I think it's on. Yep. Good. Okay. Um, I would like to call to order the South Pro-Engine City Council meeting of Monday, March 18th, 2019. And we'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.  I was going the wrong way. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Item two is instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency. Case of emergency tonight, please exit by one of these two doors and go out into the parking lot to the south of the building. If one of these doors are blocked, please go back out through the main entrance out the sidewalk and around to the parking lot and gather there. Please leave right away. I will be responsible for making sure everybody's out of the building. Thank you. So item three agenda review. Are there any additions, deletions or changes in order of the agenda? Seeing none, we'll move on to number four comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. Yes, Patrick. Good evening off. I'm Patrick Leduc. I'm coming to you tonight as one of the members of the South Burlton friends of the arts. We have an event this coming Saturday that we want to invite you all to. I know some of you are aware of it. March 23rd is our second annual visual and performing arts gala. We invite you all to attend. All the proceeds go towards scholarships for our high school students that want to pursue the arts. Losing needs based scholarships. They have over 30 artists and professionals and students that are showing their work and performing for you. So we invite you and the rest of the public to join us. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry I won't be able to attend, but one of these years you'll have to accept donations as well. I will make a donation. I told you I would. I just haven't done it. You finally sent me the link so I can do that. Um, announcements and the city. Oh, I'm sorry. Are there any other public guests? I'm sorry. