Convene the Board of Finance Monday, October 19th at 535 p.m. And the first item on the agenda is a motion to adopt the agenda. Would someone like to make that motion? So moved. Second. Excellent. Any discussion, amendments? Are we good? Catherine or do we need any changes? Okay. We'll go to vote. All those in favor of adopting the motion as presented. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. It brings us to the public forum. And Jordan or Catherine, I see Councillor Jang. Needs to be promoted. He's as an attendee. So welcome, Councillor Jang. Are there any members of the public signed up for the public forum? There are no members of the public signed up for public forum. Okay. And then I will close the public forum at 536 p.m. And move to the consent agenda and welcome. There's a proposed motion to adopt the consent agenda and take the actions indicated. If any members are ready to do that. Councilor Paul. Thanks. I'd like, I'll make a motion to adopt the consent agenda and take the actions indicated. I do have one question. But I can wait for a second if you'd like. Second. Great. Go ahead with your question. Okay. Thank you. So those are the minutes for September 14, 21, October 5th. All of them are five days beyond the meeting date. And I'd like to know when those were posted, where they were posted within the five days. And I would like to know what the plan is for having those posted regularly five days. Within with. Five days or less from the meeting day. Catherine. I think Rich is probably in the best person to speak to that. As he works directly with our minute taker. So. I see he's just taken himself off me. Yeah. So this is rich. Good one. After each meeting board of finance meeting, I, I collect the votes. For all the agenda items in the forward over to Lori. And I will ensure. That those draft minutes are actually posted with the votes. You know, within a day. And then we will get back those minutes from the scribe. I can't promise on how many minutes we'll have. We'll get back those minutes from the scribe. I can't promise on how quick they can turn that around, but I can make the commitment that. Board of finance minutes will be posted within one day because I am recording all votes. And forwarding that over to Lori and Lori. We'll ensure that they are released. Thank you. Thank you, Rich. That's a problem. Yeah. I mean, that, that addresses my question. I mean, I've, I've, as I've said many, many times, I would prefer to have minutes that actually speak to what happens at the meeting and not just simply. Motion was made, motion was passed. These are the yes and no votes. So that those people who aren't here and many years from now, we'll be able to go back and truly understand what happened at the meeting, if at all possible. But anyway, I've made the motion and I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. We've had a motion a second. Any further discussions? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries unanimously. And just lost my agenda here. Sorry. What did I do? Okay. So in front of them, if they can announce the next item. Sure. I would move the next item, which is reclassification of custodian one position at Brillenton parks, recreation and waterfront. I would move adoption of the attached resolution. And recommend to the council to authorize the reclassification of the position as outlined below. Great. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed. Motion carries unanimously. And that brings us to 4.02. I've got my agenda back here. Authorization to execute contracts with the on-call. Water resources excavation contractors. Another DPW. Item. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Thank you. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Any further discussion? How would the board like to proceed on this? I would move approval. Which is to recommend the city council authorized the director of public works to execute an on-call. Or on-call contracts with five qualified water resources. Excavation contractors to include Portland construction company. Dirt tech company. Engineers, construction, Parker excavation. They have a maximum of $200,000. The maximum limiting amount of $500,000 for all the contracts in total subject to review and approval by the chief administrative officer and City Attorney. Excellent. Thank you, councilor. Pine is there a second. Second by president Tracy. Discussion of the item. Seeing no questions. We will go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Hi, hi. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Martin and Chapin. 4.03 now, Colchester Avenue, Side Path Project, Authorization to Amend Project Budget. Chapin, would you like to kick this off? I think senior engineer, Susan Malzahn and engineer, Olivia DeRicer here to provide a brief overview. Okay, great. Welcome, Susan and Olivia. Why don't we go ahead and do that, Susan? Yeah, thank you. So this is what we're asking for approval for is a budget amendment. This project has been ongoing. We did start construction this spring. The construction was delayed due to COVID. We got a little bit of a later start than anticipated. So as a result, we are carrying forward money from FY20 into FY21 as we continue and wrap up construction. We are now almost finished and final complete with construction. Councilor Buds. Just one question, Susan, if you would, you know, we're four months into the FY21 and would this normally happen at the close of a fiscal year as opposed to a quarter of the way through it? Or a third of the way through it? This is happening now just because of the need for the funds for construction. So yeah, typically as we wrap up the one fiscal year and roll in whatever was not spent into the next fiscal year. So this timing is fairly typical or customary? Yes, I believe so. Okay, thank you. Further discussion? I think we still need a, I don't think I've gotten a motion for this yet either. So further discussion or are we ready for a motion? Thanks, I'll make a motion just a moment please. I'll make a motion to approve and recommend that the council authorize the chief administrative officer or her designee to affect all necessary budget amendments and transfers of funds from the above reference funding sources as needed to carry over the unused FY20 funds into FY21 which will increase the approved FY21 budget by $102,444.63 from $342,444,444, I'm sorry, $440 and 63 cents. Second. Thank you, Councilor Klein, thank you, Councilor Powell. Further discussion at this point? If not, we will go to a vote. And it is helpful from, all board finance members can have their, you're muted, Councilor Zhang, if you could unmute yourself, that'd be helpful. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. And that brings us to 4.04, authorization to execute an easement deed for the P's grain parking lot at Four College Street to New England Central Railroad and CB Properties in support of the passenger rail project for approximately 635 square foot area, DPW item. Why don't we just take a moment? I mean, this is a sign of some progress on this breakthrough for how we move forward with passenger rail while keeping the rail footprint on the waterfront minimized. Chapin, could you kind of key this out for Norm, if it's better to have Norm do it? Like to remind people of kind of need for this and where it came from. To say overall, and then I'll hand it to you, Norm, is that we're managing a number of complexities on the waterfront to really achieve this very successful collaborative arrangement here where we limit the footprint of the rail on the waterfront. We achieve passenger rail, we achieve moving the bike path to the west side of the tracks, which has been a long held priority for the city. And this one of a minor easement here is a key piece of shifting the rail and allowing the bike path to move to the west and the rail slightly to these. Norm, take it away. Yeah, so I've been working with V-Trans from our rail systems and more recently with the Genesee Wyoming and indirectly CB Properties. The VRS is doing some early release work for this passenger rail project. Pastry rail project is gonna start in 2021, but there's early release work that's really effectively relocating track and realigning track. And this realignment ties back to keeping to a single track that VRS has worked very cooperatively with us to achieve that objective, along with storing passenger rail within the rail yard itself. So this small piece is important because they are actually going on to track that's not of their own. So north of College Street is owned by actually CB Properties, but is least and operated by New England Central Railroad. And so I tried to explain the complexity of that within this document. And we are working really on a very short timetable to make this happen. And you'll see in the packet, there were changes to the document from the first day it was posted till Friday late afternoon. And the reason being is we're negotiating with New England Central and CB Properties. Specifically, there was clarification on Yiesman about who was gonna maintain the fence line adjacent to the rail itself. And frankly, we historically have maintained that fence line. So there was Yiesman changes that needed to happen that basically narrowed the field of or narrowed or reduced the amount of square footage for this Yiesman. So originally you saw in your documents 600 some odd square feet. This has been reduced now to 338 square feet. So you should see the revised updated documents. There will also be some probably a side agreement in terms of memorandum of understanding in terms of how we will deal with the fence line and that we as a city would be responsible for that. Our history has been that we maintain this fence line, the extruded aluminum black decorative fence. And so this is not anything unusual for us to be expected of us. So we're working very quickly to make this happen because VRS needs to get this real realigned before frost hits the ground. So that's why we're moving quickly. Great. I think was out of hand, Councilor Powell. No, same, same flow to someone. Great. I've got Councilor Pine and then Presentation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The question I have for Norm and Chapin is I know you want to keep certain guardrails around projects and we need to keep them moving. And I know this one is really about passenger rail. Does it have any benefit to the city in terms of the discussions about realignment for the bike path at all? Or is there no connection whatsoever to that? Well, it all ties together. We've had a lot of conversations about making a project that is singly managed by VTrans themselves, but contracts both the bike path realignment and the passenger rail project at the same time to lessen the impact to the waterfront and the businesses on the waterfront, particularly LCT and also Echo and Spirit of Ethan Allen. All these businesses that are affected by how this work is constructed and sequenced is important. And if we get behind with this element of the complexity of the bureaucracies of NECR, it affects so many different things behind it. So this is critically important, though it's a small element of what's expected of the city. It's amazing how it can really kind of mess things up from a construction management standpoint and project management standpoint and the businesses that are adjacent to it. So. I would move it. I would move that the Board of Finance recommended the city council that to authorize the mayor to execute easement documents pertaining permitting CV properties, Inc. and New England Central Railroad, Inc. to create a rail safety setback quarter over an approximate 338 square foot section of the P's grain lot property. Thank you, Councillor Pine. Seconded I believe by Councillor Paul. President Tracey, did you still have a question? Yeah, I just had two questions and I really appreciate the work, engineer Baldwin, just from everything you've done to move this project along and help facilitate this compromise position. Two things that weren't clear to me were the term of the easement. Like is this a permanent easement? Is there a lease term? Cause I remember that the prior easement that we had for use of the bike path had a certain term to it. Yeah. And then is there any, like is there any compensation changing hands or is this sort of just part of the broader compromise? So there's no compensation exchanged. It's a straight easement. For as long as there's a continued use of that easement for the purposes of rail service. So there's a condition in there and attorneys can speak more directly to it that if they no longer make use of that then it reverts back to our full control. Okay. All right. And there was a chunk taken out on sort of the east side. Was there a potential to gain back some land on the other side? Or is it, is that really just in order to create the, the, like for a land swap or is the land swap really the west side of the bike path? Is that more what we're getting from it? So what it is is by changing the alignment of the path of the rail system it requires to that straight, straight alignment requires take a sliver of land on the east side and doesn't provide us any additional benefit for land swap or exchange. CV properties is not coming to us with any interest or need in doing any of this thing, any of this work or any of this property exchange. It's really any CR and V trans who are asking to have right of entry onto their, their easement and also the rail service. And so we're, we're working with people in Jacksonville, Florida with Genesee Wyoming and we're dealing with CV properties and Canadian national rail service. So it's, this is small potatoes for them, but it's really important to us. Okay. I understand. Thank you. President Tracy, it really does. It's a game of inches on the waterfront. And before this realignment of the rail the ability to put a full width bike path on the west side of the tracks would be called into question. So really the two fit together very closely to snake them through on the waterfront in this new line. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Councilor Jay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.  I don't know why. Yes. I'm good. Thank you, Councilor Jay. I'm great, in fact. Good. Perfect. So today I had a walk meeting at the waterfront and I noticed also there were a lot of projects work happening at the railroad, right? And I was just wondering if you can explain the parallel between city council, border finance, voting on items and the work also happening. Is what we voting right now already the project, it's already started. Is it already running? No, there's, well, they're doing early release work but it's primarily focusing on the loading dock itself or the passenger rail loading area itself to dismantle that area. And then right now our people are looking to do utility work in the College Street right away at advance of the work that's being talked about in terms of the rail realignment. And the rail, just to give you context, the work that they're doing this fall is to set the alignment of the track but also the elevation of the track so they can begin work next spring for the development of the passenger rail loading area itself because those elevations are important to building the balance of the work. Wonderful. And lastly, when should we expect this project to finish and to receive the first rail work, the first train from New York? Yeah, to Burlington, approximately. Well, I believe that they're starting construction this coming season, 2021 and it'll probably be at least one, maybe two seasons worth of work. Okay, thank you for all you do. E-Trans is hoping to start passenger rail by the end of 2021. It's an exceedingly tight schedule and the norm's point construction will start early in 2021 and we'll run throughout the season. And so the bike path work in this area parallels that and hopefully it's finished on the same, hopefully the intent, the desire is for all this work to go out to bid together and to be constructed together so that it's fully coordinated and that the bike path in the new alignment on the west side of the tracks is also built on that 21 timetable. Yeah, my understanding is that Beetran is going to bid this in potentially early December for the scope of work for 2021 that includes our bike path. Yes. Which is a good preview. Maybe we should just spend a moment on that. It's sort of off topic, but do we, since when, what should the council, what should the board expect? Maybe this is a kind of responsive to the Councilor Jennings question. In terms of additional council approvals here, they're, what do you expect bring back to the board and on what kind of timetable for the broader realignment effort? Well, there's certainly property acquisitions that need to occur that the city needs particularly with LCT. There's also some additional easements that need to get approved on the west side of the tracks adjacent to College Street. There's a controller box that needs to be installed there to put the new signalization. So there's little pieces parts here and there, but I think the biggest thing is probably property rights for LCT where there's actual takings that need to occur to deal with that realignment. Okay. And then the council will see the finance and maintenance agreement between V-trans and the city that specifies how the construction will be done and what responsibilities the city will have during that construction. Okay. Councilor Jay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And it seemed that whole zone in the next couple of years will be a working zone, a construction zone. And I was just wondering when will we hear more about the connection between Champlain Parkway and Battery Park? I believe, you know, you guys are very close in putting that project forward. And when should we expect communication about that, do you think? I'm not sure. You said Champlain Parkway and what? I mean, Pine Street maybe and Battery Street. I think we are working actively right now, Councilor Jang on both responses to the kind of the follow-up on the latest round of environmental justice testimony and process regarding the Champlain Parkway, as well as the in some ways related issue about the really hard enterprise project, the separate project. And we have a lot of work going on on that shortly. And I don't have a timetable for you offhand on exactly when you should expect that coming back, but it is relatively, hopefully relatively soon we'll have more to bring to the Council regarding that. Do you want to add anything to that, Chapin? No, we're excited about the Rallyard Enterprise project and have some active conversations on that. We hope to build a brief view on soon. Thank you. Okay. I believe we have a motion. We do have a motion and second from Councilor Pine and Councilor Powell. Was that a hand, President Tracy? Did you have a question on this? Okay. So maybe we're ready to go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Norm and Chapin. Excellent, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Two more items, 4.05. This is a retitling and reclassification of the opioid policy manager to the public health equity manager position. There were some communications over the course of the day from Councilor Hanson and so there were some changes that I believe maybe Jordan you could help me out here that change has been posted to these documents that are up now. Could I ask which, I mean there's one that's red line, there's a red line and a clean which are the same. There's the original, which one are we moving forward with? Yeah, Jordan did confirm in the chat that Councilor Hanson's proposed that it's have been incorporated into, I assume, she's having trouble with her mic so she can't speak but maybe you could chat further. Jordan, the. Sorry, I think, there we are. Okay. So the updated job description is listed in the agenda as updated, I believe. Okay. Okay. And what are the changes from the one that we saw? I apologize, I'm speaking out of order. What are the changes from the one that we saw on Friday? There were a few very small changes to the, some of the items under essential job functions, some things that had been inadvertently taken out of the original position were added back in and there was language added. I'm just pulling up the version now. There was language added on one of the bullets to add clarity that around that the public health crisis was caused by systemic issues such as racism and economic inequality.  Thank you. I apologize, but to post a change at 422 in the afternoon without some other version of redlining, it makes it very difficult to follow what exactly the changes are when you say they're minor, if it's one word or two words, but if it's something more significant, I can't put them side by side and would like to know what those changes are specifically. So I might be able to help here just in that, I think Jordan is correct that they are relatively minor changes that were recommended by Councilor Hanson this afternoon. I can put those in the chat to show and speak to what those are if that's helpful. I think I'll do that unless otherwise directed. I think the- Maybe what I could, they were very minor in nature. They were changes that Councilor Hanson had requested just to clarify that language around, maybe a little bit more specifically around that the public health crisis was related to systemic racism. So I guess what I would ask Mr. Mayor is if we can go page by page and understand exactly what the changes are from the one that we received on Friday. Yep. If you can just give me a minute, I will share my screen to show that. The first change was that in the initial version that was posted on Friday, the demonstrated expertise in developing and implementing successful public health policies that had been taken out and now it's added back in. The other change was to add in this clause here caused by systemic issues such as racism and economic inequality. And the other change was, sorry, I'm just trying to find it in my notes in one window and then it was adding this right here. And other drug abuses in our community and those were the three changes. Okay. Councilor Paul, go ahead. Thank you. If you could thank you, I appreciate that. So I was not aware that you were looking for changes over the weekend and I thought we were just gonna simply be talking about them, but I think it would be helpful if someone wanted to make that presentation and I have a number of changes that I would like to suggest as well. So I didn't follow your list. What I was saying is that- Someone would make what presentation exactly? Are you saying? Well, I think it would be, this is an important position. It's being significantly restructured. It's being taken out of the police department. I mean, just speaking for myself, I'm not really sure why it's going in innovation and technology when it's really a public health issue. And I have a number of questions, but I was hoping that maybe someone wanted to speak to this beforehand. Sure. Or I'll ask the questions, whatever you prefer. Sure. So the concept of a public health equity program and a reposition being created is one that goes back to the Declaration of Racism as a public health emergency in July. One of the commitments that I made in that declaration was to try to create this position and to, and I've been pursuing it since. We, in the restructuring of this position, have consulted extensively with the Racial Justice Alliance and in her role as, you know, it's not directly on point with policing. I have also consulted some with Councillor Hightower on this who I know is on the meeting. And I think others too, and kind of coming forward with this proposal, the reason that I'm proposing moving it to the Chief Innovation Officer's purview is stems from the, basically the track record that Brian has in comparable initiatives of getting kind of new efforts off the ground. I see this in some ways like the work he took on in the early stages of permanent reform, ultimately resulting in the creation of new permanent inspections department. Brian and his innovation role played a lot, you know, did a lot of the kind of early detailed collaborative work necessary to kind of develop consensus and get this, get that department off the ground. Similarly with the early learning initiative, Brian did years of sort of preliminary innovation work before ultimately that function was moved over into CEDO. I think it's likely that something comparable will happen here. I don't necessarily think that the Chief Innovation Officer department, you know, I innovation technology department is where this position should ultimately reside. But during this sort of startup phase, I'm optimistic, I know Brian has the capacity to provide the right oversight. It will also mean that, you know, I have a lot of personal interest in the three different areas that this person will be working in. And Brian, you know, as the CIO has a lot of access to me and will help make sure that in these critical early stages, the person has proper mayoral support and alignment as well. So those are what I saw, you know, that's sort of how, and I, you know, I appreciate the opportunity to kind of lay that out. If, and I think it's important to note, you know, where ultimately resides, I think remains to be seen. I think that this, I'm, you know, I don't think tonight is the place to sort of fully get into it, but I really think we have to think about public health differently as a city going forward. And that's part of the reason as is in the job description for creating this position. I think ultimately we may want to consider a number of functions that are currently kind of distributed around the city, being in a different place. And, but that's going to take some real effort to get us to that point. Brian, do you want to add anything to kind of the general presentation? And I, you know, sorry for not, you know, I'm happy to speak further. Councilor Powell would be helpful to the kind of three major areas and why that they've kind of been grouped here if that would be helpful, but I'm not sure that would be helpful. So I'll pause there and see if, where else would you like us to present?  I agree that, you know, Brian has had taken on many things that were difficult and has made them with, along with, I'm sure help from many others made them very successful. He'd be the first person I would imagine to say that. The, and I do think that it is something that we want to be successful and to really, you know, kind of, you know, keep a close eye on and see if it's working, that kind of thing.  Not really sure why it needs to be limited service now. We are replacing a position and even though the job description may be different, I am not a big fan of limited service, especially in this case when we really are, to some degree, replacing someone. And then the other issue, which is, I think a small one is on the top of page three, I'm not really sure why the idea of being self-motivated and self-directed was taken out. I think all employees should be self-motivated and self-directed. So I would encourage putting that back in. Thank you, Councillor Pollock. That's helpful on both counts. I am, does anyone want to speak to why this was reclassified as limited service? I've not been focused on that. Okay, Brian. Just a point of clarification. I think, I thought it was limited service before and was remaining limited service. Jackie was with the city for longer than three years. Okay. Then it may be a questions beyond me and I can look into it, but my understanding was we were moving one limited service position to another limited service position. Okay. I mean, Councillor Pollock, I think she was once she just hit her fourth year anniversary. So it would have been typical for her to have been converted by now if that should have, that basically that's our policy. So I'm unclear on the facts there. Maybe someone could confirm that while we're having further discussion here. Councillor Jing. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Brian, for being here. I think along the same line as Councillor Pollock, I believe that this position is so loaded, is so much language and so many different scope of work. Not to mention also the fact that it is now being held at the Technology and Innovation Department. And looking at the job description, I mean, some elements of Jackie's work were really hands on, you know, in the field, but it seems all those elements now are missing in this reclassification. And I think it would be great, you know, to maybe make a distinction between the fight against racism or declaration of racism as a public health emergency and makes a distinction with the fight against the opiate crisis. And also maybe it would be great as a starting point to look into the guidance from the public health, the board of health of the city of Burlington. Maybe we're just wondering what type of discussion have you have with them about this specific position? What discussion have you had with them and have they approved this as well? Thank you, Councillor Jing. First of all, with respect to, so we are adding significant responsibilities to this position. And we, I think it is also, you're right, the vision of this position is shifting from one that has, did have some real field responsibilities to one that does not. That is being done in anticipation in part that not because we're gonna abandon that work, to the contrary, that we are going to add capacity to do that kind of field work through these community service liaisons in the weeks to come. It is very much my hope this could slip but that we have a proposal in front of the Board of Finance and Council at our next meeting to move forward. This too is something that Councillor Hightower and I have discussed in her, and that the whole, her whole joint committee has discussed and there seem to be strong support for among the joint committee of creating these CSL positions, community service liaison positions that would take on that field work and in fact expand the field work that the city has the ability to do following up on opioid and mental health and other kind of homelessness issues. So hopefully that explains that change. With respect to the Board of Health, I have had, I don't believe this job description has at this point formerly gone to the Board of Health for comment. I will say my understanding is the Board of Health has been very supportive of our sort of general harm reduction efforts in the way we've combated the opioid effort and I've had individual conversations with, and the Board of Health was very supportive also, I believe, and I think may have taken formal action, maybe someone else on the call knows more regarding the public health declaration, race them as a public health declaration. I believe they formally endorsed that. It's possible and maybe someone else could confirm that, but I'm pretty sure they did. And I have had with some members, informal communications and believe them to be quite supportive of moving in this direction and the general discussion about possible kind of expanded public health capacity within the city is something that I know individual members of the Board support. It would be my hope, I guess I'll just say that it's been, I feel great urgency to be moving forward with the public health declaration work, getting this job description approved tonight. If we can't move forward with approval tonight of the job description, it will mean setting back the listing of the position another three weeks until we meet again. And I am hoping that we can avoid that. This is work I think the public is demanding that we move forward with quickly. There'll be many questions to be answered in the future about where the city's work goes. I think having this position will help us answer that work, answer those questions. Yes, thank you. I mean, I think somewhat it was answered, but I think it would be imperative also to highlight that, you know, we all agree that this is needed, this is important, but sometimes it's the way we do it, I think is sometimes a little bit confusing. And I think here it has, there is so many moving pieces in one self-starter position that the city will be not creating but upgrading. And was also wondering if you can speak around the idea that the city did freeze any new hirings. And I hear new positions on top of this one will be created. Have we got out of that zone, red zone, where we feel comfortable now to bring new people in the city knowing that we still experiencing some hardship in terms of the budget, the sell tax, et cetera, and et cetera. And was just wondering if you can speak to that because I see a level of increase of position being created now. Great, yes, happy to speak to that. And I also just, maybe people see it in the chat, but the position was re-classified in 2019. So I would give, and so it's been budgeted at that level here. I, not to create policy on the fly, but I, maybe Catherine in a moment, we can come to you. And given that, can we make, was that a basically an oversight that that was turned back to a limited service? And can that remain a regular position? Well, I'll let you speak on that in a minute. To answer Councillor Jang's point about the hiring freeze, we are still in a hiring freeze. The hiring freeze has some limited and I think well-defined exceptions to it. One of them has been within, when we passed the budget, we explicitly created two funds, one for racial justice and one for police transformation. And so, again, not the CSLs is not in front of you tonight, but it would be the proposal that I have talked some publicly about is that we would use some of that police transformation fund to move forward with this urgent police transformation work. So those are funded positions that I see as separate from the hiring freeze with vacancies on existing positions. Further, we are preparing a full update for this board on the November 9th meeting, the next time we convene to speak to the broader questions about where we are with the finances and whether we are in position to make a change in posture. Go back, refer to them more normal times with respect to the hiring freeze. We'll have that answer for you the next time we meet, we're working hard on it right now. Thank you. Councilor Pine, Councilor Pine, you're on mute. Sorry about that. There's a lot of substantive issues here. I just wanna point out one minor typo that I think deserves to be addressed, if I could. It is the first paragraph of the second page, but it is the last sentence. It says a problem solving model to eradicating system racism as a public health strategy. I think we all know it's meant there, but it seems like it ought to be caught. And since I caught it, I'm gonna point it out. Great. Could you just tell us what a grade 21, it doesn't say on the job description what that translates to for a step one 21, what would that be for starting salary? I'm just curious. I got that information for you. The step one of that grade is 72,554. And it goes up to step 15, which is 86,600. That's fully maxed out, Lynn, the steps that you just said there. Yes. Yeah, one to 15 is the max. Yeah. Okay. So the, I think I understand what the intention is with this position as really a, a revisioning for the city's role in the areas of public health, including the issues which we've been discussing around systemic racism as a public health issue as well as opioid addiction. And in bringing in that more holistic approach is something that I've believed in and advocated for for quite some time. So I think the question about regular or limited service is one that I'll trust the administration to figure that one out. I think to the extent that it is a, it's always a little more attractive in terms of attracting people for this type of position when you can include them in the retirement system on day one, as opposed to waiting for some indefinite period of time as somebody who started as limited service and ended up surpassing limited service. But it's still, it does create a bit of a, a little bit of soreness in the, I think on the feeling of the employee when they know that they're surrounded by people who are regular and they're in a limited service status, even though the goal is to build, you know, a permanent capacity for the city to play this role, which I think is essential. I think it's really exciting to be talking about the city playing a actual role unlike any other community in Vermont in addressing public health, we address public safety, but we somehow have not really been grappling with public health as a community for a very long time. So I think this is a good direction. I do think it's worth, you know, sort of a cautionary note that anything that suggests this will sort of lessen the focus on the addiction crisis, I think is just something to make note of and to be aware of the fact that at least this counselor would not, would not like to see that. I don't believe that's what you're doing, but I just want, I think it deserves to be called out, but that's not intention here is to divert attention or resources at all. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pine. And I guess I'll just echo, I definitely don't think our work is, well, I guess it's not quite echo. Let me just say clearly, I don't believe our work is done responding to the opioid crisis. I do, we will continue to bring considerable attention and ongoing focus to bear the community stat process continues, the work that's owed this council for other, you know, other innovations is ongoing. I am hopeful that as we get out of the, as the pandemic recedes, we may, I'm quite, I'm hopeful we will return to the kind of better footing that we were on, the improved footing we were on with the opioid crisis. But I do think we have years of work ahead of us to properly, you know, we're going to, the fallout from this crisis is going to extend for years to come and we're going to be dealing with it. In some ways, I'm proposing that we expand the city's ability to do hands-on work in that crisis with these CSL officers. Again, not to get, you know, that'll be another debate for another night, but I hope it is, we should, I guess I am asking the board to kind of see these actions coming together, I'm asking for approval tonight on the manager position, so we can get that process moving and the hiring process moving. There is this further, I am committing to you, there is this further proposal coming that will expand our field capacity to actually engage and make sure we're actually doing more of what this position was doing when Jackie was in it in terms of field action. So sorry to repeat that point, but I think it is an important one. Catherine, did you want to weigh in on the limited service versus full-time in any way? I will consult with my HR colleagues, but I believe that they will support me in offering it as a regular position. I mean, if that's what it was, I believe the retirement fund can handle that, we will budget appropriately starting next year. So that would be my recommendation. I would agree with that. Great, thank you, Lynn. President Tracy, were you trying to keep us on time here or were you trying to weigh in here? I was trying to weigh in, but I'm conscious of the time and that we have another item on the agenda. I just wanted to weigh in and say that, I do think that on the one hand, I certainly hear you, Mayor, about wanting to move this forward. I think that, and the idea of having this be a holistic position, I think is also makes a lot of sense. I think that if we're being reflective and self-critical, I think of our efforts with regards to the opioid crisis, I don't know that we've necessarily overlaid racial justice lens as much as we could have or should have to that work. So I think that that's a helpful refocusing lens. Couple of things that I'm not necessarily clear on, actually three specific things are, sometimes with job descriptions and positions, you see a percentage breakdown. A lot of times in these positions that has to do with grants and sort of maintaining the terms of a grant, but this position, I don't necessarily see like a percentage breakdown. And so just wanting to understand how, to some of these questions really about like the, how you maintain focus on the opiate crisis while also dealing with this much broader purview, how like, do you see that percentage breakdown happening? Is there a percentage breakdown? Is that realistic to think? Or is it just everything's going to kind of bleed together all the time? And if there is some sort of breakdown, I guess like, or other accountability mechanisms for making sure that some of that other work doesn't get lost. Like, do you see a percentage breakdown here? Do you think that it's just kind of all up in the air at this point? We're going to have to see how it plays out, Mayor. So, you know, I, I'm not, I don't think it's common. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's common for us to detail in the job description, a percentage breakdown like that. I think you're right, we often do when we get into like the budgeting for the upcoming year, particularly in CEDO where, where the way in which things are funded and billed needs to be sort of worked out precisely there. We do do that. I, you know, I think we're going to have to a certain degree, we're moving into new territory here. We're going to have to figure out to some degree. I do kind of think it's going to break down, at least initially something along the lines of a third, a third, a third, you know, a third keeping going, our opioid efforts, a little bit of a shift in from what Jackie was doing, again, less field stuff, but definitely continuing the leadership and sort of policy and coordination efforts that with community stat, I see that continuing. I think this person will play a similar function. And I would like to attack the racism as a public health crisis in a comparable way. I think that's that multi agency data oriented, rigorous follow-up, accountability model that we kind of pioneered in some ways with community stat. I, one of the reasons I've been, you know, I see this applying as very similar model in some ways, really important differences, but a similar model in some ways to the public health emergency. I think we're going to have a real partner in UVM Medical Center in that. So I don't think it's entirely going to fall in this position, but I think there will be doing real work there. And then I think, you know, a big chunk of time as well is going to go into like this broader exploration of public health and whether we should reorganize ourselves. So I'm sure it won't be exactly that way, but I see them each as three big roles that are going to need considerable time. I'm sure it's going to vary week by week, month by month, but in terms of accountability, I mean, I think there's a lot of accountability built in here. There's a lot of public attention and council attention on our opioid efforts and this public health decoration. So, you know, I think if we're making, continuing to make progress and continuing to do good work on the opioids, I think that'll be clear. If we're backsliding, I think that will also be clear. You know, the accountability is built into the metrics to a certain degree. And, you know, we're not quite at that point for evaluating the, I mean, we're definitely not at that point with racism yet. I think we're going to have to spend once we really get this thing off the ground, we're going to spend a lot of the first year developing the metrics by which this effort can be measured, but I think it's fair for you, you know, I'd be happy to entertain, you know, let's talk about how we bring back regular updates to the board and the council about how that work is going. Okay, thank you. And the other question that I had was about supervision. So there are these two CSL positions. Would the idea be for this person to supervise those folks or how would the interaction between these CSL positions that are being contemplated work in relationship to this position? Cause that's not totally clear in this memo. You're right. And I don't know exactly where we're going to land on that. We have been taking, you know, councilor Hightower and one of our past council meetings and at the joint meeting weighed in on that. Other members of the joint committee weighed in on that. We, it's not clear at this point. It will be by the time we bring it forward whether one or both or neither of these positions are doing consideration right now. We're really trying to, you know, there's a handful of cities around the country that I'm aware of that are really kind of pioneering this kind of transformation of public health, public safety work going on. We're looking for models in other cities. When the positions come forward, we will have clarity on there. I don't, I'm not necessarily leaning towards this person being the supervision, the supervisor of those. I think that's unlikely. Okay. All right. Thank you, mayor. I do appreciate you having heard the feedback around taking this position out of the police department and would advocate for the same for those other positions. I think that that speaks to kind of the nimbleness that this person will need to have in order to fulfill the broad scope of job responsibilities. So I like, I like that aspect and appreciate your willingness to hear that feedback. So thank you for that. Okay, great. I mean, I think it makes sense for this position. I'm not, you know, I hope people will stay open-minded about what the right home, you know, I'm trying to stay open-minded that the administration is trying to really work, really look, you know, again, figure this out by looking at other cities and come back. I don't know where we're going to land. I definitely think there needs to be, you know, our, you know, call by call, minute by minute, in some circumstances, coordination with the police department. I would caution against, I think it may be a different situation with this position for the work it does versus the responses that we, coordinated responses we want from the social workers. But let's, I am, I have heard a range of feedback on that and we are trying to really process that and bring to you a comprehensive well thought through proposal. Councillor Paul. Thank you. So the, the recommend, I would make a motion to approve and recommend that the council authorize reclassification of retitling of the opioid policy manager position on not as a regular, full-time, regular service, full-time, exempt non-union, grade 21 position to public or, yes, I'm sorry, I'm thinking out loud and that one was a full-time position. So the recommended action that's on board docs is not correct to a public health equity manager position, a regular service, full-time, exempt non-union, grade 20, I'm sorry, is Rich raising his hand? Am I saying this not right? We can't hear you, Rich. You're muted. I apologize. What are you apologizing for? I apologize for moving my arm. Oh. All right. I thought you were trying to say something and then would approve and recommend that the city council authorize the chief administrative officer to move the associated reallocation of funding from the police department to the innovation and technology department. And I would just simply also add as part of the action that the change being made on page three to put back the language at the bottom of the essential job function to put the last bullet point back in. Great. Thank you, Councilor Powell. Is there a second to that motion? Second by Councilor Pine. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries unanimously and that moves us to the final item, which I hope can be done quickly. 5.01, which is a wayfinding project, construction contract, contingency. Councilor Pine. I would move to authorize the department director of public works to use an additional $4,995 in contingency funds representing 10% for the construction contract with Waterman site works for a total of $54,945 subject to review and approval of the city attorney's office. Thank you, Councilor Pine. Is there a second? Second by President Tracy. And we'll just say it remains a goal of mine somehow to devise a system where a $5,000 budget item does not need to come forward, but we haven't figured out how to do that with also subject to these other limits here. So for another day on that, any discussion? Great. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And we, if there is no objection, we are adjourned as a board of finance at 644 p.m. Apologies to everyone that this ran a little bit long. Hopefully we can make up some time in the next 45 minutes. Over to you, President Tracy. Excellent. All right, I'll call to order the city council meeting for Monday, October 19th at 645. The first thing we'll do is the pledge. So folks want to stand with the pledge. United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation and a God, indivisible with liberty, justice for all. All right, our next item on the agenda will be the agenda itself. Councilor Stromberg, may it please have a motion on the agenda. Yep, I move to amend, adopt the agenda as follows. Note revised documents for consent agenda item 5.19, resolution authorization to execute an easement deed for the peace, green parking lot at four college street to New England central railroad and CV properties in support of passenger rail project for approximately a 635 square foot area board of finance per Norm Baldwin and the city attorney's office. Note written materials for consent agenda item 5.21, resolution authorization for easement for urban reserve encroachment by 11 Lakeview Terrace, Councilor Pine per city attorney's office. Remove this agenda item per assistant city attorney student. Add to the consent agenda item 5.22, communication, Miquel Cohen regarding backyard campfires with the action to waive the reading, accept the communication and place it on file. Note the board of health's recommendation regarding agenda item 6.03 resolution allow permits for safe operation of contained outdoor fires during COVID-19 winter, Councilor Shannon, Paul, Mason and Carpenter. Note proposed amendment for the agenda item per Councilor Shannon. Add to the agenda item 6.04, communication, chief innovation officer Brian Lowe regarding retitling and reclassification of opiate policy manager to public health equity manager position. Note written materials for the agenda item per chief of staff for Dell. Note updated redlined version regarding JD for this agenda item per chief of staff for Dell. Excellent. Thank you for that, Councilor Stromberg. We have a motion on the agenda. Is there a second to that motion? Seconded by Councilor Pine. Any discussion of our agenda? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the agenda, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, hearing none, we now have an agenda which brings us into our next item which is item number two, a communication regarding city place. We will have a little bit of a public session update as well as some action in executive session before coming back to the rest of our agenda for this evening. So with that, I will turn it over to the team that has been working on this, namely our consultant on the project, Jeff Glasberg. So, Jeff, would you like to take it away? Yes, good evening, Councillors. I understand City Attorney Blackwood and Attorney Heath will update the Council on the status of the contractual relationship among the city and BTC mall associates in executive session. I can briefly report on some signs of progress regarding the project itself. BTC mall associates, a property owner did provide a public presentation of the project via Zoom to the wards 2-3 MPA meeting on October 8th. The project architect provided an overview of the program and the project design and the presentation was a required precursor to the submission of a new zoning application for the proposed project. That permit application was submitted by BTC mall associates last week on Thursday, October 15th. The Department of Permitting and Inspection will administer the application review process in accordance with the requirements of the pertinent ordinances and procedures. The application, which documents a primarily residential product comprising it's either 423 or 426 units, I see two different numbers, does also presume the restoration of Pine and St. Paul Street. The project as proposed in the application materials would be constructed in four phases with construction commencing in September of 2021. And the phases coming on and being completed in mid May of 2023, mid November of 2024, mid May of 2026 and mid November of 2026. I mentioned that phasing in particular because the other update of note is action that was taken by the legislature as part of the recently approved state budget. The legislature provided for a one year extension on the debt issuance deadlines of all TIF districts statewide. So in the case of city place Burlington and the waterfront TIF district in which it sits, the debt issuance deadline for that project would now be extended to June 30th of 2020 to it had been 21. But the point and why this is important is the issuance of debt to support the construction of Pine and St. Paul Street would still have to occur in advance of when the developers proposed schedule would be completing the project. So debt would have to be issued in June of 2022. And they're talking about a first phase that would come online in May of 2023, the final completion in November of 2026. The point being that from a business perspective, what the city had bargained for was the ability to purchase the completed improvements at a point when the project was also complete, providing a source of debt repayment. So the fundamental challenge for the city of having to look at the potential of debt issuance in advance of construction completion still remains. And for the city to assess the ability to solve that problem requires at a minimum fundamental financial information from the developer that we still have yet to see. Okay, thank you very much for that. I appreciate that. Why don't we go to the updates from our legal council and then I can open it up for some questions from counselors in open session understanding that we may, that some things may need to be discussed based on prior premature disclosure issues and executive after that. So I assume that attorney Blackwood will be kind of warning us when we get into that, any territory that may cross over into something that needs to be discussed and executive, but I do want to give counselors a chance to ask questions in open session on some of the things that were shared just now. So attorney Blackwood, are you able to share some updates on the legal side of things? Sure, just a quick on the public side, the BTC mall associates has filed their answer to our complaint and we are still working on getting mediation scheduled. We would be happy to talk to you about sort of more details of the strategy and details of communications that have been happening around those issues in executive session, but premature disclosure of kind of all the strategy that we're thinking about and some of the back and forth is not really apt for public disclosure at this point. Okay, understood attorney. So were there questions from counselors with regards to what was just shared in open session? Counselor Hanson, go ahead and I see you, Counselor Mason, I'll get you after.  Thanks, attorney Blackwood, could you just summarize or characterize what BTC mall associates submitted or filed in response to our complaint? What I'd like to do is talk about the content of those in executive session because whatever I tell you is gonna be essentially tainted by our view and our opinion of what those things mean, which I think we should do an executive session, but in terms of factually what they are, they filed an answer to our complaint. They, as you may recall, they initially filed a lawsuit against the city and the city's filing came a few hours after theirs and they have withdrawn their complaint and instead filed an answer, which includes a counterclaim back against the city of Burlington. In addition, they have filed a, what's known as a third party complaint against PC construction and brought them into the lawsuit. One other filing, right Mark, that they filed a response to our motion for preliminary injunction, is that right? Would they file? Yes, that's correct, so it's an answer, a counterclaim with 12 counts, so we'd be happy to go through those with you, but again, it would require us to kind of put them on our own words and so I'd rather not do that in an open session. They filed an opposition to our motion for preliminary injunction and a counterclaim against PCC. Okay, yeah, if there's any way, I think it would be really helpful for the public. If there's any way you could just maybe in their words instead of in your words or in the words of what was submitted, what the substance of that counterclaim that was filed was. I'm happy to take a stab at it, just trying to keep it very simple, but count one is called a declaratory judgment action seeking to have the court confirm that BTC has effectively terminated the development agreement. You may recall they attempted, they sent us a letter on September 4th, unilaterally announcing that they had terminated the agreement and they want the court to confirm this. That's count one. Count two is another action for declaratory relief asking the court to issue a ruling that both parties have together abandoned the permits for the project. Count three is a declaratory judgment action asking the court to determine that it is impossible for the developer to comply with the development agreement. Count four is a anticipatory breach of contract count. Count five is a claim for detrimental reliance. Count six is a breach of covenant of good faith in fear dealing against the city. Count seven is a count for unlawful taking without compensation. And then the rest of the counts are against PCC. Okay. No, I really appreciate that. Thanks for sharing that and look forward to hearing your thoughts on that in the executive session. Sure. Thank you, Councilor Hanson. I have Councilor Mason, go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, President Tracy. That actually was answered the question I had at the time but sort of a follow-up based on what I just heard from Mark, I'm sure the public's interested in knowing sort of timing and what is the next step in this? We've heard earlier public statements about trying to get this resolved by year end. I'm just sort of curious what is the next step without getting into strategy and what the timing is of that next step? Well, both parties have mutually stated their desire to enter into a mediation session and an attempt to achieve a resolution of this dispute without having to go to court. So both parties have announced that and we are working on that. So we anticipate that the next step would be mediation if we can arrange it and I'll discuss that more of some of the issues involved in private executive session. Other things that are outstanding, we have served discovery written discovery on BTC. We have also issued a subpoena to Brookfield. Also, Councilor Mason? Yes. Okay, I've got Councilor Paulino. Councilor, you're on mute. I have five questions. I'll try to be quick. My first question is for Attorney Heath. I know you quickly talked about the counterclaim against PC construction for those who like myself don't really know much about civil law but it's pretty unusual, I would think, to draw in either, I'm assuming they were either the GC or a sub here into a lawsuit, this kind of lawsuit. Can you explain what the essential facts dated in the complaint or the countersuit are for why they think it's appropriate instead of suing them directly? I'll try to be very terse on this because this does get into my analysis of the claims. Just to be clear, I'm gonna be too technical here, but BTC filed a counterclaim against the city. It filed a third-party claim against PCC, so that's a turn of the year. So that's a third-party claim. And in essence, what BTC is alleging is that PCC, which is the general contractor for the project, I'm gonna try to use their terms, breach their contract by providing an unreasonably high guaranteed maximum price contract. That's the specific claim that they're making is that PCC's guaranteed maximum price was too high. So that's essentially one of their claims. And then the second claim, others four of them, but I'm just narrowing down to the second one, is that they claim that PCC somehow should have an obligation to defend an indemnified BTC from the claims being made by the city. I mean, that seems very strange. I'll just comment on it because we didn't enter into a contract with that company. I assume a developer, we say to constituents all the time, this is private development. I'm assuming that private developer could turn around and go to somebody else. But my other questions are for Mr. Glasberg, if you have a moment. Let's see, I don't think he's on my screen. So maybe he dropped off. I guess, President Tracy point of order, do you see? I'm looking, but I do not see. I know that sometimes given his location, he can have some issues with connectivity. So hopefully we can get him back on. Okay, I can ask the question and maybe if the mayor could shed some light on us, they're not specifically, I think anybody can answer them. I think it's worth just putting them out there. Maybe we can talk about them in the executive session or go back to it. But my questions were therefore and they're related. So it's just, I just wanted a quick background. We've heard a lot about the financial documents that are essential and that they haven't been provided for a while. And I think what I wanted to know is just generally why are we requiring that? What information do you seek to gain from it? And at what point did the prior parties provide those financial documents? So just to get a sense, since there was a change in party with the new players, at what point, because my point is that other party had provided them early on and we still had this problem of we don't know if they have the financing. So what is it that we're looking for? Like a term sheet or some kind of banking guarantee or? President Trace, I'm happy to speak to that. I mean, we are looking for, fundamentally we are seeking information that will allow the city to assess and with you the council determine what our negotiating position will be in the anticipated mediation. There really hasn't, I think to kind of compare it back to earlier stages in the construction and this development processes and we're exactly on point and that we've never been at this stage before where we have a party that is in breach of the agreement and default of the agreement that they have with us. And so, specifically what we have asked for I think is a matter of public record, isn't it already a cherry Blackwood? I don't know if you want to kind of, I think we've summarized before publicly what those are but I don't want to speak out of turn if that's not accurate. I wish Jeff were here because he may be able to tell us whether he has said that specifically. I don't remember. I mean, I think it's been certainly it's been clear we're seeking clarity about what happened. Brookfield wrote us a letter that is a matter of public record indicating that they had invested 70 million dollars in this project and that they would give us an accounting of that. That is certainly a critical knowing what happened with that 70 million dollars the critical piece of information that has not been provided as of yet. We're also looking for information regarding the proposed project going forward as well as information regarding the makeup of the new BTC mall associates partnership. I think that's a good summary of basically what we're seeking. I'm all set. Present Tracy. Okay, excellent. I don't have any others in the queue for questions in public session. Okay, seeing none, I believe we are ready for a motion to go into executive session. One thing a counselor, Councilor Pynite asked Councilor Mason to make that motion. So I'll have Councilor Mason make it. I appreciate you having done so in the past, but I wanted to spread it around this time. So one thing for just to note for folks is that we do are now having them in response to some of the changes and the requests that were made of us. We've gotten those motions with the specific statutory language which you'll hear up on board docs along with the folks that we're supposed we're expecting to have an executive session. So that is a change that we've made and hopefully we'll continue along with moving forward, but just want to be mindful of the training that we received last time and act on it. So with that, I'll turn it over to you for a motion to Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Tracy. I would move that for a finding that premature general public knowledge of the city strategy, legal advice and other information in relation to the pending litigation with BTC model associates would put the city at a substantial disadvantage. Okay, so we have a motion on a finding. Is there a second seconded by Councilor Pynne any discussion on the finding? Okay, seeing none. All those in favor of the finding, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye opposed. Hearing none, that passes unanimously. And now may please have the second part of the motion, Councilor Mason. Thank you, President Tracy. Based on that finding, I would move that we go into executive session to consider pending litigation and confidential attorney client communications pursuant to one VSA 313A1E and F. I would note that the individuals that we would invite into executive session in addition to the council and the mayor include the mayor's office staff, the city attorney, Jeffrey Glasberg, if he rejoins us and Mark Keith. Excellent. Okay, we have a motion based on the finding. Okay, I have a second from Councilor Stromberg. Any discussion on that motion? Go into executive session. Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. And we'll head into executive session for members of the public. We will be coming back right around, hopefully right around 730 for public forum. If you are interested in signing up for public forum, you may do so by going to the city website, BurlingtonBT.gov, backslash city council, backslash public forum. And that way you can sign up for public forum should you wish to speak this evening. We'll be again getting that at 730 right around that time, hopefully. So we'll see you back in a little bit. Councilors, please use the links in your email that you were just sent. Our executive session will get right into public forum. If you are a member of the public interested in speaking in the public forum, the way to sign up for that forum is to go to BurlingtonBT.gov, slash city council, which is one word, slash public forum, which is one word. And that will take you to a forum that you fill out that automatically feeds into a spreadsheet that I have go that clerk set up for me and that I work with as I manage the public forum. It looks like we got a bunch of counselors coming back on. So we'll get to that public forum once we get all the other counselors on. Okay, yep, seeing a ton jump on now, this is great. Apologize for getting back a little bit after our 730 public forum start. We had questions, conversation and executive session that went a little long. Don't see counselors Hall or Shannon on yet. Looks like counselor Shannon's in attendees. Okay, I will promote counselor Shannon and we have counselor Paul now, excellent. Okay, so we will go right into our public forum, which as I said, the way you sign up is just going to BurlingtonBT.gov, slash city council, one word, slash public forum. And then there's a fillable form that you just sign up with on there. Our usual practice is to prioritize people of color as well as Burlington residents in our public forum. And this evening, we only be having public forum. It's a time certain from 730 to 930, though I don't think we have too many folks signed up for tonight, this evening's public forum. So we may very well and much sooner than that. If the city clerk could please get the timer up just so that we can get the public forum going. I'll looking for our first speaker. Okay, so our first speaker who signed up is Dan Cunningham. Dan, I was not able to locate you in the chat. I mean, in the attendees list. Maybe you've used the raised hand function. Okay, one day in July, advisor, I think that's you. So I'm going to enable you to speak, Dan. Hopefully this is you should be able to speak now. Hi, it's me. Hi, Max, thank you. My name is Dan. Can everyone hear me? Yep, go ahead. My name is Dan Cunningham and I'm here tonight to ask the city council to engage in the movement to reopen Berlington High School without the F building. The high school was shut down, not based on a law or even a regulation, but on an arbitrary screening threshold that was defined in a memo. Yes, you heard that right, a memo. Vermont's threshold for immediate closure of a school is 200 times lower than that of the Europeans. There is no material medical risk from PCBs and buildings A through E, even after 30 years of exposure. You can see the details on openbhs.com. I'm here tonight because this action is one of the most inequitable I've ever seen in the state of Vermont. Almost a thousand kids have no high school. It's terrible for all of them, but for many of them, this is the only formal education they will ever have. And BHS serves as their social structure as well. This burden falls disproportionately on people of color and those with fewer resources. It's a major issue. Our local community is in agreement this time, but we need your help as city councilors to convince the state to be reasonable, to join with the rest of the world scientific community and revise their guidance so BHS has a chance to open. Again, this is one of the most unjust inequitable decisions I've ever seen in Vermont and it's imposed by our state itself. The parents of openbhs ask for your help as city councilors to stop it as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Nathan Larkin. Nathan, I'm enabling your microphone. Should be able to speak now. Yes, this is Nathan Larkin. I just wanna thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I would like to express my support for allowing small outdoor fires in Burlington. I feel that during these times, it's important to provide alternatives to indoor gathering and to facilitate socialization. Having personally experienced the use of smokeless fires at other family members' residences, I can personally vouch for their effectiveness. My clothes and so forth don't even smell the next morning after sitting next to a fire for an extended period of time. So given that, I would imagine that this would be a great compromise so that tax-paying citizens can enjoy their backyards and the health needs of others can be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I believe that was the only other person that I had in the signups for public forum for this evening. So I'm gonna go ahead and close the public forum for tonight and we will, if you could please take down the timer. We'll now go into the rest of our agenda.  Does anyone have a climate emergency report that they'd like to offer this evening? Okay, seeing none, we'll keep moving. We'll go right onto item number five, which is our consent agenda. Councillor Stromberg, may I please have a motion on the consent agenda? I move to adopt the consent agenda and take the actions indicated. Thank you for the motion. Is there a second to that motion on the consent agenda? Seconded by Councillor Pine. Any discussion? Okay, hearing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the consent agenda, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. We'll now move into our deliberative agenda. I will, we do have a number of other meetings, but I would like to just make in recognition of the fact that we have some of our colleagues from the school district, both the chair will superintendent Flanagan, I'd like to get to them sooner rather than later I see both of them have joined us. So I'm going to go to item 6.01 first and then after that we'll start to get into the other recess meetings before coming back into the rest of our deliberative agenda just in order to get to that update and not keep them waiting on that issue. So I appreciate superintendent Flanagan, you being here as well as chair wool and all your work to facilitate what has been likely the most challenging school year that either of you have had to deal with in your tenure. So very much appreciate you and all your work there. And then also just for being willing amidst that to come and share updates with us as a council on that work. Cause it is really helpful for us to continue to keep those lines of communication open. So just want to very much appreciate you being here this evening. And I understand you have a short presentation to share with us. So I'll turn it over to both of you to give us that update. Thanks again. Great, thank you so much for having us. Yeah, like I said, presentation share. So I would right now, chair run C. So is everyone able to see this? Okay. All right, great. So yeah, tonight we're chair wool and I are here. I'll walk through this presentation with you all here and then we will both be able for any questions and conversations. Chair wool, do you want to say any opening words? No, just very appreciative. Councilor Pollard reached out to me and Council President just very appreciative for this timely opportunity to speak to you as we will be having a school board meeting tomorrow night as a follow up to our school board meeting last Tuesday to discuss specifically BHS and BTC campus. So thank you very, very much for affording us this time on your agenda. Great. So what we'll do is break this into three general areas. So the first is an update on current and expanded in-person learning. Primarily focused on BHS tonight, BTC has moved into some in-person spaces and is moving into some in-person spaces that's closer. But the majority of the conversation tonight is focused on Burlington High School. So, and then update on the BHS, BTC site after we talk about sort of the current state and immediate plans and then review with you what we see right now is three kind of our clear options. So we are offering a lot of in-person and a lot of contact with students currently. But we also know that the in-person learning is really important for students and they're not getting enough of that right now. So, but I wanted to just give you a sense of what is happening. So we have a lot of academic programming and social emotional support happening. And we have a lot of students who are taking advantage of in-person activities. I would say sports and the athletics have really been an amazing way for the community to stay connected. I had the opportunity to see a game last Saturday night and it's just great to see students out and playing on the fields and in the stands cheering their classmates on. So that's been a really important part of the community this fall. We also are in full day and a full day, a full course load of remote learning for students at high school. Principal Green is giving daily information.  We have a lot of counseling happening, a lot of from our guidance counselors and social workers and outreach that's happening on an individual basis. We've got virtual college tours happening every day. Multiple colleges coming in and school counselors working with individual students. Like I said, we have about 275 students participating in fall sports, all those in-person. So you see a lot of activity out in the fields at the in the afternoons. About 100 participating in in-person and other activity weekly. We are offering some PE classes. We do also have 15 students in in-person learning with Burlington City and Lake. Now that program is running and they're doing some great work there. We do have nine students who are English learners who are in a class at Edmunds Middle School. Currently 15 students from our program for students with intensive special needs. That's the ISN acronym there at different locations. I've also been meeting students, I've met with students three times so far, a small student group to hear their feedback on what we can improve in this posture that we're in. And they're really giving us good ideas about centralizing communication. So they're getting lots and lots of emails and they are wanting to centralize those and deal with, help us better communicate to them in this new world. We also know that we need to expand in-person learning for BHS students. And so we are beginning our plans. We've been planning and getting ready to offer in-person options for students. We had to really shift gears because when we moved to remote learning so quickly, it took a couple of days to get situated. And then it takes time to get used to teaching in a remote setting and setting a new schedule. And so there was a lot of that went into those first couple of weeks of getting into remote learning. But we also know that our students need in-person options and we've been hearing from the community loud and clear that the families of BHS that we need to get in-person as soon as possible. And so we are beginning plans. So I've reassigned two staff members, two five partial of a third staff member to support the BH leadership in this work that they've already started to begin to offer in-person learning. So we're gonna be looking at other buildings in our portfolio of currently opened buildings and offering programming in those buildings. But that team's gonna be working with staff and working out what that exactly could look like. But we are aiming for a mid-November timeframe there. We're also gonna be surveying families and students and staff to underneath their perspective. Kind of shift over to the PCB testing. I just wanna kind of take back a little bit. So the PCB testing results that we received in September were below the EPA screening levels, but they were above the department of health screening level. So in September 2020, we learned that the BHS BTC campus had these PCBs in the air that were significantly above the department of health screening value of 15 nanograms per