotel in downtown is very much needed and not incompatible at all with our housing goal. So I'm excited to be supporting this. Thank you so much, Councilor Carpenter. We'll go, Councilor Chang, did you wish to speak, yes? Go ahead. Yeah, thank you, President Paul and thank you, Director Pine and Tim for some level of clarity. But I think I'm going to start with a comment first. And my comment is for the public to also understand that the city is doing its best right now to not repeat the same mistake maybe with the city place with the don'ts in that issue. I think what the city is doing right now is the right steps in order to make sure that we're not binding ourselves to something that's not feasible. Also, wanting to really say thank you to my constituent Lisa and also to Sylvia for all of their advocacy for the Council to ask the right questions and to be diligent as well before we move this forward. I think the first comment that I wanted to make is the fact that these local developers are local people and the fact that we know them very well by the amount of delivery they have done for the city is something that we need to celebrate as well.  And I think that's exactly what Eric has been doing with the city in providing both market rate housing, affordable housing. And I think if he's interested and reached out to the city to explore this, I think we need to believe and try to see what is what is what is possible. Councilor, Brian, Director Payan, I also want to really thank you too because of the historical perspective that you have bringing into this and also all the responses also via email that you've been providing to make sure that we all clear about what's in front of us. I think it's still from my perspective, a little bit unclear about this pre-development agreement in front of us. I think I'm hearing city council saying that it's a binding based on our responses. All they are saying is not binding. And it seemed that I just heard here right now today that if the feasible study is deemed good and necessary, there want to be all the development agreements. I just want to be clear that it's the case or it's not the case. If it is a feasible plan, will we have additional development agreements as we move forward or no? I think the, sorry about that. The important point is the council will ultimately make a decision yay or nay, whether to proceed forward. And if it's a development agreement that is probably the most likely document that will be put before the council, there is a scenario where it's a different approach, such as a ground lease, which spells out all the conditions the city is insisting be included could be done. We just don't want to presuppose that it's absolutely a development agreement when we come back with a different document and folks feel like we've done a bait and switch. So we're trying to keep it open on that end. Okay. And I mean, from your perspective and also from the perspective of the developers, is it okay if, for example, we delay this vote and request for the developers to actually do a little bit of community engagement, at least couple of NPAs in the south, in the north, to just talk to people about what they would like to do. And I think it will also be very important for the city, for the next mayor, Emma, Alex, to be able to have a say about this as we move forward. And was just wondering if we can, what will it take, other than a city council vote, you know, to delay the vote tonight and wait until April 1st in order for the city council to approve this and move it forward? Because we know that Miro Weinberger will be working with the next mayor in terms of the transition. And I think bringing that mayor to speed will be very beneficial to the city and also to the project itself. What are your thoughts, both you and the developers in the room? I'll try to see. I'll try to see. Am I talking too loud or close? I will attempt, I think, to address the request or the suggestion. Recall that I think what we said several meetings ago, if this council has received, as a body of 12 has received the information up to now, it seems justifiable that this council be the council that decides because you've all benefited from multiple sessions on this topic, a work session, multiple, we had an executive session at least once, we've had others, we had the LOI back in November. Remember, this is an agreement to attempt to reach a future agreement that will then be shaped by the next administration and, quite frankly, by the council. There'll be an iterative process that we'll be engaging in throughout this. So it's not as if today's vote closes the door, it simply opens up a new chapter that allows for the project to proceed down the path of further due diligence, further exploration and examination of what conditions we want to have in place to ensure the public's interests are advanced to the greatest extent. So I don't think there's a whole, there's not a whole lot to be gained by postponing until sometime in the future in April. I don't think there really is at this point. Because the public engagement that you describe can happen over the next several months, right? So that, yeah, do you want the developers to address this question as well? No, it's good, it's good. Because I don't want them to say, so we will walk out if you do that. So it's good for us to move forward tonight. I'm happy to support this and thank you all so much. Okay, bye. Thank you so much, Councillor Chang. We'll go to Mayor Weinberger and then to Councillor King for a motion. Mayor. Thank you, President Paul. And I appreciate the council discussion tonight. I'm encouraged. It sounds like we are on the cusp of taking this action to move forward together. And there has been a lot of discussion tonight about how the agreement is set up to allow both parties to withdraw and stop if this doesn't work out. And of course that is part of this pre-development agreement. However, I think it's important to say as we start this, it is certainly my hope that that is not what it happens. This has been a part of the city that really has underperformed, has not lived up to its potential for many, many years, decades. We have had that parking lot sitting there in the heart of our downtown, undeveloped since the prison was torn down in the 1970s. We have seen plan after plan from where our auditorium failed to materialize. There's a real chance that the future is different than that past. However, their work has happened just in the last few weeks. Millions of dollars in infrastructure work is happening now that removes one of the big development obstacles to the site. We have the right zoning in place now that is allowing downtown development to move forward in a way that we just haven't seen for many, many years throughout the downtown. It's now happening. Our partners here have site control and wanna work with the city to bring to fruition a comprehensive vision for the whole block. Something that we have struggled with and the past plans have died because we didn't have that that kind of unified site control and vision. And maybe most importantly, the city has at the table now, good partners who have a long record of success, of getting things built in this committee, in this community and who are willing to dig in. So that is my hope for what happens coming out of tonight. It's not that we have to back out of this but that we all dig in and we do the enormous amount of work that's gonna be needed by, in some cases like me, our successors to actually make this happen. I hope we're back here in a year not withdrawing but going forward with those agreements that are going to be necessary to actually make this a reality. Thank you, President Paul. Thank you, Mayor Weinberger. So before we go to Councilor King, Councilor Bergman, a brief comment. Yes, just on the suggestion by former Councilor Bushert just to be clear and to say I strongly support it. What she is suggesting is a large kickoff meeting in Contoy's about showing the public the site and asking for input. So before, really, really early in that, I won't read all the little things but it's really before exploring feasibility to let the public of today put forward their suggestions for you to consider or not to consider and then once you get a plan to have another dedicated meeting for the public here. So that is what she suggested. It seems to me to make a lot of sense. I mean, as we're trying to juggle the program, you look at that analysis of the program and so much of that is based on what the community needs and desires. So I wanted to share that and I support that, her suggestion. Thank you. Thank you so much. So we'll go to Councilor King. I would move that we waive the reading and adopt the resolution. Thank you so much, Councilor King. Is there a second to that motion? Seconded by Councilor McGee. Is there any further? Councilor King, did you want the floor back? Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, let's try for a, if it is not, if we are all in agreement, we don't need to do a roll call. So let's give it one shot. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much to everyone on the city team and also to the developers who are here with us, Joe Larkin and Eric Farrell. And let's go forward and see where we go. Good luck to you. And we'll hope to see you back in nine months. Hard to imagine what nine months is. I guess that means the end of the year. Thank you again. We will go on to item number 8.3, which is resolution and support of the pre-development agreement for the South End Coordinated Redevelopment. And for this item, we have Megan Tuttle, Planning Director, Charles Dillard, Principal Planner. I believe we also will include Samantha Dunn, Assistant Director for Community Work, CEDO. And it looks like Brian Pine, CEDO Director is taking a seat on the other side. Before we get to questions or comments from the council, and I don't know, I believe that we do have John Collow, who is here from Ride Your Bike. I don't know if there's anyone else, but we can certainly promote him if you would like us to. I know that he is up here, but why don't you go ahead and I will find him. Okay. I think that's it. I just wanted to add that CHAPAN Director, DPW Director, CHAPAN Spencer is also here who's been working with us on the project, but was not with us when we did the public workshop last week. Unlike the last pre-development agreement, we have not heard a lot of questions. So I'm not sure that we have a lot, looks like Megan has something pulled up. To speak to you would give a brief overview on this process in the pre-development agreement, but are mostly here to answer any last questions before moving forward. I think that's right. I have the slides pulled up in the documents that are posted on Civic Clerk, but we're mostly here to be available to answer any questions that the council may have. Okay. I did find John underneath the writing on the screen is John. So we do have him, there we go. We do have him with us. Are there questions and comments from the council? Councillor Bergman. Something new here. So I see on page two, there is a reference to initial traffic analyses. And I raise this in a relationship actually to the southern connector. Sorry, I've been here a long time. And the relationship of the development of this area to the traffic impacts to the north, particularly the maple and pine intersection and how that information is being shared because we're going to be having something in one or two agenda items. And that is a big piece of that. So perhaps I can get a little clarity. Thank you, Councillor Bergman. And I have city engineer Norm Baldwin behind him who provides supplemental information. But fundamentally the whole goal of this master planning effort really is to do the upfront work in partnership with the other stakeholders. We have a transportation consultant on board who is using the Champlain Parkway projections as a baseline and then working off and above that for the development so that we get an accurate picture as we've discussed in the past, the Parkways analysis that was made a while back but by using that as a baseline we are having better projections moving forward. And one of the pieces we're looking at is how we phase this in such a way that all the mitigation may not be needed until you get to the second or third phase based on the traffic demands and modeling that we're doing. So I'm pleased it was going to take a long effort. We have a round table focused on traffic modeling in two weeks with the consultants and the stakeholder team. And I'm confident we'll be able to get enough data over the process to understand how to phase this responsibly. Thank you, let me just conclude by saying that I really like the approach which takes transportation demand management or transportation options as we're maybe reformulating that conversation. All of the solar orientation, this is very important and also the preservation of maker spaces. I mean, I expressed real skepticism early on for us eliminating the ability to have a commercial, industrial, manufacturing, enterprise, whatever you wanna call it, base here because Burlington should not be a bedroom community for the factories in the county. So far, this looks really good and I totally appreciate the work that folks from the south end, the counselors there did particularly on this, so thank you. Thank you so much, counselor Bergman. Councillor Travers, you have a motion to make and then if you wish the floor back. Sure, I moved to waive the reading and adopt the resolution and ask for the floor back upon a second. Great, thank you, Councillor Travers, seconded by Councillor Grant. Councillor Travers, the floor is yours. Thanks. And as always, thank you for all of the work that you've put into this project as well. I know that it's involved quite a bit as chair of the ordinance committee. It was my privilege to work with you all in rezoning this area as the South End Innovation District and it's very exciting to now take this next step. As written in the resolution, this is an incredibly unique opportunity to develop what I think could be the most sustainable, walkable, bike-friendly mixed income neighborhood in the city, placing a particular emphasis on public open spaces and resilient green infrastructure. I think this will be an amazing part of the current mayor's legacy. Director Tuttle, I think it will be an amazing part of your legacy here with the city as well. So again, thank you very much for your work on this. Just as with the memorial pre-development agreement that we did though, we can't consider next steps until we're better informed about the feasibility of developing this space, including but not limited to considerations of utility, wastewater, stormwater capacity, as well as as Councillor Bergman just mentioned, traffic and parking projections. And I'm looking forward to tonight allowing us to take the next step in that direction. Also just as with the memorial pre-development agreement, I'm also confident in the parties to this agreement. The folks at Ride Your Bike have done an amazing job with the Hula space, making it one of the most desirable innovative tech hubs in the Northeast. President Paul, you mentioned that John Collow is online. I know that Mr. Collow is involved with this not only through his professional relationship, but I hope I'm not giving him up too much here. This is his neighborhood. So I know that he and the folks at Ride Your Bike are really invested in the future of this neighborhood. Also, Champlain College already an anchor down there with the Miller Building, the Leahy Center for Digital Forensics and Cybersecurity really has a world-class facility down there that I think could perfectly fit in to the innovation district that we're looking to build there. And so I'm really confident in the parties that the city has selected to move forward with these next steps. So again, thank you very much for the work that you've done here and this has my strongest support. Thank you so much, Councillor Travers. If there are no others and no further comments, then we will go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion as made by Councillor Travers, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much to the entire city team and for the continued collaboration with Ride Your Bike and Champlain College for the redevelopment of this newly designated and exciting Southend Innovation District. Thank you so much for your work. Thank you. This will bring us to our next item, which is 8.4, a resolution updating inclusionary zoning permit, a payment in lieu. And for this motion, I will go to the lead sponsor, Councillor Hightower. Getting to the resolution language. It's okay. Sure. No, I'm not getting there, but I'm gonna move to waive the reading of the resolution and adopt. Thank you. That's it. For years in, I kind of got it. That is it. So motion is made by Councillor Hightower to waive the reading and adopt the resolution. Is there a second to that motion? Seconded by Councillor Bergman. Councillor Hightower, you wish the floor back? Yes, I would. Great. Thank you all. I'm excited to propose this resolution, which I've wanted to do for a very long time. Even before I was on the city council, I was on the development review board. When we, to some extent, when we did the analysis of what we wanted to do around inclusionary zoning and peeled back a lot of, peeled back some of what inclusionary zoning had been doing for a few decades. And I think we've seen a lot of increase in housing lately and housing proposals. And I just wanna make sure that as we move forward with building a lot of that housing, especially some of the really large projects that are underway that we do that in a way that is inclusive of all as our inclusionary zoning proposes to be. And so currently developers can pay, do a payment in lieu in some areas for inclusionary zoning. That payment can be as little as $35,000. However, as we've seen housing costs rise, construction costs rise, both of those, we've seen that that amount of money doesn't really help the city and doesn't help the city really do a payment in lieu. So that $35,000, that $70,000, that $80,000 doesn't pay for another unit to become affordable. And so this is asking the Planning Commission to take a look at specifically the payment in lieu. Also more broadly to look at inclusionary zoning, but definitely to consider making updates to make the payment in lieu closer to what the current gap is for making a unit affordable, which is somewhere between $100 and $200,000 of subsidy required. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilor Hightower. So we will now, the floor is now open. Are there Councilors who wish to offer comments or questions at this time online as well? Councilor Travers. Thanks, President Paul, and thank you, Councilor Hightower, for bringing forward this important resolution. You're right that this is a matter that you've been speaking to for some time. Just shortly after I joined the council, it became very clear to me, your knowledge and expertise in this area. And I am hopeful that we'll be able to improve this in a way that speaking about legacy will be a part of your legacy as well in starting further discussion here. As we were talking about the South End Innovation District, for example, you were a really critical voice and are making some important updates to that zoning amendment that will actually require the construction of affordable housing in the South End Innovation District rather than utilizing the payment in lieu option. And I think that you gave that really important voice. So thank you very much for that. I also thank and hope that everyone on this council recognizes that the existing inclusionary zoning ordinance that we have, including the existing payment in lieu option, is insufficient in our truly securing affordable housing for families and folks in our community. So I think it's very important that we take this next step and do this next review. I have shared with Councilor Hightower and others on this council and it is posted on Civic Clerk Now, an amendment that really from my perspective does not change the substance of the resolution, which is to send to the Planning Commission a proposal to consider increases to the payment in Luffy, but rather it adds some language that I think is important context and that from my perspective, strengthens the resolution. I will move that amendment here shortly, but just by means of an explanation, it provides some additional details as to how we got here. The amendment speaks more to the actions taken by this council a few years ago to amend the payment in lieu option that existed at that time, which had not been utilized for more than a decade at that point in time. It adds some additional language about how our current payment in lieu system is working, providing some additional details as to how since we made this change, projects have utilized this. I think a couple projects have utilized this, contributing a few hundred thousand dollars to our housing trust fund, but again, I think we all acknowledge that there are some improvements to be made here. I think that the third piece that it does, and again, I don't think that this changes it substantively because I believe in discussions I've had with councilor Hightower, there's an understanding here that ultimately, while we're sending one proposal to the planning commission that it would be within their authority to consider other options as well, but the proposed amendment makes clear that while the option of increasing the payment in lieu fee is certainly one option for the planning commission to consider that the next mayor's administration may also consider and submit additional recommendations, which should consider not only the impact our IZ ordinance is having on the development of affordable housing, but also as well as the overall housing supply here in Burlington. So with those comments, I would move to amend the resolution to reflect the changes that are posted now on Civic Clerk as the amendment, it's the same title, but in capital letters at the end of the document, it says amendment and there are track changes in that document. Great, thank you. So a motion, an amendment is made by councilor Travers. Is there a second? Seconded by, second by councilor Carpenter. Councilor Hightower and councilor Bergman, thank you so much. Is that friendly to the maker? It is friendly. And friendly to the seconder? Yes. Excellent, so don't know if our acting city attorney remembers we did, we used to have friendly amendments, then we stopped having them and then we started having them. So now we have them again. Just need to make sure your microphone is on. Oh, sorry about that. Sure. It can be incorporated into the main motion with the approval of the maker and the seconder. Great, thank you so much. So that is incorporated into our resolution now. Councilor Travers, you had the floor, did you wish to speak any further to this? No, I'm just glad we gave attorney McNeil an opportunity to flex his skills here. Right. Nothing further, thank you. Are there any other councillors who wish to speak to this? Councilor Carpenter. Thanks, I just wanna thank Councilor Hightower for bringing it up. I actually haven't over the years been such a grand fan of the payment at Lou and whether we should have exemptions at all. But so I think just being able to look at that more broadly and whether we did it 20 plus years ago for a specific reason, which might not have been a great reason. I think we do want IZ units in the lowest income neighbors and they're actually sort of backwards how the payment will works. And then the other thing I just hope that our commission can look at is there's some way in this to help affordable home ownership? And I don't have any grand plan for this, but I just think broadening it is the right thing to do. Great, thank you so much, Councilor Carpenter. Seeing no other councillors in the queue, oh, my apologies, Mayor Weinberger. Thank you, President Paul, I do appreciate the chance to, I appreciate that we're having as a result of Councilor Hightower bringing this forward another discussion about inclusionary zoning while I'm still in this role. And I think with the amendments that have just been accepted, this is now something that I can support because it will lead to another city look at this important and ambitious and in some ways, noble aspect of our zoning ordinance, but one that at the same time has had impacts on the way the city has developed and evolved that we have to confront and address. That's what the study that we did back in 2017 said. It said that while inclusionary zoning had ensured a significant percentage of basically all new development that took place did have affordable units in it. It was one of the factors contributing to why we are not keeping up. We were not at that time as a city keeping up with the amount of housing supply being created in the County. And we were not keeping up with our immediate neighbors and we were not seeing the increase in housing supply that we needed to address the very serious housing challenges that we've faced. So when this resolution first came forward, which essentially would just reverse one of the very few really significant changes that was made in 2017 following that study, I was not inclined to support it. With this amendment, which I do think encourages our colleagues at the Planning Commission and invites the next administration to think hard about what we want from inclusionary zoning in the future and not just look at this change in the in lieu payment. I am hopeful that something very positive could come out of this. We are at a time when if you look around the country, other communities are grappling with their inclusionary zoning ordinances. There's a growing understanding that inclusionary zoning ordinances can negatively impact housing supply. And there's increasing willingness to address that not by getting rid of inclusionary zoning but by broadening how the costs of these inclusionary zoning units, which Councilor Hightower points out in this resolution are substantial. Instead of putting all of those costs on the very few number of people living in a small project, which is what my biggest concern is, big projects have a way of dealing with this. Other cities are starting to look for ways to spread those costs out more broadly. I hope that Burlington come in the years ahead, we'll get to a similar solution. I'm hopeful this amended resolution will set it on that path. Thank you so much, Mayor Weinberger. We'll go to Councilor Hightower and then to a vote. Great, and I just want to make clear that the reason this amendment was friendly is because it does two different things, which I think aren't necessarily done on the same timeline, which the first is to review the payment in lieu by the end of this year. And I will certainly be coming back to the Planning Commission and the following administration and the Council to make sure that that has been concerned. And then I think looking at a more sweeping change of inclusionary zoning in the future. And I assume that that will be a longer process. And I hope that we don't wait to update, make the updates of the payment in lieu until we have that more sweeping process. And then the last thing that I just want to say is because sometimes we talk about affordability and it's hard to know what that means. And so I just want to, on the city website for the 2023 to 2024 year, the income limit for a single person household to qualify for IZ is $79,600. And for a family of three, it's $102,000 to $300,000. We're not talking about very, very, very low income thresholds. We're talking about truly having folks who have a real income. And so it shouldn't be so much of a burden for us to meet our inclusionary zoning. It shouldn't be so much to ask a fraction of the housing to meet with those kinds of income limits. So I hope that we are not so, I hope that we don't, rather than seeing this as a burden, I hope that we just see this as a bar that we would hope that yes, developers and the folks and people's neighbors can help me. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilor Hightower. Seeing no further discussion on this motion, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion to waive the reading and adopt the resolution, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. That motion passes unanimously, which brings us to the last item on our deliberative agenda. It is 8.5, the Champlain Parkway Fiscal Year 24, Project Budget Amendment and Consultant Contract Amendments. And for this item, we have DPW Director Chapin Spencer as well as Norm Baldwin, Assistant Director and City Engineer. Director Spencer and City Engineer Baldwin, did you wish to make some comments and then we'll go to the Council for any questions? Yes, thank you, President Paul.  However, before City Engineer Baldwin gets to describing and summarizing those four, I want to say thank you to the Councilors who provided a whole range of questions to me, making me realize that our technical memo didn't quite hit some high level contextual points. That I will hit a few wave tops of here and then happy to answer questions. I think it's important just to start off saying that this project has evolved through the success and effort of multiple administrations, multiple counselors to get from a four lane high speed highway to a 25 mile an hour two lane city street. We added a significant amount to the timeline in the supplemental memo that talks about us seeking to come back to the Council in May or June for the construction contract for the final phase of the project. The initial phase of the project is expected to be complete this July and that the section between Home Avenue and Lakeside Avenue that has been constructed as part of this initial phase would be open to the public for travel, walking, biking, driving at that time in July of this coming year. There are some rightful kind of concerns around how traffic is managed in the King and Maple neighborhood as part of this project. I have laid out some of the traffic calming efforts that have been embedded in this project to manage the anticipated 9% increase in traffic in the King and Maple neighborhood as a result of this project. There is description in here. Thank you to Councillor Bergman of some of our conversations with the King Street Center and our willingness to explore further traffic calming in the neighborhood if warranted when this project is constructed. In the memo as well, there's a breakdown of the financial requests tonight and whether they're for the initial construction contract or the final, but I'd like to just summarize some important financial elements of this that in total this project, which is $86 million in construction phase costs, only 7.1 million, which is a large amount is needed locally representing around 8.3% of the total project cost. Typical projects in the state, local communities have to pay at least 10 to 20% local match plus non-participating costs. So we have an ask tonight that will help finish the initial construction contract, but on the heels of that, we'll be back seeking another 2.4 million to match the final construction contract. And we will be working with the great team at the CT office and others to come with an allocation on how we are going to achieve that. I think it's important to recognize here that our state and federal partners have really been with us since day one and they are probably as eager as us to have this project complete and move forward to other Burlington priorities. We have many in the hopper from the Wunewski Bridge estimated at $60 to $80 million, Great Streets Bank and Cherry at $55 million and the Raleigh Art Enterprise at $37 million. By keeping our partnership with our partners, we are best positioned to get those projects done. And in conclusion for my part, I would just like to acknowledge that the South End Construction Coordination Plan has been an important tool to minimize impacts. I wish that the timing had been different and that the Raleigh Art Enterprise project were moving as quickly as the parkway here. That is not the case. However, by working in a coordinated fashion and with our partners, we're best positioned to achieve all of the projects in that plan.  Yes, so thank you, Chapin. Thank you, council members for hearing us out. I think it's important to public understands and knows how this project has been sequenced and separated in terms of scope of work. The initial phase is Home Avenue, the new segments of the parkway, which is from Home Avenue North to Lakeside Avenue and crosses Flynn Avenue, Sears Lane then onto Lakeside Avenue North to Pine Street to from Lakeside to Kilburn. That's the initial phase. The final phase is both far ends of the project. Home Avenue to the 189 Interchange is a Southern segment in the final phase and then the final phase from basically Kilburn Street North to Main Street. I would note that the initial construction phase is about to resume April 15th. This is actually the entering the third construction season for the project and as Chapin noted, August, July is about when we anticipate that project will be complete. So this evening's ask is two elements, basically additional budget authorization to complete the initial phase and then additional contract authorizations for design, resident engineering services and project management. When we talk about design and resident engineering services project management, we're talking about two scopes. One is for us to package the current, actually to complete the initial phase of the project but then a final phase to complete packaging of design for the project itself for the final phase and then also construction administration. So those who don't understand what construction administration is is the designer of record is available to answer any questions as a project advances through construction. There's always questions, things that people need to have answers that wasn't conceived in regional design. So what does the specifics to this mean? It will require us for this initial phase to have an additional $900,000 in bond proceeds for non-participating costs. What are non-participating costs? And this project non-participating costs is typically largely soils, development soils being disposed of, DEC has established regulations that require us to manage soils in a very different way than other projects in the years past along with landscaping and lighting. Normal to any project though is a local match. We have a favorable local match of 2% which is for this additional ask is another $80,000 and that would be coming from the Street Capital Fund. Along with that there is additional budget authorizations and expenses that we're assuming that are offset by other revenues. We've dealt with contaminated soils that are petroleum contaminated soils that DEC is funding that will offset those costs. Water resource is asked to upsize some water supply lines along Lakeshaw Avenue in support of a future development project that is also gonna be offset by water resource funding. So the specific, so moving to the specific contracts we're talking about, Cloth Harbor Associates is the designer of Record for the Parkway. They are preparing design bid documents for the final phase of the Parkway right now as we speak. There, as I said, I noted that they are serving as construction administration for the final phase of the Parkway itself. Beyond Cloth Harbor there's WSP. WSP provides resident engineering services and public engagement support for the project. When we talk about resident engineering services they're basically people in the field observing construction making sure that what's being constructed and developed is consistent with the specifications and also keeping track of accounting for expenses and quantities that are associated with billing as we proceed with the work. And then finally, Dubois and King, they are serving as a project management support for our city team. They have unique talent and specific knowledge that in working within the VTrans standard of practice that has really been tremendously helpful in terms of us getting the highest value for the work that we're proposing. So all in all, those are the asks that we're seeking tonight. I guess I'll leave it at that and if there are any questions. Great, thank you so much. So we'll go to questions or comments from the council. Are there, I know there have been a number of, we did talk about this at the Board of Finance and I think there's been a lot of back and forth on this issue in the last maybe 24 hours. Are there Councilor Bergman? I keep looking to see if there's anybody else who will go in first, seeing none. So I just want to thank you for the meeting that I and Councilor Travers had with you guys the other day and leading to this supplemental memo and more detail. It seems clear from that conversation and tonight's discussion on the South End Innovation District that we are going to need to get as soon as possible that's traffic studies from the new development that we have just unleashed for this particular project and the impact on Maple Street and King Street and the others in that area. And so with that, I just want to encourage you to continue to work vigorously with the King Street Center and other people in that community, not just them, but to do the kind of public outreach to make sure that they're not choking on the traffic that we're sending down there because that's exactly what's gonna happen. And I would like you to just share with the rest of the Councilors the thinking around us getting the type of support for the Railroad Enterprise Project that we had talked about in our meeting on Friday because clearly what you've talked about are the challenges to getting the funds and getting the support necessary and we've talked about the need to get the Congressional Delegation to be active on this to get the Governor and V-TRANS to be active on this because if them people want housing like we're gonna put 1,000 units down there, 1,100 units then we best figure out a way that people are gonna move so they're not choking through a neighborhood of poor folk on King and Maple. And so we need them to be really clear and strong about that and there's a lot of money that we need to come up with that is not going to come from the taxpayer of Burlington in reality. There's just no way that we can afford that project. So perhaps you can share some of the ideas that you have had in terms of how we're going to try to garner that support with particularity maybe to the resolution that we were talking about. Great, thank you Councilor Bergman. Yes, we did have I thought a very productive discussion around how we advance the Railroad Enterprise Project just to refresh folks memory. We did get the environmental assessment, the NEPA permit several two months ago for the project which is an exciting pivot from having a concept to moving into preliminary design and being able to really flesh out the preferred alternative 1B which is that simple and yet important connection between Battery Street and Pine Street. So this project will take a lot of effort to get to a solution here. There is no right of way there currently we are gonna have to negotiate and be successful with many stakeholders and find a way to fund this. One of the discussions that Councilor Bergman and I had is what can our strategy be to help our stakeholders understand the importance of the project and to participate financially. I'm pleased to say that our partners have allocated 20 million dollars which is no small allocation for this project even when it was conceptual but we're estimating with mitigation a project in excess of 37 million dollars. So there's a gap and as you know we cannot do that alone. So the thought was to have a work session with the Council prior to a vote on the Parkway final construction contract and a potential resolution from the Council to reflect the importance of the Rail Yard Enterprise project and to direct us to work with the Congressional delegation and our partners to secure the balance of funds needed on the REP. It is one of the pivotal projects that all fit together into that south end plan. Thank you. Let me just conclude by saying I have publicly said that I would not support the Southern Connector unless we had the enterprise, the railroad enterprise project and the sequencing puts me in a very, very difficult position. You've heard basically the articulation of my concerns on this. We're, yes, they're equity issues. They, we are kicking in a fundamental way the can down the road to May and June with this proposed decision tonight because we're not really authorizing the final construction until then but it is clear that we are gonna have to do that. I just wanna state that absent strong support from the Council and strong support from the administration and there'll be a new incoming administration but the department and real active work, I will not support the final phase. I'm willing to go this next step, right? But we have got to make the promise of transportation equity of the ways that we're gonna deal with the environmental racism that's inherent in much of what was planned to be eliminated. We have got to take that in this Council. We'll have that decision and I will have to make that decision but I am prepared without further to vote no on that and I understand the consequence and it is not one that my tax bill would enjoy at all and nothing that I would like to do but it is fundamentally essential that we get this right and we do the job for the people. So thank you. I'll be supporting whatever motions that are made on this. Great, thank you, Councilor Bergman. I don't see anyone else in the queue so I'm happy to go to Councilor Barlow for a motion. I would move the four-part action recommended on Civic Clerk and hope that acting attorney McNeill doesn't make me read all the long text associated with that. If the Councillors are clear on what they're voting on you don't have to read it. It's only if there's a need for clarification. I think I hope we're all set with that. We just need simply a second to Councilor Barlow's motion seconded by Councilor Travers. Seeing no further discussion will go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion as made by Councilor Barlow please say aye. Aye. Any opposed please say no. That motion passes unanimously. And with that, that concludes our deliberative agenda. We have just a couple of items left. Item number 10 which is committee reports. Are there any Councillors who wish to offer a committee report? Thank you very much Director Spencer and Assistant Director Baldwin. Any Councillors we're getting in the last couple of weeks of the end of a Council year. Are there, yeah, great. Councillor Barlow. Only because it's imminent. But we have a special TOOC committee meeting on Wednesday at four o'clock at 645 Pine Street to talk about GMT funding. Great, thank you. We do have a public safety committee meeting that will be on March 21st at 5.30. We are going to go over the CNA matrix which will be very familiar to Councilor Hightower having spent many, many hours working on that CNA matrix. We have not revisited it in some time. And so we are gonna go back and revisit that and get an update on the action steps that have been taken so that we can update that going into next year. The other thing also is there is a resolution that you may all recall that we passed in mid 2023 which was about Burlington Cares, funding for Burlington Cares and also an exploration of Cape becoming a department of the city. We will get a report on that at the meeting on the 21st. That was part of the resolution and then it would be referred to the full council. And again, that's March 21st at 5.30. Are there any other, are there any other committee chairs who wish to offer a committee report? Seeing none, we'll move on to item number 11 which is city council general city affairs. Any councilor who wishes to offer a comment on general city affairs? And if we don't, that will move us to item number 12. The city council president updates, I actually did give during the, at the end of public forum. And that is just simply, I believe that we've also all got an email now from a planning director, Tuttle with the link to where the amendments are on the neighborhood code. There are six of them and then one that's a hybrid. So please take a look at those if you have any questions for planning director Tuttle. Now would be the time to, in the next two weeks to do that. That brings us to the final item of the evening which is item 13 updates from the mayor. And the mayor is here with us. Yes, please go ahead. I've spoken a lot tonight. I don't wanna take a much more time. I didn't speak on that last item and I just wanted to say thank you to the city team that has gotten a project that was stuck for 34 years in construction again and get bringing it forward to a point where the second phase can be considered as council Bergman noted. And I hope moves forward in later this year and also advancing the rail yard enterprise project to from conception to a point where it now has reached this very substantial milestone of getting past the environmental assessment. So the DPW team that has worked so hard to do that. I wanna say thank you and congratulations. Great, thank you very much mayor Weinberger. So our next meeting and our final meeting of the council year will be Monday, March 25th. This brings us to the end of our agenda and I would ask for a motion to adjourn. Councilor. We'll second that. Councilor Hightower, seconded by Councilor McGee. All those in favor of the motion to adjourn, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, please say no. We find ourselves adjourned at 10.36 p.m. Have a great evening.


What's good Josh the boy Ross back out again with another video. So I'm going to check out Jeff Hardy and rehab Kane has become the most hated wrestler and Becky Lynch slams former WWE star man and other wrestling news. I've been seeing a lot of what's been said from Kane not only just recently but within just the past few months. Kane goes by, you know, his real name Glenn Jacobs. He's been saying a lot of questionable things. So we're going to get into that and, you know, all these other real new wrestling related news stories. So make sure you subscribe to wrestling if you haven't already. Let's check this out. What is going on guys? It is WrestleMania here back with another video with money in the bank just a week away. What surprises will WWE have in store for the WWE Universe? Join us now as we look at this week's edition of the blue brand as well as the wildest news stories and rumors you need to know, including Jeff Hardy in rehab, wrestler's reactor Roe versus Wade decision. Kane is now wrestling's most hated very why it's new name and much more. Be sure to subscribe and hit that notification bell for daily wrestling videos and follow us on Facebook for exclusively is also check out wrestling.co.uk and another wrestling channel incredible as always won't recap the matches but just look at the good the bad and the downright ugly as always we started with the good is number one a perfect parody. Natalia's incredible impersonation of Smackdown women's champion Ronda Rousey was a good way to add insult to injury Natalia inflicted on Rousey two weeks ago Natalia versus Ronda isn't the stuff of legend but the WWE is actually doing its best it can to build heat for the match. We can't even believe she came out with a stroller. I mean, this is gold to instant prestige a gun. Those already made the Intercontinental Championship prestigious as he looks like an invincible monster who's only going to get stronger. Also give the usual talk of how the IC Championship hasn't been the same in the last few years will point out the Intercontinental Champion is a good substitute for title matches. Apparently he's they had a rematch ricochet and goon third had a rematch and apparently he just squash ricochet again. So what was the point of the rematch like I get it.  I feel like a solid push. He's had the Intercontinental Championship and it just seemed like it was a paperweight. Honestly, you know what I'm saying. So I don't know what they're going to do with ricochet. I don't know if he's just going to be the guy to put over other guys, but I don't know is in light of Roman Reigns rarely defending his undisputed championship. Putting the belt around Gunther's waist has instantly elevated it from mid-card title holders such as Apollo Cruise and ricochet number three heel Viking Raiders. Is it I heard they repackaged them again to be you know, heel characters making the Viking Raiders seriously well, they sure looks that way after Eric and I far wiped out the new day's dance celebration with Shanky and a very grumpy Jinder Mahal. The Viking Raiders have been misused for the last two years with Eric and I far working as a comedy duo when they should be crushing opponents. Yeah, a feud with the new day is a great way to keep both teams busy while the Usos seem permanently parked as undisputed champions. Number four, a fabulous finish. The Sami Zayn versus Shinsuke is a match that fans can count on for past paced action. Although semi-versus Shinsuke has happened a bit too much recently, the finish was fresh and Shinsuke nailed the same with his finisher outside the ring, although they got caught with Zayn's Haluva kick inside the ring, giving Sami the win. But that was good. What about the badders? Number one, can Sheamus and Drew coexist? All right, in doubt, break out the can they coexist trope? Well, such was the case last night when Adam Pearce booked Sheamus and Drew McIntyre against the Usos with a stipulation that both the Scottish Warrior and the Celtic Warrior would land a spot in the Mentor Money in the Bank of Ladomatch if they won and they'd be out if they lost. The match itself was odd because it showed two partners who can't stand each other's guts defeating the WWE's best tag team. Wow. I heard that this match went down. I just didn't know like the, you know, the context of it or whatnot. It kind of seemed confused when you guys let me know about it, but it does make the unified tag team champs or whatever you want to call them look incredibly weak that they can't beat two people that hate each other. I don't know. If a tenuous intense team like Sheamus and Drew can defeat the Usos, why can't any talented teams? Yeah. Number two, dragging out Dupri. Why is WWE dragging out the Max Dupri segments? Is there an end game to having Dupri announce he's ready to debut his clients only for him to cancel at the last minute due to a pre-medonna style slight? Perhaps the WWE thinks making the fans wait eight months for a wrestler's debut is the best course of action after how well Vietnam's delayed debut panned out and will be the first to admit things did actually work out there. Unfortunately, unless there's a brilliant end game, this is doing nothing to build interested in Dupri's clients making their grand entrance on SmackDown. There was nothing downright ugly as the WWE did a good job building up money in the bank as well as developing a new storyline with the Viking Raiders heel turn. Roman Reigns' absence is hurting SmackDown, but the WWE's writing team deserves credit for continuing the build to the undercard to build the upper card up with a push for Gunther. The aforementioned heel turn for the Viking Raiders and the still intriguing story of when Sami Zayn's fantasy camp with the bloodline will come to a painful end. What do you guys think of the blue brand this week? I didn't watch SmackDown this week. I just let you guys update me. That's pretty much what it was. I thought the last SmackDown I watched was when Brock Lesnar returned. So I don't know, man. It's just like Roman not being there. And we are kind of already know what's, you know, what's really kind of panning out what they plan on doing for SummerSlam. Money in the bank, outside of the Money in the Bank briefcase matches. That's it. I don't think anything else really matters on that pay-per-view. It's like a footnote, honestly, because we all want to see, I guess, what's gonna happen again with Brock and Roman and how that's gonna play into it. So the only interesting thing about Money in the Bank is who's gonna win really for the men side of things. I think a lot of people are intrigued on that part. Everything else is kind of just like a, whatevs.  That's it in the comments down below. Now let's move on to the news. Now, first we look at Jeff Hardy entering rehab. Atop of today's news is a report that Jeff Hardy has entered treatment for alcohol abuse. AEW President Tony Khan discussed Jeff's decision during a media call about Sundays for the indoor pay-per-view. The Wrestling Observer slash Figure Four Online's Josh Nation summarized Khan's comments about Jeff Hardy seeking treatment. Khan said that Hardy is in treatment, but couldn't say much more other than he stayed in contact with Matt Hardy and that AEW will continue to support Jeff as he goes through the treatment process. According to the Observer report, Tony Khan was not happy when someone suggested John Boxley and Jeff Hardy's situation were similar as Khan came back to question later and bristled at the notion that Hardy and Boxley's situations are similar. He said that Boxley never put anyone in danger and that the two situations were apples and oranges and didn't like to hear them compared. Khan's comments about Jeff also included the revelation that AEW has a wellness policy of its own. The AEW President didn't elaborate on what the program entails, but said it's open to anyone in the company and that he hopes talent utilizes it before there are problems. I wish Jeff Hardy all the best as he enters rehab and works to conquer his personal demons. Do you think this is his last chance, though? Let us know in the comments down below. To be honest with you, man, the comparison between him and Boxley is very different. Boxley was definitely dealing with some personal issues that, you know, led to substance abuse, but from what we know, it didn't lead to him being in a situation where it could harm somebody. This is not the first time we've seen this incident with Jeff. This has been multiple, multiple times, multiple instances where he's been in a situation where he could have potentially hurt someone because he's behind the vehicle while under the influence, you know? So hopefully this helps, but I do think if it doesn't work this time, yeah, man, he may need to just go ahead and hang it up. Hell, even if it does work this time, if he's able to overcome it, I think the discussion may need to happen of him potentially walking away and just trying to live out the rest of his life because wrestling, I don't know. It just seems like once he gets into wrestling, everything's good for a little bit, then he slips back down that slippery slope. I don't know if it's because of the injuries, pain, his body going through. Not sure. Can't really make a decision on that because I'm not him, but I do wish he continues to get the help he needs and work through whatever he's working, needs to work through because right now him being in the ring and him just moving around the way he's been moving hasn't really been helpful for his career and anybody else that's close to him. So wishing the best for you, Jeff. Do what you got to do, bro. Next up, wrestlers react to Roe versus Wade decision. The wrestling world is reacting to Dobs versus Jackson's Women's Health Organization, the abortion rights case recently heard by the United States Supreme Court. The court's recent decision that abortion is not a constitutional right is creating considerable controversy as people react to the