Since we are late, we will go right into public forum. There is no, normally when we do this in person, there is a table with a system on the table. We don't have that this evening. So we're going to use a timer that will be available online. In front of us on the screen.  We would just simply ask that when your two minutes is up that you would please stop speaking. If you're in the middle of a sentence, of course, please complete the sentence but we would appreciate it if you would respect the time limit. In order that everyone has the same amount of time and we keep the public forum moving on. There is a hybrid system for public forum, and there is at least one person who has filled in the online form to speak during public forum. And the way that we will do this is we do have a couple of people in person that wish to speak both of them. One of them is a Burlington resident one is not the way that we do this is priority is given to Burlington residents. We have Burlington residents that are with us in person speak first, and we will go to the online Burlington residents that have submitted submitted a form online. We will go back to non Burlington residents or here with us in person, and then back to the online residents. The only, the only other thing that we do ask is that during public forum. It's imperative that we all be mindful of using respectful language. Please direct your comments to me as the chair and not to anyone else at this table. And please remember that we're interested in your perspective on policy on city events and concerns that you have. Please do not personalize your comments. And please remember that there are families and children who watch this meeting as their commitment to civic engagement. And do not please do not use profanity in your remarks. Again, we want to hear what you have to say. And it's a lot easier for us to listen intently, if you speak respectfully and with decorum. With that said, there is one person from the public on a Burlington resident. I believe there's only two is that correct. And that would be tabloid. The table for speaking of public forum is in front of us if you can make your way over here we appreciate it. Thanks very much. Yes, please. I'm sure you're happy I'm sober this time. Mr. mirror one bird. You're there through the camera on time. Mr. McCrory height if you can just respond to the director comments to me. Yeah, I know I was just looking to make sure that like we're all here. It's already begun. All right. Well, you know, I remember 10 years ago Mayor windberger sitting at muddy waters with a elite Democrat, and he was bragging about how nice it was to be in charge. Well, 10 years later, there's a big hole in the middle of Burlington. I'm finding that there's a bigger hole in your hearts and your souls right now. And I think that the two of them are very representative of what's happening here. You have lost everything that was meant to be the future for our children in some sort of grand scheme to reshape things, but you've just left the mess. I mean, right now, you're trying to celebrate this and get it voted as one of the best public squares. Yeah, it's great if you want to get harassed by military people that are vets that are under, you know, threat from a system that's not taking care of it. It's a good place to come if you want to get harassed by sorority girls and dehumanized by frackers. It's a great place to come to be reminded that you don't matter unless you're wealthy. It's a great place to come to be dehumanized. It's a great place to come to be reminded that you're not human to everybody. Thanks so much for those comments. There's only one other person that we have is here. So the other person I believe that there is someone one person online. And I'll leave that to you Sarah. I'm not seeing. You're not seeing my line. I don't have that so I can't I can't look with you. Is there anyone else who can look Catherine do you have. I'm here for a Dale Tillits and Dale if you are online and you want to use the raise hand function so we can possibly identify you if if right by chance, you should see a raise hand you'll let us know. So we go back to a in person, there is one person who is not a Burlington resident who is here to speak and that's Eric Hanley. Hi everybody and welcome to counselors, the old counselors have seen these talk about the short term rentals. It's been two and a half years working on this and I hope we're close to the finish line up on this, you know, the planning and zoning Scott Megan work hard. We've all worked hard you guys have worked hard on this and the latest thing I saw today with the email does include inclusionary zoning, which is just like a section eight voucher. If you have a duplex and we don't live there. And now that's my case and many other cases, you know, short short term rentals are a big part of a lot of cities right now. And I know it's only 1% of the housing market right now, and we're only 10. And I know there's a housing crisis and growing to but I don't think picking on the short term rentals is, you know, and solve the housing problem. There are a lot of good projects right now in Burlington, you know, and I've said this before, Doug Nettie's got 99 units going on board on the chip and bank. Eric Ferrell's got all those buildings over at St. Joseph's over there. You know, he's got almost 900 units going up there too. So I just hope we can push this along and I know there's a June one deadline, and I just, you know, short term rentals bring a lot of money into the city to, you know, tax wise emails and room tax. 2019 Airbnb sent a check to Burlington for $23,000. And I know they've been in touch with my own office and stuff. You don't have the inclusionary zoning in the section eight. It's about a million dollars a year, the city could lose with tourist money and stuff. You know, it gets people in town, less traffic to, you know, we just lost some heart and spaces in Burlington to, you know, it's, and it's a portable way for people to go to graduations. Marathon, you know, Fourth of July, there's a lot of great events in Burlington. Burlington's a great city to come visit. So I want to keep it that way. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Did we find by any chance, yeah, it's a listen. No one raised their hand. Was there anyone else that was added to the public forum through the spreadsheet. Okay, so with that said, and I believe there is no one else from the in. We will close the public forum at 754 and move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the climate emergency reports on just because this is the first meeting of the new year. And for the community for those that are watching, but also for the new city counselors. This agenda item was added about two years ago, in a resolution that was led by Councilor Hanson, recognizing the climate emergency, and the city's commitment to net zero 2030 roadmap. This is a time where we bring forward any news stories that we've heard any studies observations and sharing on the climate emergency and these items can be local. National global. The one thing they are not is an opportunity for a back and forth dialogue, but more for us to educate on one another and our community on the importance and the urgency of the climate emergency. So with that said, are there any counselors or the administration who have any would like to offer any climate emergency reports does not. Yes. Mayor. Thank you President Paul. I just thought I would share in this segment that an aspect of the climate emergency has been really brought to the front to focus. This is related to the war in Ukraine and the rising gas prices. This is yet another reason for Berlin Tony ins to think about the options that they have in the city to with to meet our environmental goals, but also help their interests. We have now posted on charging stations in the city. The equivalent of what people recharging their, their cars are paying in terms of dollars per gallon and right now at a time when for monitors are paying over $4 a gallon at the gas pump. If you're an electric Burlington customers to recharge in Burlington with brilliant electrics 100% renewable power.  And if you are a taking advantage of our off peak charging rates as a as a resident in Burlington and charging during off peak hours. The cost is more like 65 cents a gallon. So, and I just wanted to share that at a time when gas prices are so much on folks's mind. We have over the last two weeks since the last time we met we've had two town meetings zoom town meetings that are now posted I believe on channel 17 and on the mayor's webpage that go further really had two outstanding national experts on electrification and other elements of the climate emergency, and I just wanted to mention that again for anyone who missed it but wants to try to catch up on them. You can find those resources there. Great. Thank you Mayor Weinberger on anyone else have any doubts they'd like to add. I just want to let all of all of you know that on the April 25 agenda Burlington Electric has already reached out to me to do a an update on the net zero energy roadmap they have some significant progress and want to be able to share that with all of us so that will be on the agenda for our next council meeting on with that we will move on to the consent agenda. And if there could be a motion to adopt the consent agenda and take the actions indicated. That would be great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Shannon motion made by Councilor Shannon seconded by Councilor Bergman, all those in favor of adopting the consent agenda, they say I, I, and oppose. Thank you very much that that brings us to the next item which is our deliberative agenda. We do have the agenda. And I may just need a clarification. This is my view of it, but we had made the resolution and support of the Vermont Council representatives adjusting the student waste that was supposed to be 6.005. It's just because of the number because you couldn't put it there. But I put that notation. I just wanted to make sure that the council was all on the same page. Yes, it's, it says 6.06. Right. So we'll be going to that next. Thank you. And then any other thing I just wanted to mention on the consent agenda just so people are just to highlight it simply is that item 5.14 is the standing committee committee assignments for the next year. So that will be posted or has been posted already. The story is so efficient on to on to on to our website on to the website. So, yes, Councilor Shannon, you will start the deliberative agenda with item 6.005, which is a resolution and support of the Vermont House of Representatives, adjusting student weights and shortening transition period to equitable funding. Thank you, Councilor Shannon. Thank you. I don't wait to read the reading and adopt the resolution and ask her floor back after a second. A motion has been made and that would be seconded by Councilor McGee. Also Shannon, you will have the floor. Thank you. So this is something that the council has addressed a couple of times before. a study done back in 2019 that identified the fact that the per pupil weights that the state uses to determine funding for each school district was not originally done in a very professional way when ACT-60 was created. And so for the first time, they did a professional and scientific study of these weights. And that fleshed out when I think a lot of us who have participated in the Burlington school system for a long time, as we have kind of felt like that, is it feel like we are so underfunded as compared with some of our neighboring districts? And it's because these weights were not calculated appropriately in terms of what the cost of education for different types of students actually is. And the study offered new weights. And it's in those weights is really where the equity lies. This is of course, a painful process at the state level upon it's a difficult issue for legislators who represent both districts that are underfunded and districts that are overfunded and overfunded when we're talking about school districts is I think kind of an oxymoron. Like who is overfunded? But it's all of course, relative. And we constitutionally owe all of our students and equitable education, which they are not currently getting. There was a task force that went through the summer that studied this issue. It went to the Senate. The Senate came back with a proposal that corrected the student weights and did it over a five year transition period. I would argue that when we have weighted decades for equity and we're now asking to wait longer, it doesn't sit well with me. And I would argue that that timeframe should be three years or less, which is in this resolution. And that I support the rest of the Senate proposal. But when it reached the house, there's another proposal that's coming forward. And that proposal would, it really kind of makes things more complicated if moves away from the student weighting process that brings in this cost equity approach. The cost equity approach would require annual adjustments and those that I've, many people who've looked at this don't feel that this is really the way to attain equity. So I have been talking with some folks on the school board as well as the coalition of school districts that's been working on this. And that coalition is a coalition of school districts across the straight state because Rowlington's not alone. Actually rural districts are impacted in similar ways which is very interesting. Winooski is also impacted. And it's an impact both to our students and our taxpayers. We are paying way more to get less in Rowlington. I did ask a school board member, Kendra Sowers, to come to the meeting. Hi Kendra. And President Powell, if you saw that fit, I would note Kendra is living and breathing this more than any of us here at this table. And I think can probably add some light. That's okay. Sure. Kendra, welcome. Great, thank you so much, Joan. And I really appreciate you all considering this resolution tonight. It is a super important topic for Burlington, Winooski and school districts all over Vermont. As Joan said, it's really been over 20 years that districts across our state haven't been receiving their fair share of dollars from the state education fund. And the formula to distribute the funds uses weights and the weights that cost for differences for students that require additional resources. So students living in poverty, English language learners, small rural schools, these weights were originally not mathematically derived and they were implemented when they were implemented and they haven't been updated in so long and we know how costs change year in and year out. So as Joan mentioned, when the