cubic meter. We at that point, when we first got the test back, those were, we received building F first and test some of the rooms in building F were at 6,000 or higher. So that was when we originally decided we had to close the entire building. But then we received the results back in buildings A through E. And those buildings came back in around 200, 300 nanograms per cubic meter and all the tests in buildings A through E were below the EPA screening level of 500 to 600 nanograms per cubic meter. But after that, we reviewed those results with the department of health and the EPA and our consultants. And both agencies explained that the screening level is not a hard line, but it's a line at which you need to do further investigation. And so that after learning that, we in that consultation with the department of health and the EPA recommended that students not return to the building until further testing and remediation was conducted. Now that's ultimately a district decision. So we made that decision, but it was clear that it was a recommendation from also the entire team, the entire team, including the department of health and the EPA. And so considering that recommendation, we moved right away to remote learning. We decided to continue to test and remediate at the site. So we wanted to better understand what's happening at the site and what was creating PCBs, materials that were creating PCBs or the conditions that were creating PCBs in the air so that we could remediate. So we're doing remote learning and we're testing and remediating. And we started really aggressively seeking alternative sites for in-person instruction. And I said, I stated as the goal that we would be, our goal would be to be in-person for second semester in January. And then we also are continuing the planning with the re-envisioning project for BTC and BHS. So that's a project that has been going on for a couple of years now and there's been progress in that project. And so that project continues. So those BCOC meetings, the meetings of the committee that is working on this and are continuing and the work is continuing in that over re-envisioning project. So on the piloting side of the world, we have a consultant, they have begun a pilot project to test the air in the buildings to determine the possibility of remediation of the PCBs. So that's not a simple and straightforward process and the current projected timeline for us to complete that pilot project would be the end in March of 21. And we knew right away that this timeline for the testing of remediation was gonna be months. And so that was probably what led to our decision to move into the remote posture and to start looking for alternative sites. We've also identified an alternative site for BHS. We looked at every possible site you could imagine in and around Burlington. We did find that we have identified a site that we think is very promising. We reviewed the space to ensure we can house the school. We've completed drawings to envision the layout of the space. And we started working with the owners to better understand the cost. So that is actively moving. And then in general, we know that we have a challenging decision to make and we're in a challenging situation. We know that remote learning is not great for any students. And we know that isolation is having a negative effect on students' mental well-being. That's both in Burlington, but we also kind of hear and see this across the country. But we're definitely hearing this clearly from our families and from our students that we need to really be paying attention to the health and well-being of our, the social emotional health and well-being of our students. We've also heard the considerable advocacy from BHS families to return to buildings A through E. We, Chair Will and I have met with a group of families. The families are advocating and pushing and really wanting to get back into school as soon as possible. And I understand that and empathize with them and also want to do everything I can to get back into a building as soon as possible. There are parents who are questioning the possibility of physical health concerns against the, do those outweigh the mental health concerns? So there's a question about the weight there and what we should be prioritizing. But we also know and we also know that our labor partners, the BA and AFSCME are not in support of returning to BHS without further testing and remediation. So all this leads to a kind of a stew of really complicated decision-making process that we're gonna need to, that we're currently in and we'll need to continue to engage in with our board and also look forward to the partnership with City Council and the mayor has been very supportive as well. So we're quickly approaching some important decision. These are the three options that I'll be presenting to the board tomorrow for them to deliberate on. The first is we return BHS while remediation occurs and the re-envision project continues as planned. So this is like an immediate return back to the school building. The second option is to move to an alternate location for two to three years while remediation and re-envision occurs at the BHS site and then to move back into that BHS site after the construction. So we move to an alteration, we continue along with the construction process that we've already begun and move back when that process is complete. And then the third is that we move to an alternate location for two to three years while building a new high school and tech center at our current site or in a new location. So this one is different than this in re-envisioning. This construction will be different than the current re-envision plan. So tomorrow night, the board gonna be deliberating on these three options. I'm basically doing the same pre-envision on the beginning that I covered with you. And then I have some more detail that I'll be covering with them around those three options. So we're encouraging people to join us tomorrow. It's 6 p.m. on Zoom and public comment will be at 6 10. So at that point, we're good for questions or if you want to add anything to. Yeah, the only thing that we didn't share because right now we are immediately concerned with VHS. We over the last six weeks, completely moved a Burlington Tech Center as well as our on top high school program and our tech center on top and our ISN. So we moved our Burlington Technical Center which houses 228 students currently from ascending schools to locations throughout the city of Burlington. That was a huge feat for us and superintendent plan again and his staff. And we were very fortunate with a lot of community partners to secure space for the technical center. We also are on top again, we were able to find space. So we have been incredibly busy and it wasn't a priority. It was just based on numbers and where we could get those two schools, program and schools, technical center set up. And so by the end of this month, those, all of them will be in in-person learning. So now begs the question of our only high school with roughly 970 students plus faculty and staff, where can we return to in-person learning? And so our communication to you tonight is to let you know that we do feel absolute sense of urgency since the closing. It has been on our 24 seven all hands on deck, but we were managing these two other entities on this campus of which we again, sorry to be long-winded. These scenarios do not even discuss our technical center of which we know that building F building has the highest concern. So we'll have to come back to you and to our school district and community to discuss separately the future of the technical center because our re-envisioning our $70 million bond was not being directed. There were improvements to that building but that building had improvements earlier over the course of the last eight years. So there were some ADA accessibility items and some lavatory and some HVAC, but the bulk of our bond was going to the BHS proper property based on budget. So I just don't want you to think that after this presentation, we have ignored BTC and that'll be another whole conversation but because they're successfully up and running, we have to address that as a school district Burlington Technical Center. But our priority right now because we have successfully worked through that programming for this school year is BHS to bring to your attention where we are at BHS. Excellent. Thank you very much for that presentation. I see Councillor Jang, go ahead, Councillor. Councillor Jang, you're on mute. Thank you, Superintendent Tom and also Claire for being here. It was not clear to me in your presentation about the recommendation from the Department of Health and the decision that was made to close the school and move students in a remote learning. Can you clarify that aspect again? Was it your decision and the recommendation that you received from the Department of Health did it say you have to close the school or did it give you a wiggle room and you made the decision to close the building A and E? So, yes, thank you. So, the decision was the decision. However, we sure we received the recommendation from the Department of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency. So, going into that conversation, we knew there was a difference between the screening threshold, the screening level for the Department of Health and the 500 to 600 grams per cubic meter, which is the PPA screen. So, when those tests came back from building A through EPA numbers, we did think, okay, there's a possibility of us getting back in there. At least I did. But then we right away had a call and we had the EPA on the call and the EPA reinforced for us that their number is not a number. These are not hard lines that they told us. Their numbers are screening levels at which you have to learn more about the airborne PCBs. And they did not recommend us to go back in. Our recommendation was for us to do more single remediation. So, when we heard from the Department of Health and the EPA that their recommendation was not to go back, we did ultimately have a decision that we had to make. The decision seemed very clear because there was no one telling us a safe return. And their experts were elected officials and education experts, but not toxicologists. Yep, thank you. And I think the other question is specific to, it seems you found an alternative location where students can be housed. And you choose to not share exactly that physical location, you have your reason and I respect it. And I was just wondering what are the costs associated in bringing that location to code in order to house students? And also where that money would be coming from knowing you only have a yearly budget for to run the school district. Right, so the building because we're still in negotiations or we're gonna be entering into negotiations around the building, it's just not prudent for us to share too many details on that right now. And because we're in that situation, we don't really have a number to give that's very precise. So we do know that we could fit up the building to be able to be used and that that would be millions of dollars. So probably in the $3 million range to get the site ready. And then there's a question of rent. So what would rent be on top of that? And so we have a number of different ways that we could work to achieve that, but it is unbudgeted right now. And so it's something we really have to think hard about and to figure out how we would do that in the most responsible way. I will say that many districts have swing spaces and districts that don't have swing spaces will put up trailers and house classes, parts of schools, so forth in trailers. And those are costly too. So while it's unbudgeted, it's not unheard of to need a swing space and to need to factor that in to the overall cost of a project. One of this just was not a part of our plan, you know? Yeah, wonderful. And here's a last question and if he's an idea, maybe you wanna explore it or not. Knowing that Wednesdays, all schools are closed, how about closing two days a week elementary and middle school and house, high school and BTC in the regular schools? That way we'll save a lot of money but maybe you wanna explore that and see if it's feasible. Yes, and we are looking at using our schools on, so I hear you, this is not the same thing, but we are looking at using some of our schools on those Wednesdays, because there are no students in school on Wednesday currently, or not, very few. And so that is definitely in the works. And if we can't find another site and there's, we run into a wall there, then we will have to start looking at how we utilize all of our portfolio to get more in-person learning for our high school students. So that's something that I appreciate the idea, I think it's a good one and something that we may need to consider. Wonderful, I mean, it's just at the cost here right now and everything that's going on, I'm sure the 70 millions you will need more and it's important to be strategic and utilize whatever we have. But thank you for being here and all that you do. Thank you. Yeah, and I think there's a long-term advocacy sort of battle to fight, which was started, Chair Will and many others started this push with the legislature last spring around the weighted funding formula. So we have an inequitable weighted funding or inequitable funding formula in Vermont and everyone knows it. And so the legislature was picking it up last spring but COVID hit. That is something that we are gonna need long-term to support the district, it'll help. But it's something we need long-term for the district and there are many other districts in the Northeast Kingdom and sort of more rural areas and the other areas that are not being, that the funding formula is not working for. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Janger. Councilor Mason to be followed by Councilor Paul.  Thank you, President Tracy. Thank you, Superintendent Flanagan and Chairperson Wolfer that sobering, I will say, update. My first question really relates to one of timing and I'm not, I can only imagine what your decision tree looks like as you're trying to map out strategy. You talked about the meeting tomorrow and the three options. As I was looking at the three options, there are so many variables in those three options. I don't fully understand how you can make a meaningful decision. I mean, option three of a new high school, we don't know the, no idea what that cost is. As you were weighing option one, going back in, I saw an earlier data point that the testing won't be done until March and the unions were emphatic about not going in until the testing was done. So I'm trying to figure out what is your, what is your decision process or when are you envisioning picking one of the options and sort of moving forward on that? Because I know the goal is to get the kids back in the school second semester. I'm skeptical, let's just put it that way. Yeah, so the decision making, so first I wanna make sure I was clear because I don't think I was in the beginning. We're not actually making a decision tomorrow night. Tomorrow night is informational. We need more information. And so one of the last slides is gonna be about the information that the board will need to make the decision, to make an informed decision. And then Chair, sorry, that was probably your answer. Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. Councilor Mason, this is what we're struggling with. We have a timeframe that we are separate from the actual physical building. We want the messaging to be clear to our VHS families that there will be in-person learning mid-November and that we are hoping if we cannot find a singular location that we will work within our own properties and somehow manage between the middle schools. But there are, like you saw, the unions are not looking to go back into VHS unless they get the Department of Health and EPA or the Department of Health approval or endorsement and the testing of which we have just found out from receiving the pilot overview and having to go out to bid would be by March. But we wanted to be able to share and have this exact dialogue with the board so people become more educated on our Howard. If we just delivered what we think is the next, there wouldn't be the opportunity to ask questions. So by posing it in that format is to say, well, this is the ideal going back into VHS, but here's our roadblock. We cannot go back to school if we don't have the unions behind us. And then if we do go forward with an alternative location, there's an expense and how do we amortize it over the course of the time there? But we can also fast track. And I don't want to, that's sort of cliche. We could potentially save dollars by renovating the high school without students there. It wouldn't take as long in the process of the original re-envisioning timeline. And then the feedback that we are getting as elected officials as you might be is from citizens saying, what if that site is not, we can't mitigate the issues on that site. And so we wanted to put it out there that that is the feedback we've been receiving from people so that if in fact it's, we can't mitigate things out of that site, what do we do and what do we explore? But those things would have to be answered after we do the pilot program. So we're certainly hearing from some of the same constituents who are, I would say hitting all the concerns you're raising from, we need to get the kids back in now to we have no idea what the health issues are. I guess as you're sort of working through what additional information, one of the biggest, and I have a personal stake, I have a child who's in the school is sort of the unknown on timing. And I know that's a struggle, but if there is some ability to provide that, I think in this pandemic, it's sort of the uncertainty of when this ends. And this is sort of the same thing. Where, when are you hoping to make a decision one way or the other or at least commit to a course? And then trying to stick to that. And I'll just say the other piece personally as well, if there are ways, not to put this all on you, but if there are ways that we as a council can advocate, whether it's for state funding or to those who are licensing, I would encourage you, I think we're stronger working together. But I don't know, right now we don't really know where to push or what to do. So going forward as that plan comes into fruition, please continue to reach out and utilize us as well. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Mason, I have Councilor Paul to be followed by Councilor Pine.  Thank you very much, President Tracy. Superintendent Flanagan, thanks so much for taking the time to be here with us. And of course to Chair, well, yes, you are in Ward six. I have to put a plug in for you. The first question or actually the one thing I would appreciate is if you could make the PowerPoint that you just showed us available, if you could give that to us so that we can post that, that would be helpful along with the information about the school board meeting tomorrow night. And Councilor Mason pretty much addressed a lot of the things that I was going to mention. It does seem as though we've such a long process, we went through such a long process to get to re-envisioning and then found out that that was a lot of what we really loved about the vision isn't something that we can really afford. So it would seem as though 70 million to do a renovation, granted renovations can sometimes be more expensive than building from the ground. But it seems as though to then start a whole new process of going through and starting basically a new high school and unless you're able to get money from somewhere to be able to do the remediation, it seems, I mean, that just seems as I think as Councilor Mason said, it seems like there's a lot of questions. The only thing that I would just simply mention and it's just simply a suggestion is that the number of parents that I've heard from which is why I contacted School Board Chair, Claire Wall, was because of the fact that people feel very in the dark. They feel like they're not getting enough information. And we know it's elected officials that sometimes when people say that they really are getting a lot of information, sometimes it's very difficult to give people all the information that they want. It's a constant challenge. And so my suggestion would just simply be that going forward, more information is always better than less that you just be as upfront as you possibly can, maybe even checking in with people on a weekly basis and also that perhaps in some way that you break down the 900 or so students into smaller groups so that parents and students would have opportunities on Zoom with perhaps the two of you or others to give their input and allow them time for questions. I think that Town Hall was a good start, but for some people it's difficult to be able to ask the questions that they want. And obviously there's only so many hours in a day you can't speak with every parent every day individually. So that would be my suggestion because we are, I know for myself, I mean, I have gotten a number of calls, emails, et cetera from people who are very concerned that they are gonna be looking at another semester without full in-person learning. So thank you, thanks for listening. Thank you, Councilor Powell. I have sent the PowerPoint to all the city council and then also to the clerk's office and asked that it be posted to Board Dock. So we should have that up there and you all should have that in your inbox right now. So for your review, thanks. I have Councilor Pine to be followed by Councilor Hansen. Go ahead, Councilor Pine. Thanks, Mr. President. The question I have, Chair Wol and Superintendent Flanagan is I have some background and familiarity with environmental health and standards that the EPA issues. And in this case, I've been really kind of baffled by the screening level it's called that the health department uses. And I wanna know how much you've dug into that and whether that is an approach that is universal in public health or if it's unique to our health department because it seems as though we are stuck with a sort of order from the state that is, shall we say, not necessarily shared by others in the public health profession.  Well, we've worked hard to understand it. I mean, they're definitely a difference, the difference in screening levels between the Department of Health and the EPA is a lot of nanograms per cubic meter, 15 to between 15 for the Department of Health and 500 to 600 for the EPA. So we have dug in, we have been working to understand this. We've been listening, I hear Councillor Paul's ask and push for more communication. So I hear that and I take that seriously. We've been really trying to communicate but we can do more, we can do better. So we have been working to understand those levels. And like I said earlier, when we received the A through E numbers back, I thought that we were gonna be able to come back. That was my instinct because we were, we seemed well within the EPA standard but the Vermont standard is more, I don't know if more rigorous is the right word but it's 15 nanograms per cubic meter and that's the screening level. Again, it's not a hard line. And so they were clear with us on that as well. But when we heard from the EPA and the Department of Health together, that made the decision for us. And also I would add, thank you Councillor Pine for that question. One, hiring our environmental firm ATC for the beginning of this project since its inception as well as then bringing on another PCB, Fasinoneal, we did, the minute all this news came to us and we sat in meetings with these A state agencies and their advisement, figuring out what next and reaching out to the environmental, Vermont Environmental Consortium. A lot of BHS families asked this question or we have incredibly involved and dedicated parents, one who spoke tonight have dedicated numerous, multiple weeks now trying to figure out getting familiar with everything PCBs. And so the research that they have done and how we have interpreted this is we see the value in asking throughout the state and misery loves company finding out of other school districts we did find out one in Worcester and how our state is looking at this information in PCBs and how at what point do we push back and do we ask them, because the town hall that we hosted with them was incredibly intimidating and we didn't feel it was level to the degree of the concerns that many of us felt after it's not necessarily fear-mongering but that was their interpretation of it and we have to respect them as state agencies but now let's look throughout New England or throughout this country how what those levels are and how would they impact other schools or buildings. So I welcome, after this I will follow up with you because we are, I believe we have a tremendous amount of support from our citizens who are asking for more clarity on that. They're not asking necessarily like change your stance Dr. Levine or toxicologist Sarah Vos but explain to us how we would be able to justify this number, this 15 when it seems like it's not tenable like that we would never be able to get to that number or throughout the country we've been told that it's just the lowest that it possibly could be. So we are, we did ask those questions and we are actively pursuing that but when we hear from, you know we're also coming off a pandemic of which our health department has received incredible accolades and we know that we've benefited from their guidance.  And so, you know, again we value their work and their judgment and we believe now we have communicated back to them over the last two weeks with pushback to ask, you know these statistics of harm that these levels could cause against the emotional that it was ignored the mental wellbeing of students not being in school was not on their slide deck during the time hall, town hall and it really did not sit well with citizens of Burlington. Sure, because 50 years of students have gone through that building. So as the father of two sons I did a little bit of research to assure them that they weren't at risk.  It would have been like impossible to do and still eat your lunch and mingle with your friends and go to sports and everything else. So anyway, it just struck me as sometimes I just worry about overkill and I feel like this is, this is an example of that. Yeah, thank you. We did again, we're very, very lucky. I mean, I feel we all know as civic leaders or elected officials, they're engaged community but the minute this happened, we have lawyers that have dealt with the state in urban soils and they are BHS parents and the BHS parents that reached out to us or spoke to CAX who are in this field and have pushed back on the state's recommendation to us. So I feel as if we are a good company but it will take time and legislation and that's really what we've been told by the Department of Health that last year the legislation passed about lead drinking water in all schools and now here we are. It's the, we are very lucky. Our taxpayers afforded us a $70 million bond to do renovation work for buildings that are not ADA accessible or efficient or safe. And so look at what we did. We followed a timeline, we did our environmental testing to get us to the next phase of permitting and construction and now we're faced with this situation but this is a state that offers no construction aid. So my lawn, I could talk to you all very long and at length that it's a troubling situation to be in and I feel like I've shared publicly it's not a Burlington problem but to not have any outreach from the state on the mental wellness of our students of not being in school at this time and helping us identify how to move forward is concerning to us for sure and frustrating. But so Councillor Pine, thank you for recognizing that and doing the research yourself to see what the risks are. I have Councillor Hanson in the queue. Go ahead, Councillor. Great, thank you both so much for being here and for all your hard work on all of this and thanks for kind of your focus on trying to get students back for in-person learning in one way or another. I think the member of the public who called in was spot on with the equity implications of remote learning and so I think I'm really glad to see that you're working hard on that. Something a little bit unrelated to what we've heard so far but I just, I think it's something that's easy to lose and that we should all remind ourselves of both the council and the administration and the school board. We did pass a climate emergency resolution last September and one of the items on that that I wanna make sure that we're not losing collectively because I think it's easy to with everything going on is that we did include in that resolution that city commissions would include in their annual updates to the council, updates on progress towards addressing the climate crisis. So I know we're dealing with several crises at once here and it's difficult. So definitely not a criticism whatsoever but just a reminder for us and for the administration that we still are gonna need to keep that laser focus and just to make sure that our presenters from commissions going forward are reminded of that and made aware of that because I'd love to hear. I know you all are doing a lot in the school district to address the climate crisis. So at some point, you know, we'd love to hear about that as well. Absolutely, we will get on your calendar. Sounds great, I appreciate it. Hey, that's the only other counselor I had in the queue. Anyone else with questions? Okay, seeing none, we will move on to our next item. I just wanna thank both Chair Will and Superintendent Flanagan for being here and sharing these updates with us. And again, folks, there is a school board meeting tomorrow evening to provide further details on that. Chair Will, did you just wanna provide that timing again for folks and how they can access that meeting? Yep, it's on our Burlington School District website as well under Board Docs and it's a six o'clock start of meeting. Yep, and Zoom information is on there. Excellent, well, thanks again, very much appreciate it and all the work that you're doing to help our students across the district. With that, we'll move back into our deliberative agenda. We do have a number of other meetings. It's like a point of information. It's like the mayor would like to say something.  Thank you, President Trisha. Thank you, Councillor Chang. I just briefly wanted to say to the council and the public that the administration is very engaged with the school district on a whole range of issues related to the pandemic and this high school issue. We have an emergency operation. We continue to have an emergency operations call every Friday with the department head team which the school district participates in and we coordinate regarding the pandemic and check in on the high school situation on a weekly basis. And I've given the direction of my team to be supportive in any way as we can as the district is grappling with this very challenging situation with the high school and we're gonna continue to try to provide that support going forward and just want the council and the public to be clear on that. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you for providing that additional context, Mayor. Now we'll move on to some of the other items on our deliberative agenda, but for members of the public, we do also have other meeting structures. I guess it would be a way to describe it in which we also meet outside of the regular city council meeting. There are decisions that are still made by the city council and in two cases this evening that also include the mayor presiding. We're gonna go into those structures now. So we have next, we'll have the local control committee meeting to be followed by the board of civil authority, which deals with voting issues and electoral issues. And then the city council of mayor presiding for a couple of appointments. So give folks a chance to just switch over to those meetings, they're on board docs. There is our number of items. So we'll go to local control first, as I said before. So once folks are over there, I'll come to councilor Hanson for a motion on that agenda. Is everybody able to navigate over? Okay, seeing nods. Councilor Hanson may please have a motion on the agenda. Yeah, I'll move to adopt the agenda. Okay, we have a motion seconded by councilor Stromberg. Any discussion on our agenda on the local control commission? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the agenda, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. And we'll now move into our deliberative agenda on the local control committee committee. That brings us to item 2.01. May I have a motion on that please councilor Hanson? Yeah, I'll move to approve the 2020-2021 second class liquor license application for black cap, coffee, and beer. 42 church street with the following conditions. All city permits need to be closed out with all standard conditions. Excellent, seconded by councilor Stromberg. Any discussion on this item? Okay, hearing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. It brings us to 2.02. Councilor Hanson may have a motion on that. I'll move to approve the 2020-2021 second class liquor license application for NJ beverages LLC 500 Riverside Avenue with the following conditions. Complete record checks with all standard conditions. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second from councilor Stromberg? Any discussion on this? Okay, hearing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Now move on to item 2.03. May I please have a motion, councilor Hanson? Move to approve the 2020-2021 second class liquor license application for Poppy Cafe and Market, 88 Oak Street with the following conditions. All city permits need to be closed out with all standard conditions. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by councilor Freeman. Any discussion of this? Okay, you see hearing none. We'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. That brings us to our next item. Will you please give us a motion, councilor Hanson? Move to approve the 2020-2021 first and third class restaurant slash bar liquor license applications for Cafe Mama Juana, 88 Oak Street with the following conditions. Complete record checks contingent upon fire marshal approval. All city permits need to be closed out with all standard conditions. Thank you, councilor Hanson. We have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded from councilor Freeman. Any discussion on this item? Hearing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. It brings us to, I believe, our final item, 2.05 on the deliberative agenda. May please have a motion, councilor Hanson. Yes, I'll move to approve the 2020-2021 outside consumption permit application for Cafe Mama Juana, 88 Oak Street with the following conditions. Complete record checks and all city permits need to be closed out. Okay, we have a motion. There's a second from councilor Freeman. Any further discussion on this? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. A motion to adjourn is now in order. So moved. Moved by councilor Hanson. Is there a second? Seconded by councilor Stromberg. Any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. The local control committee is now, commission is now adjourned at 844 p.m. I will now turn it over to mayor Weinberger for the board of civil authority to get away, mayor. Thank you, president Tracey. I will call the board of civil authority into order at 844 p.m. and welcome a motion from a counselor on the agenda. Councilor Pine. I move to adopt the agenda. Thank you. Seconded by councilor Paul. I actually wonder if there is a motion to adopt an amend. So moved. Second. Moved point of order. Do we not have to read the amendment? Yeah, it's on the board box. Motion to adopt agenda as amended as follows. No changes for consent agenda item 2.02, resolution, appointment of assistant election officials. Councilor Tracy. Second. All right, excellent. Any further discussion of the amended agenda? Seeing none, we'll go to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the motion carries unanimously. That brings us to item 2.01, which is a motion to accept the consent agenda. Is any councilor ready to make such a motion? Councilor Stromberg. I move to adopt the consent agenda and take the actions indicated. Thank you. Is there seconded by councilor Freeman. Discussion. Seeing none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. The consent agenda is adopted. And that is the only item of business. Bring us to adjournment. Adjournment if there's no objection. I will order the board of civil authority adjourned at 846 p.m. And we will move to the final other meeting in the night, which is the city council with mayor presiding. And I would welcome a motion on the agenda for this meeting. I've called it to order at 846 p.m. I welcome a motion on the agenda. Councilor Pine. I would move to adopt the agenda as amended as follows. Resinned Chris Cadu's application for agenda item 3.04 per Chris Cadu. Second. Is there any further discussion on the agenda? Seeing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously to encourage councillors to have their microphone unmuted for the votes. Next item is the consent agenda. Welcome motion on the consent agenda. Councilor Stromberg. I move to adopt the consent agenda and take the actions indicated. Thank you, Councilor Stromberg. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilor Freeman. Thank you. Discussion of the consent agenda. Go to vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. And that brings us to 3.01. So this section, we have three Board of Commission seats to fill. We'll start with 3.01, which is the design advisory board. And I would welcome that the floor is open for a nomination for the design advisory board. Councilor Pine. I would place a nomination in the name of J. A. White. Excellent. Are there any additional nominations? Any additional nominations? If there are none, we will close the floor to nominations and I will ask for a voice vote for the appointment of Mr. White to the design advisory board for term expiring June 30th, 2023. All those in favor of the appointment, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Congratulations, Mr. White. Thank you. Thank you for your interest in serving on the DAB. We'll now move, I'm sorry. We do have a custom of inviting applicants to speak to the board. Mr. White, I'm just checking. Mayor, I looked for J. White and I was not able to find him. And then on the next one, I know that Professor Saguino is not on the call. Let me know that I was not planning to speak. Okay. Great. I do see that our applicant for the final position is with us. So if she wants to be recognized, Grace will be coming to you in a moment. But we made it a vote on 3.01. Now it's going to 3.02. This is an appointment to the police commission for a term expiring June 30th, 2022. The floor is open for nominations. Councillor Pine. I'd like to place in nomination the name of Stephanie Saguino for the police commission. Thank you, Councillor Pine. Sorry, Councillor Pollock, if you're trying to be recognized there, I was sort of blocked for a moment. Any additional nominations? Are there any additional nominations? Seeing none, I'll close the floor. And since Professor Saguino is not with us tonight, is there any, she will not speak, but as was noted, any further discussion? Okay. Now we will go to a vote. All those in favor of the appointment of Stephanie Saguino to the police commission for a term expiring June 30th, 2022. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you and congratulations to Professor Saguino. Thank you for your service. This now does bring us to 3.03. This is a board of registration of voters' appointment for a term expiring next June 30th, 2021. I do see that Grace Grundhäuser, who has filed an application is here. And Grace, your microphone has been enabled to believe if you... Hi, thank you for hearing my application. Can you hear me okay? We can and yes, if you have any brief remarks for the board before the vote, go for it. Yeah, I'll just say I'm excited to support the board's work, especially efforts to help people to vote and increase registration rates. I'm just excited to help make my neighbor's voices heard. Great, thanks so much, Grace. Thanks for your interest in the board. The floor is now open for nominations. Grace has not yet been nominated, I don't believe, so Councillor Pynne. I would like to place the nomination in the name of Grace Grundhäuser. Thank you. Councillor Pynne, any other nominations? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the floor to additional nominations. And is there any discussion on this appointment? Seeing none, we will go to a vote. All those in favor of appointing Grace Grundhäuser to the Board of Registration of Voters, please say aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Grace, for your interest and your service in our elections. And we very much appreciate it. And with that, we have completed the agenda and unless there is an objection, I will adjourn the City Council Mayor presiding at 8.53 p.m. Thank you, President Tracy, back to you. Thank you, Mayor. So we'll reconvene the regular City Council meeting. We left off at item 6.02, which is another appointment, an appointment for the Chittenden Solid Waste District Alternate term expiring 5.3122. I believe we had one applicant, Samantha Hurt. I believe Samantha is with us this evening. So as we've done with the others, I'm gonna go ahead and allow, enable your mic, Samantha. And if you'd like to address the Board, I mean the Council, you may do so with some brief remarks. Thank you, Council President. Hi, everyone. My name's Sam. I spent several years working in the legislature to either affect or adopt new policies specifically around Vermont's solid waste system. So my main interest right now is seeing how Chittenden Solid Waste is working with those new policies. And yeah, if you have any questions, let me know. Great, thank you for that. So now the floor is open for nominations. Councilor Hansen, go ahead. Yeah, I would like to nominate Samantha Hurt. Okay, thank you. Are there any other nominations? Any other nominations? Okay, we'll go ahead and close that and go to a vote. All those in favor of Samantha Hurt for the Alternate on the CSWD Board, please say aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Congratulations to Samantha and all the other applicants. We all appreciate you all being willing to serve your city on these boards and commissions. It's really helpful to have a full slate in all the different roles. So that brings us on to item 6.03, the resolution regarding the safe operation of contained outdoor fire pits. I'm going to recognize Councillor Shannon for this item.  Thank you, President Facy. I'd move to adopt the resolution with the following changes to lines 15 and 16, which shall read, establish a process whereby property owners can apply for a seasonal permit from November 1st, 2020 to April 30th, 2021 to burn clean, dry firewood outdoors in smokeless fire pits if they meet criteria established by the Burlington Fire Chief and ask for the floor back after a second. Thank you for that, Councillor Shannon. Is there a second to Councillor Shannon's motion? Seconded by Councillor Mason, you have the floor, Councillor Shannon. Thank you, President Tracy. I appreciate the concerns that were raised by the Board of Health and others. In response to that, I sought input from my constituents about a possible compromise to allow smokeless fire pits. While only a very small minority of about 80 responses were opposed outdoor fire pits, I think it's important to address what those concerns were. And I really want to emphasize that the fact that only a minority objected this doesn't in itself mean that we should go ahead with it because there are very legitimate concerns. But I also think that the concerns that have been raised are being addressed through this resolution. Some were concerned that the law would not be obeyed, but we know the current law is not obeyed. Wouldn't it be reasonable to offer our residents legal guidelines and education as to how to safely have outdoor fires and minimize impacts to neighbors? That is what this resolution offers. There was also much concern about equity and cost, which is a topic also touched on by the Board of Health, which I will get to in a minute. Those objecting based on equity tended to want us to allow all fire pits, not just smokeless fire pits. The Board of Health objected to our proposal based on one, fine particulate matter and chemicals emitted by backyard wood fires can affect our outdoor and indoor air quality and can affect the same population that's at higher risk for COVID-19. First, to be clear, fire pits of any kind do not cause COVID-19, but they are an irritant to anyone who has any kind of a lung condition. The smokeless fire pit has a secondary burn of particulate matter, the thing that is irritating to those with lung conditions. And it burns that particulate matter before it goes up in the smoke, which is what eliminates the vast majority of the smoke. In doing so, they produce greater heat and far less smoke. Smokeless fire pits burn at higher temperatures and are more efficient. They put out more heat for the same amount of fuel used, conserving resources. Many residents prefer to burn wood rather than fossil fuels for a variety of reasons. The second thing that was mentioned by the Board of Health was outdoor fires might actually encourage larger gatherings than are currently permitted. This was not something I heard raised as a concern by the community, but if this were to happen, we do have a remedy for people who are, we have regulations about not having too many people gather outside and whether that's caused by a fire pit or something else, the remedy to that is the same and we need to enforce that rule. The purpose is to allow people to socialize outside, which we know is safer than socializing inside. The outdoor fire is far better than gathering around the currently legal indoor fireplace or wood stove. Third, not all neighborhoods will be suitable for outdoor fires, particularly in areas with many multifamily dwellings and small to no yard space. But not all neighborhoods have yards big enough for swing sets or charcoal grills either, but we don't ban them. Hopefully every swing set and charcoal grill is enjoyed not just by the owner, but by friends and relatives, which is also the hope with smokeless fire pits. Lastly, in regards to cost, the cost is typically about $275, which is comparable to the cost of a gas grill. And we don't ban those based on cost. So it doesn't seem like that is a fair reason to ban smokeless fire pits. Right now, many of us go to our friend's house outside of Burlington and joy fire with friends. This allows us to visit friends in, this resolution will allo