decision overturning Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey Decisions. Consequently, individual states will pass their own laws regarding abortions. There are far too many reactions to include them all but here are a few. Caleb Akson tweeted moving backwards, sad day. Renee Paquette just mentioned awful. Page directed her comments at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas saying, so this guy just wants everything over 10 that doesn't directly affect him. This is so effed. Mia Yem said, not sure if I'll be streaming tonight but either tonight or tomorrow night. I'll be doing a charity stream for the National Abortion Federation at AM. Jessica McKay said, I'm just at loss for words. The decision is going to be discussed for some time to come and it's likely going to lead to some strong comments and reactions as our next story suggests. As Kane is wrestling's most hated man right now. Yeah. It's one of those very touchy subjects right now and I think women have the right to express their displeasure for this and we got to get into this whole Kane situation because I've seen Kane's tweets and boy, it caused a lot of a lot of dissension between people that are, you know, for what happened and then people that are against what happened and just, you know, just wrestling fans as a general in a general sense because Kane, this is not the first time he's said some very controversial things as of late, you know. Oh, well, he doesn't go by Kane, Glenn Jacobs, he's the mayor. I forgot what cities the mayor of don't really care. It's just some of these comedies made on Twitter. It's just been like really, bro, this is how you really feel right now. At WWE Hall of Fame, McCain, aka Glenn Jacobs, is facing nuclear level heat on social media. After he tweeted this about Roe vs Wade case, Roe v Wade has been overturned. This clears the way for states like Tennessee to pass strong protections for the unborn and is an answer to a prayer for so many. Hashtag right to life. Hashtag victory. Jacobs is the Republican mayor of Knox County in Tennessee and maintains a vocal presence on social media about his political views. Here are some responses to Jacobs comments.  Another commented, seriously, I'm tired of seeing I love Kane but F Glenn Jacobs, that F Kane and F Glenn, he made a career of someone else's career, whether it be Kevin Nash or Taker, trash wrestler, trash human. One fan contrasted Jacobs anti-vaccination comments with Jacobs stance on abortion. This one's completely opposite to the reasoning that you gave when you explained when you considered yourself a libertarian. I just want government to leave me alone, but I'm sure you know that. I'm sure you don't care either. Although there are plenty of furious fans, one who tweeted, respectfully WWE, please never have Kane return to TV again. It's a real shame you chose to be a monster inside and outside the ring. Damn. Former AEW women's champion, Dr. Wade tweeted it. You can cut it as a dentist.  At least one Twitter account tried to put a humorous spin on things. As WWE creative humor tweeted, Kane continuing the most successful heel run of his career. Facts, bro. He went from the devil's favorite demon to the devil's favorite mayor. The devil's favorite politician, bro. He's continuing the heel run. And yeah, man. Great to see you right now. No, no doubt. Yeah. Kane isn't the only wrestler who comments about the Supreme Court's decision concerning Roe v. Wade leading to criticism. As Becky Lynch blasts a former WWE superstar. Kane is by no means the only wrestler being criticized on social media. Jackson Ryker, aka Chad Lail, and killed the wrath of Becky Lynch after criticizing Lynch for her comments about Roe v. Wade's decision. Former WWE superstar tweeted, many posts I've seen are heartbreaking. Becky Lynch being one. That life inside of them isn't just a clump.  Those babies in the womb have a right to live. I pray you come to see the bigger picture. A Lynch fired back saying, yes, I chose to be a mother to a daughter that I could safely deliver and afford to raise. A daughter who deserves autonomy over her own body. Banning abortions doesn't stop them. It stops safe ones. God bless you. Your ignorance and lack of uterus. Yeah. Kane cured his fair share of backstage featuring his time in WWE for his comments concerning Call of Famer Donald Trump as well as the Black Lives Matter movement. Yeah. And finally, meet Bray Wyatt 6. And last but not least, it looks like Wyndham Retender, aka former superstar Bray Wyatt, has settled on a name at least when it comes to merchandise. Brankside News reported Wyatt recently filed for a trademark for Wyatt 6 for clothing purposes. Each of the worlds retain the services of Michael E. Dawkins who is the same attorney who handles trademark issues for many pro wrestlers including wrestlers who work for AEW. Wyndham recently changed his Twitter name to Wyatt 6 with some fans thinking it might signal a return to WWE. Wyndham's many teasers have some fans refusing to accept any comeback until Retender is back in the ring though. I'm one of those people on that camp, bro. We got to stop always coming back to WWE. We don't know that. And I'm not going to speculate that.  You'd be like, oh, he's Wyatt's returning. I'm like, stop doing that to yourselves. Stop. Stop. Why would you want him to return? Well, you know, he's going to get booked the same goddamn way. Like, come on now. Stop it. Stop it. So I just rather wait to see what happens first before I hop on the he's coming back hype train. Not a whole situation with a lot of these women wrestlers and just women in general. Voicing their opinions and displeasure. Me personally, my personal take on it. Am I a big fan of abortions? I can't say I truly am, but I can also say I'm not a woman and I can't relate to that process. And I do feel like women should have the right to choose what happens with their body. And that's just me personally. You feel me?  But I also know there's certain situations, not every situation is just cut and dry. There's certain situations that apply, certain things that happen. And to be honest with you, a lot of us don't even sometimes realize giving birth is a very dangerous situation. You can die from that. Women have died from just giving birth, bringing in life. So I'm not saying life shouldn't be brought into this world. But at the same time, I also feel like women should be able to choose what happens with their body. That's just my personal take on it. We don't have to agree. We can agree to disagree. But that's just me. You feel me? I think when people take that stance, especially coming from a man like, oh yeah, it should be this and this is how it should be. It's like, I don't know about that, man. I just, if you start regulating that, what else will you start regulating? You feel me? So that's just my personal take on it. I understand people, emotions are riding high at this time. It's not just a cut and dry situation. So that's just my personal take. But I would like to get your personal takes on this whole situation. Are you guys in the camp of agreeing with Glenn Jacobs? Or are you guys a part of the camp that is more so aligning themselves with women being able to choose what they do with their body? Let me know down below if you decide to get into that conversation. But I appreciate all the love and support. Road to 90K. Appreciate y'all taking care of me. See y'all next time. Peace.


On the economic side, Modi is taking what was sort of our middle of the road balanced ideas to an extreme. We were trying to balance the rural and the urban, for example. We were trying to balance big business and farmers and laborers. He's not really interested in that balance. He thinks of the Korea model, where you have large, big sort of chebol that monopolize and then he thinks he can give a sort of payoff to large numbers of people and let these people concentrate power and wealth. In my view, that won't work in India. You get a huge backlash.