legislature commissioned a study, they did it in 2019. They received a pupil weighting factors report that was done by UVM and Rutgers University. And this report was really a clear data-driven roadmap for how to update the weights based on current educational costs and educational policy. So fast forward to where we are and Joan has talked about it. The Senate passed S287, which is really reflective of the recommendations of the pupil weighting factors report and it uses updated weights to distribute the funds equitably across the state. So it would really ensure that our most vulnerable students have the resources they need to have the same educational opportunities as their peers. It also allows local control and decision-making and uses a system that we on the ground, superintendents, business managers, school boards, we know how to use it. The house proposal on the other hand, with the cost equity or the reverse foundation formula, it uses fixed dollar grants rather than weights for specific categories of students. So those grants are just an average that are taken from budgets such as ours, which isn't correct because we've been underfunded for over 25 years and it doesn't differentiate costs across the state. So it also treats EL students with categorical grants that are really limited and have very specific uses. So the dollar amounts of these grants need to be decided every year and they're based on kind of the political whim of the current legislature. So the weights are the way to go and we really hope you will unanimously support this resolution as it will send a strong message of unity from the Burlington School Board and the Burlington City Council that we fully support the passage of S287. Our students in Burlington and across the entire state deserve this education funding system that equitably serves all the learners. So thank you for your consideration. Thanks so much, Kendra. Councilor Schinger, would you like to serve back? Just to briefly say, I really think that the difference here is we can address this problem systemically and for the long-term or we can kind of address it in a way today but it's going to be constant. It's gonna be a battle every year from here out. And we, many of us who've been working on this really wanted to send a message to our reps saying, we really need this solution and alternative solution is not okay. So I appreciate all of you who, you know, I'm very short notice have stepped up to co-sponsor. I would like to note that Councilor Bergman also was added as a co-sponsor and if it's okay, I will assume that I introduced it with Councilor Bergman's co-sponsorship on there and it's just not everything else. Thank you. That will be duly noted. Thank you. Thanks, Councilor Shannon for all the work that you did on this resolution. The floor is open for other comments or debate on this from the Council. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this resolution? Well, since there is no one who wishes to speak to this then we'll go to a vote. And I think we can, oh, I'm sorry. Mayor Weinberger, please go ahead. Sorry, I wasn't looking in front of me. No problem. Thank you, President Paul. I just want to say very quickly, I really appreciate the Council taking this action. I've testified in Montpelier. I believe three times now urging them to take action to fix the waiting study. So I fixed the system and it consistent with the waiting study. So I fully support the Council action tonight. We'll be happy to sign this resolution immediately and keep working with our school district leaders and legislators to try to see progress on this in Montpelier. Great. Thank you, Mayor Weinberger. Seeing no other comments, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the resolution, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion, the resolution, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you again, Councilor Shannon. And we will move on to our next item, which is a, which is 6.01. So we're back to the top of our deliberative agenda, which is a communication from Corey Mim, senior public works engineer, Norm Baldwin, assistant director and city engineer regarding the Champlain Parkway Project, which is an update and schedule as well as DPW director, Jake and Spencer. And the DPW teams told me in advance that they needed about 10 minutes to give a presentation and then we'll have time for questions and comments from the Council. So welcome. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, President Paul. If I could request ability to share my screen. That would be great as senior engineer Mims has the presentation for us tonight. So thank you for allowing us to be here this evening to provide a update for you all on the Champlain Parkway Project and specifically our process with bidding the initial construction phase of the project. Our intent to cut to the chase to the end of the presentation is we plan to return to the Council next meeting to seek authorization for awarding the initial construction phase of the project. All right, so I will provide a brief overview of where we are with the project and then city engineer, Norm Baldwin will talk about the bidding that we have recently added on it. So next, events, thank you. Great. So the south end here, I'm going to minimize if that's friendly for folks. There we go. We have advanced the Champlain Parkway Project in this last year as part of a larger south end construction coordination plan effort. And the goal here is to bring tens of millions of dollars of reinvestment in our transportation systems in the south end of Burlington in a way that minimizes impact on the community. And this has been done with our state and federal partners and we have what we believe is a pragmatic path to complete this work with a modest reduced level of impact next. So this is the construction coordination plan that you've seen in the past. This has been last updated in March last month in part to add an extra year on the city's class one paving the second green line here that will extend the second year into 2023. And you'll see the Champlain Parkway Project listed in salmon here has an initial construction phase in the middle of the document and then a second and final phase at the bottom. So the initial phase here that we're talking about is the phase that we're proposing to award a contract and it would go between Home Avenue and Kilburn. And to show that graphically, Corey, if you could click next you will see here in blue from Home Avenue to Kilburn Street in blue the proposed initial contract it would happen in the next two to three years and then in red the final contract that would happen starting in 2025 to 2027. So basically you can go to the next, thank you. And this plan as you'll see here achieves many benefits. One is as I said, if we manage how all the projects are constructed the interstate connection with the parkway would be completed once the other south end projects were completed as well. It also delivers many of the parkway benefits promptly in terms of stormwater and bike pedestrian infrastructure and we'll hit that in the next slide. And as I said, it makes the interstate connection when we're ready. By doing it in two construction contracts the city council ultimately has the control so that you can authorize the first construction contract see how the other projects are proceeding and then ultimately it's your choice when you authorize the second construction contract. And this plan we believe is the pragmatic way to bring the parkway the long-standing project to construction. Next. So I won't read through this. This is many of the attributes of the Champlain Parkway project while this project is not perfect it is a good project and I have been clear that one of the reasons our department fought for the 2016 future of flexibility letter for VTrans is to make sure that as the needs change of the city that we are not locked in with this design and it can evolve over time with separate projects. So the city does have that letter in hand and will be a key instrument going forward. Next. We also discussed with you all in September last year that we had heard from our partners of VTrans and federal highway that they expected the city to continue to deliver on this project and to bring it to completion. There are provisions, payback provisions in our cooperative agreement which is our agreement with the state and federal requirements that put us in a position that if we were not to deliver on this project that we could be in a position to repay past expenses for the project which as you'll see in the underlined area is somewhere in the range of over $45. This includes the expenses incurred before the city manage the project starting in 1998 and the expenses incurred with the city managing the project from 1998 on. Next. So with that I'm going to turn it over to city engineer Norvaldman to talk about a recent bid process. Yeah, so I want to take shape and so let's start by saying that this project to this complexity and size it requires a really robust bid process. I say a robust bid process. It involves reaching out to as many contractors within the area that potentially can be candidates for this project to at least make them aware of the bid opportunity that this project presents. So we had done that and we had communicated both with what we know as a list of contractors but also the state. So this process started back in second of February where we actually advertised the bid and then from that there was a mandatory bid where contractors are required to attend to be able to bid on this project. At that mandatory bid we had seven attendees we had three suppliers and four contractors. Of those four contractors we had ECI, Kibriki, SDR and Kingsbury. So it was basically a six week period for people to ask questions to respond and us to respond to those questions with deadlines and that the bid was opened as a result of all those communications and conversations on the 18th which as you see here there's distinct difference in price between what the engineer's estimate was and the bid itself. So the engineer's estimate though I think maybe slightly dated in terms of the dollar value there was a bid analysis so 26 million versus 40 million and the difference is $14 million. So just to frame the context of the C's obligation against the state and federal dollars this is a 95% federal project, 3% state and then 2% local match. Worth noting that there are items that were not participating. So you have what is the 2% local match and the non-participating. Much of the non-participating was identified as largely dealing with soils, soils management. There were some value adds in terms of the fix and finish of this project that were eligible but were worth worthy of the effort and money spent. So you can see here the local match originally was budgeted at $482,000. So revised amount is $977,000 making difference of $494,000. It's anticipated that the local match would at least originally was anticipated to come out of street capital as a local match obligation and then the non-participating would be coming from the general fund bond money itself. You can see there's been a increase of the bond requirement of a million dollars. That first three year period over this first phase. There will be a second phase at a later date which is speculative as to exactly what those costs would be. So at this stage we're not presenting those numbers but it's within the range of I think a million dollars for local match. So what's driving these pricing, big pricing factors? Obviously energy is a big part of any business both for suppliers and also equipment and operation equipment. There is supply chain issues when you're having material set to the site. Can you get the material? Can you make this product happen? There is a competing interest with other projects. So because there's federal infrastructure dollars out there in the world there is only so many contractors out there that can push that work out. And unfortunately I think there's also a backlog within much of the construction industry because of COVID that it really put us in a difficult circumstance. We really do not believe that rebiting this work or breaking out this work will actually result in any sort of savings on both either the state, federal or city itself given that long backlog that will present itself for years to come. We've not only seen this in this bid but we've seen it in other bids. One of the specific challenges of the Parkway is because it's such a large product spread over time. Contractors I believe are covering their risks by setting such a higher price than you would anticipate. So there's a lot of challenges here with so-called perfect storm of what this is driving these costs. So you'll see here that the timeline September 13th was our contract and contract amendment. I'm not sure that's self that coordination. Okay, as I noted February 3rd was the bid was advertised 18th the bid was open. We're here today to present the bid and bid status. And then we are because of the costs to go with this project, it requires that tip amendment. So we are in conversation with CCRPC and we have sought to at least alert them to this potential tip amendment. It's not clear whether that tip amendment will require impacting other communities or if the state and federal government will potentially throw more money into the local tip. Hopefully we'll have more information as we move further down our schedule. Post the CCRPC and also conversation with the state. But we are looking to go back to council on the 25th seeking your support for this or to this contract. My sense is that this order of contract from council we're seeking would have to be conditionally because obviously we need to work through how the product would be financed and funded through CCRPC. Our goal in the end is once we get through this process is to hopefully be in construction, that'll achieve which is consistent with our schedule prior to this bid. And that's I think all I have and I can answer any questions. Are there any questions from counselors? We're not going to be taking any action tonight but this is a great opportunity to ask questions. So council member, let's go ahead. Thank you. So could you go back to the chart, the matrix that had the construction dates? I think that clear. It's probably the second. There you go. No, no, actually we'll actually go back to the map. Yeah, there. So to be clear, what we're talking about being asked to approve on the 25th is what's blue. Correct. So my concern on this entire project there's going to be as impact on Maple Street and that neighborhood. So I'm looking at this and need to understand what the impact of this will be on that neighborhood as it's being built as this and when it's completed and how this is intended to fit this is intended to fit so that the equity issues that everybody has heard about are resolved favorably to the people that live in that neighborhood. Great, thank you, Councillor Bergman. It was the public feedback during our environmental justice review and other forums that really led us to work hard to figure out how to coordinate this project with all the other projects in the south end. With implementing phase one as you're seeing here in blue without the interstate connection our technical experts are saying there's no additional input for vehicles into the city than what exists today. So that that phase one is really rebalancing existing traffic, not bringing additional traffic into this part of the city. As a result, we do not project any substantive change in traffic under phase one. Once phase two is completed with the interstate connection that is when there is a projected increase along the northern part of the Champlain Parkway. With all the other projects that are proposed the net impact on the King and Maple neighborhood is expected to decrease because there are additional accommodations. One of those being the rail yard enterprise project which will connect Pine Street to Battery Street according to the purpose and need. So together all the suite of south end projects really work as a united whole to build an integrated transportation system. And the last piece of this is just to understand those traffic studies are what your analysis is. I cannot remember having visited you at the website a few times, but I don't quite recall. Are they, is it posted there? And if not, it would be, I think particularly important that that information be shared. Yeah. Finally, December. Great. The traffic analysis for what happens with the rail yard enterprise project are indeed fleshed out in scoping reports for the rail yard enterprise project. We're happy to reference those on the Champlain Parkway website. The challenge is ultimately we need to be explicit that all the projects listed in the south end construction coordination plan are their own separate projects. I think, and then I'll be done to say that the, what I heard was that no traffic impact by the construction of the blue that you're reflecting on that. That's what you're saying. That is what our traffic engineers for our project have indicated. Yes. And my request is that that be publicly available as kind of as detailed as possible, as simple as possible. So when a person who lives on Pine Street up there between Maine and Mabel wants just to know they can look at that study and then we can have that conversation. Thank you. I would just request to say engineer Baldwin has anything to add on the traffic front? No, we have that information gathered at one point at a time. I can't pinpoint exactly how we shared it with the world but it has been in the past. But we'll make sure that we make it widely available. Thank you. Have a good one. Thanks, council member and councilor Hanson. So yeah, I wanted to talk about the bid. Just, I find the cost of my ring, I don't know if you all agree as well but just how dramatically higher it is than that submit. What, so you said initially there were four potential contractors interested. Why do we know why three of them submit that? We don't. What we do know is that of the four two went joint venture where the low bidder. So that was, the NSC or joint venture. Is there any? My sense is that probably they were committed to other projects that this was a fairly heavy lift. Okay. Is there any ability to negotiate once you've done the bid process? And the federal state process doesn't allow us to do that. So the only other alternative would be to reopen the process. Yes, but there are issues with reopening a bid. Okay, repackaging bid. Can we hear a little more about that but what's the challenge with that? So I guess some of that information I think it's somewhat privileged. I think it's fair to say that if we were to put this back out to bid, there are few contractors in this area who are capable of doing this amount of work. And if this were to be rebid, we do not have any indication that the folks who put in a bid would submit a bid again. And the city may be challenged to get bidders to the table. We did a robust outreach this time and received one joint venture. And I will be honest, Burlington is a challenging place to work for contractors. It's a busy, dense environment. We do have a lot of procurement requirements around prequalifications and others. We had one paving bid this year. We had one sidewalk bid, right? So we are struggling in this environment to get a robust bidding culture. And I think ultimately we would welcome working with the council on how can we frame our work in a way that will encourage more proposals to be submitted. I would just frame back to the point that I said earlier is that there is a lot of work out there and contractors either were previously committed or taking our work that was less complex scope and less of a risk, particularly for bidding something that's a two-year construction cycle. This is a large project with a lot of material. There's a lot of risks that goes with it. Thanks. Yeah, I think it's, that all makes sense. And yeah, I feel at this point support of moving forward. It's just, I guess my comment would be is, yeah, like I would be open to looking at that. And it just feels like based on the numbers that we're showing, it feels like we're somewhat getting down to the sense of, you know, that this price is not being set by the cost of doing the work. It seems like it's more being set by the market dynamics of just the limited supply of contractors and the fact that there's only one bidder so they can go really high with that and still get the job. So it's a tough bill to swallow that we're having to pay that premium because of those dynamics, but it doesn't seem like there's an alternative at this point, so, thanks. Thanks, Councilor Hanson. Maybe we could go in and the share screen so that Councilor Hightower wanted to speak and now we can see Councilor Hightower. So go ahead, Councilor Hightower. Thanks, yeah. And Councilor Bergman asked a lot of the questions and concerns that I had. And I think another question that I have is, I think it was engineer Baldwin was maybe speaking to. Like how contractors are maybe assessing the risk in this? And I guess, sorry to go a little bit into details but how this contract is structured and if it's like up to the normal 10% contingency and then beyond that, who the risk is assigned to if this goes above expected project cost? So the pricing is based on the contract just held to the unit pricing based on actual unit pricing of what's been established and built. And you would assume that it's within reasonable reason of this ultimate number that would be part of the, that they submit as a bid. And if there are any overages, it would be a result of increased quantities and not any sort of adjustments in unit pricing. They would, the contract would be obligated to continue to carry the unit pricing. And you are- Sorry to clarify, unit pricing is on the inputs or on the outputs? Is it like mild paved or is it out of labor? So it's based on unit construction of different elements. So whether it be excavation and volume of excavation, later feet of pipe install, a number of tons of asphalt placed, later feet of curb, all of this is listed as a unit price. So they're obligated to hold that unit price for the period of construction. Yeah, there is- Okay, so it sounds, go ahead. Yes, Councilor Hector, I just, you asked about contingency and I think it would be helpful for city and near Baldwin to talk about the contingency. It's a place in this, yeah, so budget. So when we develop a budget like this project, we carry a contingency that contingency is held by the city and it's in the funders and only when it's necessary would it be used when there's things that you wouldn't anticipate. So a bust in the design or quantities that the designer didn't account for and was recently required to put the product in the city and the state would agree on doing a change order. So we would make use of that contingency but it would be only held in reserve to deal with those circumstances. Typically it's 10% of the value of construction. Okay, that's all helpful. And so I guess just to summarize what I heard you all say and to make sure I understood, it sounds like the units that we're talking about are mostly about output. So what we have estimated is how many miles of this we need, how many pounds, like- Yes. Feet of this we need. And so great. So they're obligated to deliver that which is part of the high cost is because they really are taking on the risk. That's correct. Thank you, that's helpful. Are you all set, Councilor Hedyard? That's all for me, yes. Okay, thank you. Councilor Shannon. I just really want to amend this team for all the work that you've done on this project. As many people know, I came to this table vehemently opposed to the project. Councilor Berkman in the test. And it's been through your efforts showing a real openness to changes, creative thinking, problem solving and changes that have been made both on the streetscape level as well as now really the route itself. That's one of my support. I as somebody who, like you Chapin will be directly impacted by this road and not particularly a fan of bringing more traffic into the South End. By not, the concern on my part certainly has always been getting the connection from the highway because then we're asking people to take this route downtown as opposed to the other routes that they've been taking. And we have discussed things like signage that would potentially direct them different ways. And I appreciate that there was an agreement actually to at least not direct traffic down this route when it does connect with the highway. You wouldn't direct downtown traffic along this route which honestly is not going to be a very good way to get downtown. But my concern also like Councilor Berkman has always been about the King and Maple neighborhood, how that affects an already F-grade intersection. And I had always asked that when we start this project we start the project with the traffic lights that we have been told will make a big difference at that intersection. And we can't get them in advance of the project because the project has been quote federalized whatever nonsensical meaning that may have. I'm sorry. And I know that now King and Maple are not part of this first phase. So I'm willing to be flexible on that longstanding request but just wonder if you could update on the status of whether or not there might be a possibility to get the traffic lights because the neighborhood is really impact, the traffic jam impacts the neighborhood because people are sitting there and spewing fumes and their houses that line the street. It's not healthy if we can alleviate that. It would be good. Possible? I may answer. One of us sure? Yes. Yeah, so I appreciate your question. We technical staff believe that it would benefit the neighborhood to actually have those tracks installed. But in public conversation with the neighborhood there was a real strong concern expressed that this was kind of the first opportunity to kind of build this thing under the darkness of night and that they would be impacted by it. So we have faded away from the technical to serve more of the sole interests of the neighborhood so that they feel comfort that we're not attempting to establish the next phase of this contract to construct and provide improved access to their neighborhood. So we've avoided this idea of a inner measure of installing traffic signals in this this phase to avoid that sense of fear that people have. Does that make sense? Well, is that what the neighborhood has said that they want? Because I haven't heard that in terms of life. It's easily interpreted that they are concerned that this last segment, connecting segment, any effort to construct that is perceived as the next step that's beyond their control. And so we've avoided doing that. So could we have the, is there any reason in terms of the project being federalized? Is there any reason we can't have the lights and if we can have the lights if we want them? Can we start having those discussions to make sure that we have the community on board? Honestly, it would be to serve that community. That's why we should have the lights in my opinion if they don't want them, okay, but I haven't heard that. I defer to the council and what they've heard, but I think we've heard pretty strongly that people feel strongly that this last segment shouldn't be built to other balanced projects that are complete and any effort beyond Kilger Street would be perceived as an approach to make those connections and potentially could change traffic operations. So we've avoided that. But there isn't a reason in terms of the funding, in terms of the federal funding. That is not the reason. No, that's not the reason. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councilor Farrell, thank you. Thank you, President Paul. I have a question about the old bridges, the local match where like half a million over and the other people are not participating. That's like the five billion over. Where is that going to come from? Well, we're obviously gonna have to work through how we can fund the balance that's due. As I said earlier, the 2% local match would typically come from the street capital and the non-participating cost would be required to come from general fund bonding. So the general fund bonding, I was looking at the memo that was circulated where they had local match for grants and there was $4 million in the $23.8 billion bond. And it's for the parkway that shows it's $125,000. Right, there was already existing a core coverage within the accounts. So the only additional need in the bonding was like $200,000 to kind of fund what is known to be an S&A cost. And so this $500,000 would potentially come from the bond and displace other projects in the bond? The $500,000, the difference in the 2% local match would potentially come from street capital. We have this resolve how that would be funded. Typically the 2% comes from street capital and the non-participating would come from capital. The... That's our current plan. The thought is by the 25th, we'd have a specific proposal for it. All right, that. It's fair to say that we'll probably have to rewrite or guide some of the projects we have in the capital. The $4 million of grant match was on, there were some projects that we had thoughts for, but part of that $4 million was not specifically identified. So for better or worse, this may be the project that needs to fill that slot. We'll have more information on that for you on the 25th. But certainly there are trade-offs if we need to expand the amount of local funds we need to put towards this project. We get $40 plus million of improvements for a few million of local funds. It still is a beneficial funding formula for us just a little less. It seems like, oh, the theme tonight in board of finance in that matter is for the payment projects. It says we'll get a lot of bad news on how much stuff is going to cost. It seems like we'll have to do some reprioritization. Thanks, councilor Barlow, councilor Hector. Just to go ahead and ask you, what is the pipeline for the Ready to Enterprise? Ready to Enterprise? Yes. Ready to Enterprise, you're going to take a stand on things. By this gym, or our tour gym, so we're looking at a tour gym, we'll have a first, like the third alternative, then we'll get a design, a design that's very tight. We'll be on time with the design, and we'll be in one to one and a half years' time and we'll have a design that's ready for the charge. It's advancing, we've had a number of planning to post that on the six leaders getting consulted on board with the legitimate stick to the schedule that's listed in the self-importivations that have been very mindful of the reports in that. Thank you very much. Councilor Hector. I don't have anyone else, so could you give us your answer? Yes, you may. Councilor Hector, we'll go ahead. Thank you, councilor Paul. Thank you for your presentation tonight. Oh, councilor Shadett's comments as well. Thank you for all the work that your department's done. Clearly worked closer than, I think, at any point in recent history to breaking ground on this project and it's due to the hard work of your department and your staff, so thank you very much. I also want to commend the efforts of advocates, including the Walkbite Council, of my street coalition, the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, to different proposals that have put forward. I, as a neighbor of the South End, haven't always agreed with, but I do think that they've done good work to make this project more sensitive to pedestrian and cycle safety concerns, to make it more sensitive to environmental concerns, and of course, to make it more sensitive to environmental justice and racial equity concerns. I appreciate your department's coaching us to work with those advocates and making this a better project. I feel like we've said for some time that it's not a perfect project, but I think it's a more perfect project than when you first started saying that, so. So thank you for your efforts. I share the concerns raised by my colleagues with respect to the cost. I think it's a concern that your department has as well. That said, I'd like to take this opportunity to implore my colleagues to do whatever they can within reason to push this project forward. This is anecdotal, but as a resident of the South End I've lived for some time at a busy intersection and you all know this because prior to my, assuming the seat on the council, I think before you a number of times anecdotally witnessed a number of accidents, vehicular accidents, accidents involving pedestrians. I lived at the intersection of Home Avenue and Pine Street for some time. Never felt comfortable allowing my young kids to play in the front yard because anyone who travels down Pine Street or lives in that area, I can tell you there's been a significant uptick in traffic, particularly in recent years. It's in large part due to increased development in the South End, which I'm a big proponent of. Pine Street Porter has become a great place in a real destination, not only for folks locally here in Burlington, but for the state and those outside who are visiting Vermont. But it has resulted in uptick in traffic. And when this council has considered recent projects in the South End in recent years, I'm thinking back to when this council considered zoning amendments to allow for a South End co-op on Phenomenon, for example. And when this council more recently considered zoning amendments to allow for performing arts, venue, a left wing city park road, the plans before the council have a Champlain Parkway on the birds eye view in both those instances. And this council took action to allow for zoning amendments all within the idea and the consideration that a Champlain Parkway was coming. And so I would implore my colleagues to, again, if the cost is within reason, I'll defer to my colleagues on the border finance to dig into the nuts and bolts of the dollars if they're more, but if we can move forward within reason, I would implore that to happen. There are a couple of specific questions that I would like to raise that have been raised by some constituents in Ward 5. And I don't necessarily expect you to have the answers tonight, but we'd just like to raise them publicly here. The first is that for a number of years now since the development of the South End co-op, Bridge Street has been left in a state of disrepair effectively. And I understand that that's been the result of an agreement with surrounding neighbors that building the store there, it would be left in that position so as to avoid traffic leaving the store, going into the side streets as a means to access and eat that property. However, I think even now we've gone a bit further than at the time we expected Bridge Street would remain in that state. And so I'm curious given that, if here's that blue line there that is the first phase does include Bridge Street, whether there are any plans for what to do with it. I do certainly respect and understand the concerns of neighbors still with respect to wanting to avoid traffic on those streets, but I am curious about the extent to which Bridge Street is a part of the plans. And then the other piece that I'll just raise with you is that we've heard recently from the administration with respect to potential plans and rezoning the South End for housing that the public parcel that encompasses the barge canal may be converted into a public park. And of course, I know a number of folks on this council have heard from neighbors in the South End are very keen in preserving that public parcel as well as surrounding parcels as open space. My understanding though is that that public parcel encompassing the barge canal is currently a right of way for the Champlain Parkway. And I've heard verbally a couple of different channels that because it's identified as being in the Champlain Parkway right of way there's nothing the city can do with that parcel including it being a park potentially until the Parkway is completed. And I guess I just would like to pose to you, I'm curious is that the case because I'm looking at the timeline here and the Parkway completion may not be for another 1.6 years from now of all of those according to plan is the department saying that we can't do anything with that parcel until five, six years from now or what's the status of that? Great, both of those, I think we can start pretty quickly and then happy to defer future conversations. Brake Street is part of phase one. So part of phase one will be staying off Pine Street substantively with work because of the roundabout and those are the two predominant routes from the South into the city center. So work while not we haven't selected a contractor yet. So we haven't gone through the details of means and methods but what I can tell you is in the big documents it limited what the contractor can do on Pine Street this year because of the roundabout. So Brake Street is going to be as part of phase one and we'll let you know where it fits but it's part of phase one. Two, the best thing we can do to free up a lot of stuff parcels in the South end is to build a Champlain Parkway. Yes, fragments of the old right of way for the Champlain Parkway are kind of held hostage to the project until the project is completed. That includes the parcels you're referencing off of Pine Street behind the Moltex building. There are other parcels as well, 339 Pine Street which is where CSWD has their pickup and resource exists. That's the city parcel that the state paid to relocate DPW to its current 645 Pine Street location. The reuse of that parcel is held up for this project. Additionally, there are other parcels such as 195 201 Flynn Avenue which CSWD holds for a potential drop off center but we can't move on that until there's clarity with the Parkway. There are a lot of parcels and those are just the ones under our control just think about the private ones. So getting this initial phase underway will enable our partners to be more comfortable with starting conversations around what happens with these parcels once the project is complete. Thank you. Thanks, Councilor Travers. Council Member Irving, go ahead. I have a little question on the shared use as it looks to me that there is a gap in that off-road bike and pedestrian path between Locust and Kilburn. Am I reading this wrong? I'm reading it wrong. There's a shared use path entirely. The entire line street on the west side from Lakeside to Kilburn. I think there's also bike facilities on street but it's intended to accommodate people of lesser skill and ability I like being wrong and getting that answer. It is my pleasure and I ride time street. It's really dangerous to ride a bike on a bike street. Anything else? Nope, okay. Thanks, Councilor Berkman. So the only thing I would ask unless there's anyone else who has any other comments a presentation that you gave us if you could post that to Fort Dock's. I think that would be great. So we all have that. My understanding is that you will be coming back to us in two weeks and whatever information that you do have and can get it to us before doesn't mean that it just has to go on to Fort Dock's. We're happy to share it with the Council. I would do that, share it with the Council as soon as possible. This is a very important project for sure. I thank so much and thank you both for your time. And I believe, I don't know if Corey- Corey's still here. Left us, but if he is still here, thank you as well Corey for being here. Yes. Thanks so much. I would just ask for a motion to accept the communication and place it on file. So moved. Thank you, Councilor Travers. And a second. Councilor Freeman, thank you. All those in favor of accepting the communication and places on file, please say aye. Aye. Any votes? We have the communication on file. Thank you. And then we will look forward to seeing you in two weeks. Thank you for having us. So we will move on to the next item on our agenda, which is an ordinance, a comprehensive delegate ordinance, to the Council's ZA number 22-0A, Councilor Carpenter. Thank you. I would like to introduce this ordinance and waive the first reading and refer to the Ordinance Committee and then the request of the ordinance in turn to City Council by the way. What? Can I put it? Would you like the floor back after a second? Yes, you would. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Second by Councilor Travers, or is yours Councilor Carpenter? Thank you. As is explained in the memo from Megatown and here I think to answer any questions, much of what is presented in this and the next resolution repeats the work that has been done previously around short term rentals, probably more so on second resolution that we'll be introducing. The gut of what is being introduced and asking for review and consideration really is the memo to the amendment that was introduced at the last discussion of this that would ask us to consider significantly narrowing short term rentals to over occupied buildings, but allow owners to also short term rent a unit that might be attached or on their property, either an ADU, a duplex, or some small unit on their property. The other component of that is a proposal that would allow a non-owner occupant to in a one to four unit building offer a unit at a lower inclusionary zoning grants to get in trade for a short term rent. And the intent of this is to cut this, what we've heard from a lot of input. This is not clearly as broad as what the Planning Commission Ordinance Committee had presented after their 18 month work. It was language that the Ordinance Committee and several people current counselors had introduced as a compromise, as you call it or last meeting or last meeting on this subject. There was presentation and a decision to very narrowly restrict short term rentals to only owner occupants. And that was the memo that was defeated. I feel pretty strongly that this is a good compromise allows us owners to use their property as they have been and give them sustainability for future investment, while not opening up short term rentals the entirety. So again, I just ask for this motion is to refer to Ordinance. So I'm not here to argue all of the substance, but hope that we can get this to Ordinance. The timeline really is, I think we need to make, there's a lot packed in there around registering, collecting information, cleaning up the CDO, all of that stuff. And we spent a lot of time on this. And I think I hope we can focus and do this businessly. And if you might allow Planning Director and Tuttle to maybe offer comments and in particular kind of where we are with the status quo versus how we can work this. Thank you. So in the memo that we provided with you, we offered just a couple of points about how what is introduced tonight is different from the current ordinance that's in place. I think it's really important to state again that there is a common misperception that we have no short-term rules in place today, which is not true. We have been regulating these since at least 2016 and I'm looking at Scott as either a better breakfast or as a more traditional watching a hotel kind of use. Well, they're not perfect fits. They are the system that we have been using. And so the memo that we shared with you just outlines the current status of how many permits have actually been issued under that system. We have a number that are pending today. Scott and his team have definitely seen an increase in the number of folks that are coming in to seek permits under a status quo system as this discussion has continued. So that just provides a little bit of information for you about what's actually received permit. But I think one of the major points about how the status quo is different from what's in package tonight really has to do with their owner-occupied short-term rental system in the city. As a better breakfast, short-term rentals have to be owner-occupied and there are limits in certain residential areas to the number of bedrooms that can be short-term rented. However, in mixed-use areas of the city there's no room for a number of bedrooms. I think one of the challenges that we have seen and that we are seeing more frequently in the permitting that Scott and his team have been doing is that the way that those better breakfast terms regulating the number of bedrooms can be applied is that we are seeing examples of properties where more than one dwelling unit in a multi-unit property has actually been permitted as a short-term rental because they're not exceeding the bedroom limits. So that's one major way that this is different is that in the deliberations we've understood that it is important to limit the number of full-unit short-term rentals that could exist on a property and this package of amendments does kind of close out the pool that exists today. The other piece is where in non, or I should say mixed-use zoning districts where it's conceivable that somebody could get a short-term rental permit as a hotel type of use, those do not require owner-occupancy under our current standards and also do not have limits on the number of bedrooms that can be used as a short-term rental. This has been more rare just because this is limited to the mixed-use districts in the city in terms of how many permits have been issued under this system today. But again, it is conceivable that you can see multiple units on a property being used as short-term rentals. And certainly we do have one example at least of duplex where both units and a non-owner-occupied duplex have been permitted as short-term rentals. So these are just a couple examples of the types of scenarios that have been able to be permitted legally under the existing status-close system that have been talked about over the last several years as being the more impactful type of short-term rental uses that we hope to be able to just clean up as part of this process. All of our other policy objectives aside, I think these were some of the things that we wanted to try to limit. So just wanted to know how that package differs from what we have in place today. Scott, did you want to offer any? I would just add to what Megan said. She mentioned today's standard requires our occupancy of the flip side to that under what's proposed barriers and allowance for tenants to short-term rent their own dwelling unit, which is not possible today, but it's a pretty good one. Councilor Crawford, do you want to say? For now. Okay, thanks very much. Should we actually, I'm sure, I mean I just think, again, through my view of the action tonight is to refer this to the honestly. I think we had a lot of discussion. There's all of the information that they're offering that I would urge us to take that step. Great, thank you. Councilor Hightower, I'm assuming you have your hand up. Yes? Yes, I do. Thank you, President Hall. Yes, so one, as someone who was on the development review board with our city staff, they were not on the board, but obviously they staffed on the board. I just, I don't think that the bed and breakfast enforcement is a good option for Burlington. Historically, we just haven't had that many cases go through the development review board just because there's been a lack of enforcement, but those cases have always been extremely difficult because it is a little bit arbitrary because we don't have a good set of rules on how to enforce it. And I would strongly discourage us from using, continuing to use the bed and breakfast. I think it would be very difficult on city staff and on the development review board to apply it consistently, not least when parking and whatever else not get involved and as we're making changes to parking. And I think the biggest problem with the bed and breakfast approach is also that it doesn't give city council flexibility. Of course, once we allow a bed and breakfast, it's not the same thing as minimum housing where we can change it again the next year. That is now a permitted use that we can't just take away again. So I think it gives us far less flexibility. And also, yeah, it has some of the equity issues in terms of who can tenants, can't short-term rent and so on. As one of the, I do, I think I'm disappointed that we're here, that at some point we had the previous council, it's a different council. So I'll try not to dwell on it too long. We had versions that at some point, eight people supported both versions and neither of them somehow came to pass. And I guess as a member of the ordinance committee and someone who was willing to move forward with either one of the versions that we looked at previously, I don't think it's time to go back to the drawing board. I think we spent a lot of time narrowing down what probably wouldn't work for Burlington, including caps and other things that I think really should be off the table. I think that probably something in between where the two versions ended up will be the best way forward. And hopefully that's something that we can make happen in ordinance and certainly something I would like to commit to. So I'll be supporting this going to ordinance, but also just look forward to hearing the discussion in terms of what we should make happen in ordinance that would make the rest of the council support this. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councilor Hightower. There's no one else in the queue to speak on this. If any, oh, Councilor Shannon, please go ahead. Thank you. I think that one of the things that wasn't mentioned as a difference between these two is that the existing ordinance is a, the bed and breakfast ordinance is a conditional view criteria applies to that. So when you apply for, you have to apply for a permit, you have to go through the process, your neighbors get noticed, you have to meet the criteria, and then it's also an appealable decision. With this change, that changes, I believe. It's no longer a decision that requires any notice to the neighbors for any process with the city or public process, and it is not appealable. Is that correct? I don't think minimum housing registration is appealable. I know there's recourse if minimum housing finds a deficiency in the property or disagrees with it. I think that's a little bit different than your annual rental registration. I would point out that bed and breakfasts are conditional in the residential districts, but in the mixed use it's permitted. So we have administratively permitted some bed and breakfasts for short term rentals, but the residential areas are conditional use. That's good. Thank you. I am concerned with continued conversions of short term rental units, I think that our lowest hanging fruit in our struggle to provide affordable housing is to save the affordable housing that we have. And while there are certain ways in which this closes some loopholes, I fear that it opens some others and that we're not really going to have a net gain here. And there are other actions that we can take where we would. Do more to restrict short term rentals. One thing that Councilor Hightower just said that I hadn't really thought about was that under the current system, if you go and apply for a permit and you're granted a permit, you have a permit. And that in the new system, because it's not a zoning ordinance, if somebody builds an ADU, registers it as a short term rental, we can change the rule. And then after the fact, after they built this ADU with the intention of short term renting it, we can then say, now you can't anymore. You, I had not understood that as a goal of this actually. In the course of the discussions as a joint committee, one of the things that we talked a lot about was flexibility and concern about how permissive or restrictive the policy should be at the outset and what to do with conditions change for better or worse in the future. And one of the ideas that emerged from that process was actually to think about the bulk of the standards with regard to where someone can have a short term rental and to what degree, having those standards live in chapter 18 in the minimum housing ordinance so that it's part of an annual registration process. So that if and when we want to change any of the standards about where and to what degree short term rentals can be accommodated, it would be applicable every, when the next renewal period is for rental rentals. So that was actually one of the major upsides that the committee saw to going that route. You noted the change in how permits are appealable or not, which is, it's definitely a change in that process, but the flexibility of being able to reconsider our policies down the road and make them more or less permissive was a major upside of the committee saw to going that route. Where a zoning permit is issued one time under the rules that exist today and someone as long as they continue doing it, that permit is good in that way. I mean, just to be fair, people making investments should know that there's, you know, what the rules are going to be or a long-term investment does need kind of a long-term commitment to know what the future holds in terms of how they're going to be allowed to operate that. So I think that that's a little bit concerning, but really I would like to see the council focus on taking actions like increasing enforcement, which the city hasn't been enforcing this, not because we can't, but because we made a decision not to when it is enforced for longer existing rules. And I think that we should be enforcing the rules that are on the books as well as, you know, one of the things that the mayor had mentioned in his veto statement that was that we should be taxing conversions. And I fully agree with that. I think we should be heavily taxing conversions from long-term rental housing to short-term lodging units. And I'd rather see us spend our resources going in that way. Thank you. Thanks, Councilor Shannon. I'm, Scott, did you have a... I just had a quick elaboration on what Megan had mentioned about flexibility, something that was repeated to us a number of dives. That's repetitious. Is that the same unit can be short-term and long-term over the course of a year.  There are some cases right now where you can do both because all the stairs line up. As far as I know, they don't work for an accessory loan unit, permit you to do likes, but beyond that. So it gets very clunky doing a permit every time you want to change between the two. Councilor Carpenter. I'm just a comment, it's not in the proposal, but I have discussed it with Councilor Hightower as well as I would encourage the ordinance committee to look at a fee for the units. And I think we, I think it will lead the city attorney to find that a registration fee and the enhanced registration fee is doable. It's different than a tax. A tax might require a charter change, but and I'm just doing this out. It may be charged $110 now for just a regular apartment. It seems reasonable that we could charge something else for these owner-occupied short-term rentals. So I would encourage the ordinance committee to look at that as well. Thanks Councilor Carpenter. Councilor Berkley. I appreciate all the work that you all made. The other folks did on this. And actually let me just start with that, the little minutiae in terms of the use of chapter 18 as a regulation of use, akin to licensing maybe even, and it is not for that. I understand the desire, but I would say that a city attorney's opinion, which I have no longer would be appropriate in terms of using it in that fashion because the minimum housing code is for standards. And so the way that we get there is can be very tricky. But actually I want to thank again, everybody who did this work. For a really long time, I didn't have to do that and I really appreciate the fact that you had to balance owners' desire to use their property profitably, that you had to look at the neighborhood and the impacts that are happening in the neighborhood. And this is for me, the most important thing is the impact on the housing stock. And it is not a secret to any of us that we have got a wicked housing crisis. And I'm here in stories all the time about tenants who don't know where they're going to live in June. And we had in our packet tonight a resignation from a commission for that very reason. This is a live and very detrimental situation or a city, we all got I think an email communication on this very fact while we were sitting here. So I understand personally the desire to help owners who are trying to help pay for their own houses by turning a second unit, by creating a second unit and then you can turn it into a short term rental, if not a rental property. That's how I afforded my house, not as a short term rental, but as a rental property for 11 years. So I totally understand that, but I see that the more that we open this up, the more units we're going to lose. And I have a real problem with the expansion into the non-owner occupying. And I just can't support that person. We're losing, if we lose housing without replacement or any payment into the housing trust fund, we are, we're just compounding a problem that is horrific. I don't use that as hyperbole. And the way I look at the proposal now is I think that it opens things up much too much for me to support tonight. Now, if it gets referred, I understand what the action being asked for is and I generally appreciate the idea that you work stuff through in committee. So I hope if it is referred that the committee will address replacement of lost housing and bolstering the housing trust fund. Councilor Shannon talked about the mayor's comment on attacks of some sort that is not in either of the proposals, $50 registration fee that's in the minimum housing proposal. I mean, please. So it's got to reflect the work that has to go in because there is a lot of work that's going to be entailed in doing this stuff. There's a lot of work, more than 50 bucks is why the minimum housing fee is not 50 bucks because to enforce it and you know that I know it takes a whole lot. So if it got referred, that wouldn't be the areas that I'd be hoping that you would be really drilling down to but I'd rather us either improve the current zoning ordinance or go back to the proposal that passed with eight votes. I know it didn't get both on the veto stage but that would be my druthers and it's for that reason and it doesn't give me any joy in saying that at this point in time I will be voting no. Thank you, Councilor. Oh, I'm sorry, can you please go ahead? I didn't mean to objectify it. Okay, that's our hands up for that. Thanks, yeah. I agree with Councilor Burnham. We're in a housing crisis. It's not seen that it's gotten better, it seems that it's gotten worse. So it's really a tragedy that so many people, I mean, at the whole time I've lived here it's a constant flow of people in my universe. And I think throughout the city that have to leave because they can't find housing. And when we took this issue up as part of the housing summit in 2019 it was very clear the intention the predominant intention and I think closing these loopholes is important and I support that, but the predominant intention of what we were tasked with was to limit conversion of housing to shorter rentals and to limit that. And to me, this goes in the opposite direction of that where this actually expands I think the conversion compared to what's on the books now. So and I think people can minimize it and yes, it's not gonna solve the housing crisis of course but even if it's 50 units or 100 units that's hundreds of people that could potentially live in Burlington that have to leave the city or can't come into the city that want to live here. That is meaningful and that's in my mind tragic and we have the opportunity to do something about it either by strengthening or potentially improving what's on the books and closing loopholes but to Luce and I just think it's a mistake and I can't support that, thank you. Thanks Councilor Hanson. There's no one else. Councilor Hanson, yes please. Yeah, no, I mean, I wanna say I want to echo Councilor Gordon's kind of like sentiment that I see that there's so much work that's been put into this on all sides and having talked with many of you about this issue I'm not hearing from anybody that they don't care about the housing crisis in Burlington. I think it's pretty clear that that's an issue in our community. I've heard from almost every single one of you that's an issue near and dear to your heart so I want to acknowledge that but I also do share, you know, Councilor Bergman, Shannon and Hanson's concerns about the available housing stock and the impact that this has on, you know, folks and long-term records, I want to say I'm saying so for that reason I will also report it on. Thanks Councilor Gaus. Councilor Trevers. Thank you President Paul. So the question before the council this evening is whether or not to refer this resolution to the Ordinance Committee for consideration. As I see the question for the council is not whether you support the resolution as it's been put forward but simply whether you want to refer it to the Ordinance Committee to be reviewed in greater detail. If I'm being honest with the way that resolution has been presented tonight if the question was whether or not we would vote in favor of it. I don't know that I would because I think there's pieces of it that still need work. I appreciate Councilor Carpenter for example mentioning the idea of a registration fee. I can tell you though that in running for this seat I heard multiple times for voters who were taking a keen interest in short-term rentals. This idea of short-term rentals, Airbnb's was on the ballot on town meeting day. And as I see it, there's an expectation from the public that this new council to take this issue on. I certainly respected that from the comments made my colleagues here about the work that's been put into this in the past. But I think that there's still work to be done and there's an expectation among folks in the public that we take it on. I agree there's a housing crisis. It's felt very acutely in the South End and in Ward 5. And I share Councilor Shannon's concerns of those raised by others with respect to the conversion of units from long-term into short-term rentals. My concern also though is that I don't think the status quo addresses that situation. In reviewing Directive Total's memorandum, for example, it looks like there's a number of existing independent permits. And I think that if we do not take this issue on that we can highly anticipate that the number of permit applications will significantly increase. And I suppose I just want to ask you a question. Do you have any sense as to how many application permits you may expect? Can you speak to the department's ability and perhaps even the development review board's ability to take those applications on? The DRV has been seeing two or three, even four short-term rental applications on every agenda for the past couple of months. And I think the large part that's been driven by it looked like the council was coming to end the process. But that has continued even currently. We have a number of folks coming in. It seems like anyone who can get approval under the existing standards has decided that they're going to see what the end result of this process will be. I think ultimately how many of them could seek a permit under the existing standards really depends on whether they're either an owner-occupied property that could fit under the bed and breakfast standards today or in a mixed-use part of the city where owner-occupies are required. And we don't have enough detail on what we will need to be the existing short-term rental operation to know exactly how many of them would fit under one of those two. OK. So my concern is I've certainly heard from folks who are interested in, for example, accessory dwelling units being long-term rentals or duplexes being long-term rentals. But as I understand it, based on your remote director title, at the moment, you can register an accessory dwelling unit as a bed and breakfast. You can register your duplex next door as a bed and breakfast. You can register units within a three- or four-unit building as a bed and breakfast. And as Councillor Hightower pointed out, if this council does not take action, bed and breakfast applications are submitted in duplexes in accessory dwelling units and three or four units going forward, those units may potentially be taken off the long-term rental market forever because you will issue a permit for them to be a bed and breakfast. And as Councillor Hightower, I think, aptly pointed out, we won't necessarily, as a council, at that point in time, have the opportunity to go back and change that situation. And so I strongly feel that the council needs to take another look at this. I think that, whereas I agree with Councillor Bergman with respect to Chapter 18, I think that one of the benefits, actually, of bringing Chapter 18 into short-term rentals would be that it would apply minimum housing standards to short-term rentals. It would allow the co-enforcement office an opportunity to review these properties and to apply minimum housing standards, including minimum energy efficiency standards that this council recently enacted, potentially with respect to short-term rentals. And, again, to sort of reiterate a comment made by Councillor Carpenter, it would also allow an opportunity for us to charge an annual fee in a way that our permitting process does not currently allow. Do you know of the top of your head, for example, where it's a permitted use, what the fee for that is currently, for a bed and breakfast? Zoning permits $122 for price. Okay, $122, and a conditional use permit fee is how much? $195. Okay, and then just, and that's a one-time fee up front for the permit, correct? All right. And then there's one other issue that I just want to raise from an equity standpoint. You touched on it a little bit, but I think it's a really important issue. So currently, bed and breakfast are a conditional use. I think you mentioned in low-density residential neighborhoods, is that correct? In all of the residential districts. Okay, and you said it's not a conditional use in mixed-use neighborhoods, is that right? That's permitted. Okay, and just, the zoning map is a little bit hard to read, but correct me if I'm wrong, the mixed-use neighborhoods are pretty much the old north end, correct? Parts of the old north end. Yeah, along North Street and North and Misty Avenue are mixed-use zoning districts. The bulk of some of the residential neighborhoods in the old north end are either residential medium or residential high density. Okay. In those neighborhoods, however, where bed and breakfast are currently a permitted use, neighbors would not have an opportunity to appeal that application. It's something that your office could approve administratively, correct? Anything's appealable, but there wouldn't be a public forum the same way there is for conditional use after DRV. Okay, so it's only those folks who live in residential neighborhoods where it's labeled as a conditional use. That would have the opportunity to go for a public hearing, go for the DRV to have their voices heard, is that correct? Okay, I think just finally that that presents an equitable issue as well. I think that folks in every neighborhood or city should, if they have concerns about a bed and breakfast or a RVV, have the same opportunity to be heard with respect to that development. I don't think that exists right now. I don't think the status quo addresses fully issues with respect to the version. I think that we have a huge opportunity here to lay communities all around the country. You do a quick little search, Boulder, Colorado, yes I could, New York, Providence, Rhode Island, State College, Pennsylvania, other college towns around the country have over recent years taken this opportunity that the advent of RVV to address the situation. And I think that this council doesn't take action with respect to it, that we would be advocating our responsibility there. Where there was a council at one point, it was a long time ago that clearly felt it necessary to regulate bed and breakfast, which is why we have it in the ordinances now. We have a new formal logic now, and I think it's our responsibility to take it on. So I'll be voting to approve this. I think I look forward to doing the work. Thank you, Councilor Carter. Thanks, Councilor Trevers. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this before we, Councilor Hightower? Yeah, I think Councilor Trevers, I don't even know how to say your last name yet. I'm sorry, I will learn, is said it well, but I really do like the only, and Megan and Scott can correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason that I remember that a bed and breakfast ever being denied was because of the parking plan and the parking minimums. And with us getting rid of parking minimums, we are opening up the bed and breakfast field wide open. And the DRB is much less likely, I think than the city council would be conservative on who they give these permits to. And I really don't think that leaving it to the bed and breakfast ordinance is the right way to go. And to say that we're not even gonna look at this again and try to get it right. I completely agree is us getting rid of the responsibility to say we're not gonna touch this and just letting it happen as it is. And I really don't think that that is the right way to handle this problem. Thanks, Councilor Hightower. We're Councilor Hanson to be followed by Councilor Shannon and then let's try to go, let's try to see if we can maybe go to a vote. Thanks, yeah, I just wanted to respond to, I guess both previous councillors and just say that for me voting no isn't saying, let's just stick with the status quo. I think it's clear we need to continue to work on this and get this right. We know that that's gonna be a debate about given how it's been in this council and how it's been in committee. And I feel like to start in a place that had failed 6-6 in the previous council and that many of us strongly oppose which is this current language I think is not the way to go. I think we should start with something that more so addresses again the issue of not losing more units. So that's how I feel and I feel like if we were to defeat this today we could start on more of that page. And still we could refer it to ordinance if we wanted to continue that work at the committee level. So I just wanted to say it's not at this dichotomy between we either specifically advanced this proposal to ordinance committee or we do not that. I don't think those are the options before us. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Hanson. Councillor Shannon. I was just going to say almost exactly what Councillor Hanson just said. So I'll leave it at, I agree with Councillor Hanson. Okay, that's something for brevity. Thank you, Councillor Travers. Thank you. Councillor Freeman. Councillor Freeman. Oh, so I was sort of back and forth about whether to support this. I agree with concerns about the version that's being referred by various councillors. I think that process level that I probably you guys were on a lot of proposals to council for referral. And I just started to think to, it doesn't feel good to let us just watch something at that particular referral level. I don't necessarily agree with this version. I'm glad to hear that I will continue with the work group. I agree that we should have a less reminiscent version that it's important, even though it's, you know, once whatever I go out of the housing stuff that it all makes up this sort of most of how we provide this necessary I think for people to shelter, which is unfortunately so over the modified and so accessible to people. And that is greatly affecting the scene. So, I will support this version in the sense that Thanks, Councillor Freeman. Do you want to say for that Councillor Travers? No, I yielded to Councillor Perlman. Okay. Just a couple of comments. If you really need to go to ordinance. This version in my opinion, I'm not here to argue it, but it was significantly restrict what's going on now unregulated. There's only a couple of possibilities short of banning it short term rentals pretty much an entirety, which is what folks try to do and what was veto. So I think we need an opportunity to look at some little other options. That's all I believe this will do. And I think it should go to ordinance for that. Thanks, Councillor Parker. That's what you're after. Anyone else? Okay, so just so we all understand the motion was to waive the first reading, refer it to the ordinance committee with a request that the ordinance returns to the council by June 1 of 2022. So a yes vote is to refer to ordinance. A no vote is not to refer to ordinance. It appears as though it might be a good idea to do a world call. Councillor Barla. Yes. Councillor Bergman. No. Councillor Carpenter. Yes. Councillor Freeman. Yes. Councillor Hanson. No. Councillor Hightower. Yes. Councillor Hose. No. Councillor McGee. Yes. Councillor Shannon. No. Councillor Trevers. Yes. Councillor President Call. Yes. That's four names, one access. So the motion passes and will be referred to the ordinance committee or that hopefully action to be taken by the 1st of June, which leads us to the next item, which is another ordinance on chapter 18, housing for term rentals. Councillor Carpenter. Thank you. I'll be fun to have to finish, but these two really go in tandem. So they need to be considered together. You can't really separate them. So I again, based on all of the other discussion, I encourage us to refer this to ordinance and work through the details as we look at the substance of how we define a short term level. So you're making a motion. I'm making a motion to waive the first reading of this and refer to the ordinance committee with a request that I return to the City Council by June 1. Thank you for that motion. Is there a second to that motion? Thank you, Councillor Boissel. Is there anyone who would like to speak to that? Yes, Councillor Peruzza. You have to consider these together. So I will vote in favor of it, makes no sense not to. I would hope that we can get it back by June 1st. We have a lot that is going on between now and then as we've heard earlier and as the finance board, the word request for it back to me means you're requesting it. But if it cannot happen, if the word needs to happen to get this right, then I think the plain meaning of the motion is that there is no requirement. And that's the way I take it. Thank you, Councillor Peruzza. Anyone else wishing to speak to this second ordinance that's related to the first one? I think with that then, why don't we go to a vote and let's just try to wing it here. All those in favor of the motion to waive the first reading and refer to the ordinance committee with a request that the ordinance return to the City Council by June 1, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Who is unanimous? So we will move on to the next item on our agenda. And I am mindful of the fact that we have a local control committee on commission meeting after we will do that after item 6.05 and before we go to committee reports. The next item is a resolution retaining a fair free public transportation and appropriate service reductions. Councillor Hanson. To waive the reading and adopt the resolution. That's what I'm going to say. Motion made to waive the reading and adopt the resolution. Is there a second to that motion? Thank you, Councillor Bergman. Councillor Hanson, the floor is yours. Great, thanks. Yeah, I guess I would say the immediate reason for this is Green Mountain Transit, our public transit provider right now is proposing to cut service and also to re-implement fairs. That was initially approved by their board and that as of now is their plan to come out this year. However, there's a huge opportunity to avoid that and the leadership at GMT has indicated their desire to avoid that, their intention to avoid that. And the transportation bill that passed the Vermont House would allow them to keep their service fair free and would allow them to keep these routes going. And I think potentially even beyond that, especially if the city got more active, maybe there's even opportunities to expand. So this is now in the Vermont Senate, they're considering it. I think it's really, really important that we weigh in on this as a council. We did weigh in a few years ago just before COVID as a council, even if it was unanimous, we indicated our support for fair free transit to the state and they actually did implement it that year. It was, I wouldn't say it was necessarily because of our resolution, although it couldn't have been that we weighed in, but it was mostly due to COVID and just the public safety aspect of the forwarding. And yeah, I know they're talkative as well, but so I think there's a lot of consensus in our community on GMT, thanks to commissioner for me for really kind of raising the alarm bell on this, but it feels like there's a lot of consensus around the need to support and expand, enhance public transit. It's both a climate emergency issue and an economic justice issue for so many. And I won't go too deep into the reasons, I guess two things I'll mention that maybe not everyone knows that speak to each of those. So on the climate front, according to the research I've seen, even a bus that's only a quarter full is still substantially lower and is running on diesel, which most are still substantially lower emissions than people driving low, and if it's a quarter full. And on the equity front, I think one that people don't know is just the high cost of our ownership. It's not just the expense of purchasing a vehicle, which is already out of reach for so many people, but the cost to own a vehicle is in Vermont on average is $700 a month. And we know a lot of people and families in Burlington can't afford that. So supporting transit is really for both of those reasons. I'll leave it there for now, thanks so much. Thank you, Councilor Hanson. Is there anyone, Councilor Shannon to be followed by Councilor Carpenter? Thank you. I will support this because I want to support funding public transportation. But at the same time, I want to, you know, draw people's attention to a study that was done that it was a study that the legislature asked to have done report on methods to increase the use of public transit in Vermont. And what that report says is that every transit does increase ridership, but it doesn't reduce the reliance on cars. Because as it is increasing ridership, it's mostly increasing ridership among people that are already riding the bus. So rather than walk some distance, they may take that bus. So it's not really, it's not the fair free aspect. There isn't evidence that it's doing a lot in terms of reduction of carbon emissions. And for anybody who's tried to use the bus system, but it's quite obvious, it's extremely challenging to use our bus system because it doesn't go where you need to go, when you need to go there. And as whatever dollars we spend, they are limited dollars, I would strongly urge using our public transit dollars for expansion of service, either by extending the hours of service. People who work at the hospital do not find the hours of service to be something that helps them get to work and get home from work. The same goes with getting to the airport. The buses aren't running at the hours that the planes are leaving. So I hope that there'll be a little bit more focus on that because as much as, I like to get out free buses, it's not what is gonna make the real difference in making the bus system usable for people. Thank you. Thanks, Councilor Schumann, Councilor Kerr. I just wanna comment, I've had several conversations on this, it seems more optimistic than the Senate, we've still got a lot of work to do. It looks like the number may be more like 1.2 million, but I wanna re-emphasize that 1.2, that we've matched with federal dollars, leaving a lot of money on the table. And that just seems such a shame to me with all our transportation needs. I think the intent is to try and make state money a little more flexible so that people like GMT can best have to figure out how to use it. And I would agree, it ought to be maintaining roots and expanding this as best we can. Thank you, Councilor Kerr. Councilor Freeman. I just wanted to add, or I wanted to say that I'm particularly missed, and I wanted to add, but I just been thinking about the perspective of the Rouse Service versus Fair Free, and I think that it's just a really bad framework. It's not an either-or conversation. I think that when I think about transit and buses, at a fair minimum, there's just people working, people can use it. I'm glad in front of the hospital, I'm sort of shitted. I think healthcare, like when I escape, we have early care set work, long-term care, and it's true people can't use the bus to get to the ship's score if they do it. It's hard where they have to patch it together and get a ride from a friend or family member of that thing, it's life, it's life. But I think that that doesn't exclude this conversation or center of the conversation that we're having about shifting to doing transit as a public good and as utility, I think that that is a really bad equal conversation as well. I think that it makes sense that this will work, and I think that we just don't, I hope we don't need to have like the, I understand because when we look at it, we're saying there's a limited amount of dollars and it has to go for something, but at some point, we're going to need an extremely comprehensive public care system, and at some point, it's going to make sense. In my opinion, to do that as a utility as a public good and pay for it not at the point of service, but collectively who are Texas and are sort of shared. So I will be supporting this. I understand the concern about the sort of which one, but I just think both are very important and very vital. Thanks, Councilor Freeman. Councilor Hightower. Yeah, I will also be supporting this and I think completely agree with what Councilor Freeman just said and not to go in my soapbox too much, but just the vast majority of funds nationally and at the state level that are going to decarbonization, they're going to upper and middle class people, they're going to electrification, they're going to people who can put solar panels on their home because they own their home. And one of the few ways that we're actually supporting low income folks and their path to decarbonization is through a fare free and expanded bus system. And so I absolutely agree that just like we said before, like it shouldn't be either or like if anything, we should be fighting for more of the package to be going to the bus transit system, which is really especially needed by folks who have low income. And so I think keeping it fare free and the same thing like the cost, the fare doesn't cover the cost of the bus. So when we're making it fare free, we're really mostly helping the folks where that does make a difference for that is really easy. Yes, it's also convenient and it does increase ridership, but in terms of just like, what chuck of the ARPA funds and the funds for electrification and the concept of decarbonization that are coming out federally and statewide that are going to low income folks. This is a big part of that because most of it isn't going there. So I think it is important that we support this and that we fight for both fare free and for expanded routes. Thanks, Councilor Hightower. We have Councilor Travers in the queue to be followed by Councilor Berkman. No, Councilor Berkman, go ahead. Just very quickly, one of the things that's been very exciting over the last two weeks is the engagement that counselors here have had with GMT around their service cuts and not only with GMT, but with the House and Senate transportation. So I met for about an hour with Senator Chin and it was very productive and there were a number of good ideas that came out. So I see this as really helpful for us to continue to build the relationships that we need to build because at the end of the day right now, our systems are all silent and that is so counterproductive. And so I really look forward to working on the TOOC committee to see if we can pull some stuff together that is going to take what we're doing here and do that because it makes no sense to take a bus if you can walk a place faster and easier and that is really a situation that we've got now. So for a lot of folks, and so we can do better, we will do better. Thanks, Councilor Berkman. Councilor Wiggy. Hi, I just want to make a change to the chair when I was in the office here last week to talk with them about this. Have a careful transit, extend the bus service for a long time, long before we had COVID dollars to invest in, transit and a fair free transit. And I think there are, we do have partners in the state legislature that will leave us there for advocate for the spinal expansion. We appreciate some of that best transition. Thank you, Councilor Wiggy. Is there anyone else who wishes to offer any comments on this resolution before we go to a vote? Okay, with that, then we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the resolution to approve the resolution, yes, approve the resolution, please say yes. Yes. All of those opposed, no. The resolution passes unanimously. Councilor Hanson, thank you so much for your comments. The next item on our agenda is a communication from the city attorney's office regarding the annual report on the livable wage ordinance. City Attorney Richardson, were you going to speak to this or someone else? I believe I am the decimated speaker on this. This is basically a report just as a bit of background. The city attorney's office, the ordinance changes passed by the city council in 2021 has taken over the livable wage accountability review. And to that end, we hired designated accountability monitors. They are two former department of labor specialists who have experience in this issue. And so we are transitioning from what used to be enforced by the worker's center is now going to be enforced in-house through my office. And it remains priority for the city. And to that end, this report covers the activities that we've done on the livable wage, particularly since our last report, we've received no complaints. We have performed seven record compliance checks, which were all found to be in compliance with the livable wage ordinance. Each of the companies that were checked are listed in the report. So I will go into that detail. The big change, of course, is coming this summer with the designated accountability monitors. They spent most of the winter revamping the forms and processes involved in livable wage accountability. And they're going to go out to the field beginning this spring as construction work begins, because this primarily covers a lot of the outdoor contractors that we contract with to ensure. And one of the areas in which we often have problems in the past with these livable wage are traffic laggers because they're often subcontractors that work in a variety of areas. And so interacting with those individuals to make sure that they are receiving livable wage as required by the ordinance is important. These designated accountability monitors will be going out to work sites. They will be seeking to provide worker education on the livable wage ordinance, as well as doing spot checks at that time. They are, of course, capped to a certain number of hours per week, but then they will be seeking that meeting with other partners to make sure that they'd be allowed on to work sites. So that is the current living wage ordinance. I'm happy to take any questions from counselors if they should have said any to this report. But I do also want to give credit to the author, Thomas Beninsky, who's really stepped up. He's technically our administrative legal administrative assistant, but he has stepped up and really done a lot of work to make sure that these designated accountability monitors were hired, began work, and have this report for you today. So credit to Thomas on this. We noted we are very lucky and very fortunate to have Thomas working in the city. Were there any counselors? I see Councilor Hightower. And if there are others, please let me know. Councilor Hightower, please go ahead. Yes. I feel like in my first few months as a counselor, we got a report from the Vermont worker center as to why they were leaving the contract. And as we onboard these folks, I just think it would be really nice to have them give some responses to the issues that the Vermont worker center saw and whether or not they're able to address those because the Vermont workers that are obviously did this for, you know, quite a few years. And I think it would just be really valuable to start with the issues that they faced and see how we can or can't address those as we are picking up this work again. And I don't know if that report back needs to be to the full counselor, if that could be to the most appropriate committee, but I think that's just a really important follow-up that we have to do, that we haven't done because it's been a while, two years, but I think it's now, it sounds like we've got the folks on board that it's now time to take that up. Thank you. Thanks very much. Did you want to speak to that? Sure. I mean, that obviously predates my tenure. So I'm not as familiar with the reasons why the worker center, but I do know that that has been, I think part of the conversation and the revamping of this, but we'll certainly be happy to review that report with Chris and Marty who are the new BAMs and obviously ensure that this is a successful accountability project from the state attorney's perspective and ultimately the city's. So we'll certainly incorporate that to make sure we, we don't make to the extent that there were issues in the past that we've worked with all those issues in future and current enforcement. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, just quickly. I just, I agree with councilor tower. I think that, you know, there were conversations about. Thank you. And there were a number of things that the work center brought up and I, yeah, I'm curious to see how, how it goes. I just want to say to the outside, what it, how it's going to bring it up. It's been so far, but it's one of them. I have a shared assessment. Sure. Thanks councilor Freeman. Any other answers wishing to any comments or questions? And then I would accept a motion to waive the reading, accept the report and place it on file. Made by councilor Freeman, seconded by councilor McPhee, all those in favor of waiving the reading, accepting the report, please say aye. Opposed. Thank you. That will be for we get to the committee reports. Okay. Well, a journal will recess the council meeting at 11. No, not 1101. 1001. I would not say that's wishful thinking. Believe me. And I go to the local control commission. And I've been thinking about this all day and trying to remember. We'll see whether we'll see how good I am at this. So the first item on the agenda for the local control commission is a motion to adopt the agenda. So we can make that motion. Commissioner Berman, seconded by commissioner Freeman. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed. We have an agenda. The second item is the consent agenda. A motion to adopt the consent agenda and take the actions indicated. Made by commissioner Freeman, seconded by commissioner. All those in favor. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed. We have approved the consent agenda, which brings us to the deliberative agenda. The deliberative agenda is a first and third. Third liquor license application. For 2223 or K and a corporation. Doing business as bankrupt bankrupt bistro in the alley. 36. Thorson way. I believe that the applicant is also here. Present. Thank you so much for waiting with us. Is there a motion. There would, in this case, there would be a motion to approve the first and third. Liquor class license for K and a corporation doing business bankrupt bistro in the alley. With all standard conditions. Thank you. Commissioner Freeman, seconded by commissioner. Traverse. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Opposed. Thank you so much. That's correct. I forgot. Thank you. So that, that motion is approved. The second on our deliberative agenda is an outside. Consumption permit application for 2223. For the same entity K and a corporation doing business as bankrupt bistro in the alley. 36. Thorson way. Is there a motion on that? Thank you so much. Commissioner. Commissioner Freeman seconded by. I've got it down. So I'll do this one. Commissioner Traverse. All those in favor of motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed. Thank you. That motion passes. And with that. And without objection, we'll have a motion to adjourn. That would be at 10. Oh, five. Thank you again for, for, for being here with us. Thank you very much. Back to our. Back to our. Our regular city council meeting. And. Pick up is on item number seven. Pretty early in the game for committee reports just because we just formed committees. Is there anyone who has a committee report? We'd like to hear it. Yes. Oh, how exciting. Councilor Hanson. We're back to councilor. So the transportation, energy and utilities committee. My understanding is we'll stick with our same. Schedule, which is the fourth Tuesday of every month. We'll, we'll plan to meet on the 26th at five PM unless. I hear differently and I'll let it out. It's different. We prefer this conversation around public transit. Without meeting. I'm not sure what else is on the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, councilor Hanson.  Councilor Crawford. I have no report. Just the comment that several of us. Had had conversations about. Wouldn't it be helpful. Have regular. Many reports and that's easy to get. So this is tossing that out to the president and suggesting that we. We all think about doing a report. Maybe even. A paragraph in writing or something just so we can all be reminded of what the. Working on this one that might work on that. Next one. I'm just going to make that a suggestion. Thanks, councilor Carpenter. I agree with you. I think we need to have committee chairs communicating. Perhaps more often and not only on upcoming meetings, but on what is going on in that committee. So I agree with you. We'll have to come up with a process for that. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. With that, we can go to item number eight. Unless there's anyone else. Which would be city council general affairs. This is just an opportunity for any counselor to share any thoughts about anything going on in their ward, anything in the city. Just general city affairs. I think that would be really helpful. I think that would be really helpful. Councilor high tower. Unfortunately, unfortunately, this is just a process. I think I'm actually going to jump into council like carpenter's comments. And I think it would be really, really helpful. If we just made it a standard practice that committee chairs. At the same time, you know, like. That every that materials are due the Thursday or Friday before. So that would be really helpful. And I think that would be really helpful. I think that would be a half page something along those lines to city staff and uploaded it. But that on the committee reports would actually have a list of the written reports. Because I think some of us have been caught by surprise of things that are coming out of committee that we don't know are coming out of committee. Because we're not doing those updates. And I think they're just be very helpful for us and for the public. If we knew a little bit more about what had happened in committee or what had happened. I think that would be really helpful for us. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Is there anyone else who has a. Comment on general city affairs. So we're allowed. Yes. I just want to let everybody know. If you don't know tomorrow, there is a public forum on. The conceptual designs that these. School district has come up with for. High school project. It should concern everybody because the price tags that they're floating. Range from 181 to $196 million. And this will obviously. Have impacts. Everybody at the city. Depending on how much we have the funding for. So. There's a public forum. They're going to be probably presenting the options that they've been. Talking about. And then. You know, accepting. And that'll be at the downtown BHS location and also. Thank you. Anyone else. Counselor gang. Oh, oh. Thank you for it. So glad you could join us on. Please go ahead. Yes. You know, basically about the. Question raised by councilor. Carpenter. In regard to the community report. I feel like, you know, it is important for anyone who is interested. To read. The minutes. From the committees. And also sometimes if you have staff to have your staff attend the committee meetings. If you can attend. I feel like the staff. The city, they do an incredible job of loading the minutes. On board up. And I think. Or. The committee's website. I think it would be important for people to do so and not to add extra work. I believe also the second item that I wanted to talk about the Muslims around the world, including those in the city. And also in the month. Of Ramadan, which is 30 days. It started since last Sunday. And we have about 29. 19 days to go. So to anyone who is working or have a friend or family member, celebrating this month of Ramadan, there are practical things to at least wish them a happy Ramadan. And thank you so much. That's all for me. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you. Thank you. And thank you for joining. Council track. Yeah, I don't know if this is the place for this, but as. A parent of a student in Burlington schools, I've been. Acutely aware of the fact that over the last few days or so. A number of our educators have been. We've had a lot of feedback. With respect to programming in our schools. And it's better school in particular related to. Gender equity and inclusivity. There was a national news report on a conservative media outlet, as well as a blog post that. Brought national attention to this issue. And I know a number of our educators, including folks who. Identify with the LGBTQ plus community. Have received. A lot of feedback. From all corners of the country. It's been incredibly. Disturbing. Our superintendent Tom flat again, but I think a great state that I just wanted to take this opportunity as well, particularly as a parent. Of a student Burlington schools to express solidarity with. Our educators.  I suspect that. We have a lot of folks here who had their kids go through Brooklyn schools are proud as well. To send. Our kids to our schools because of their commitment. To equity and inclusivity and certainly not despite it. So I didn't want this meeting to pass without taking that opportunity to. I go super a plan against. Comments and stance and solidarity. Educators who are teaching that vital program. Thanks so much. general city affairs. I just want to note that the word 2-3 NPA will be on Wednesday and there will be a follow-up presentation from CEDO staff. We shall provide plan for the part we want to have a time to learn where they're at in the process. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, President. Thank you, President. We're bringing back the legendary dinner. That's what's starting everybody else, doing dinners. Thank you. Thanks so much. Anyone else? council president updates just one thing and that is that it's been at least two or three years I've sort of lost track since the last time that the council had a council retreat and I think it would be nice if we tried to do that I will send out a doodle call it'll be an opportunity for us to get together discuss council process changes we'd like to see in our meetings committees and the time for us somebody to gather informally and have a nice meal and then the other thing also is you probably saw the article that was in seven days about redistricting we are going to be getting moving on that and we're going to need to do that the next I believe we're going to be having a work session on that at the next council meeting so that will be on the 25th so we've already got a few things in the queue for our next meeting on our last item on the agenda is item number 10 that is the mayor's update mayor weiner you have the floor thank you president paul and it's been exciting to have you presenting over your first meeting tonight congratulations again and look forward to the work ahead um I thank you also uh councillor travers I'm glad the night didn't go without noting what has been going on in the school district and the outrageous attacks from fox commentators on what's happening here in berlington and I too just want to issue my support for the whole lgbt qia community and thank the school district for taking very strong stand supporting their educators and students the one other thing I wanted to share tonight is um and and counselors if you haven't seen it yet we'll see a press release from us put out late in the day yesterday we lost a burlington giant bill truex jr who had served in many civic roles in this community for a long period of time going all the way back to the 1960s he founded one of the city's oldest and most respected architecture firms truex collins designed a number of significant buildings around the city but I think what he will would would agree was his greatest contribution was the work he did as the visionary um and uh advocate and uh champion for the creation of the church through marketplace it was very special last summer to get to celebrate the 40th anniversary of our wonderful pedestrian marketplace uh with bill um there uh and to be able to honor him I'm so glad we were able to do that uh given um events the last couple of days uh I will be always be personally grateful for the mentorship and the generosity and commitment that bill um showed me staying very active uh over the last decade people may remember um the public investment action plan that took place uh after and really resulted in in the whole redevelopment of the northern waterfront bill chaired that public very extensive public engagement process that uh led to um the city investment that made it possible for the sailing center to get built for the escape park to get built the new waterworks park and now the moran frame all of that uh came out of the public investment action plan that bill played a huge leadership role and so uh bill thank you uh we will miss you and uh it was it was an honor again to work with you Karen that's what I have for me great thanks so much uh mayor um that leaves us with only one agenda item which is a motion to adjourn thank you Councillor McKee seconded by Councillor Hanson all those in favor of the motion to adjourn please say aye anyone opposed we are adjourned at 10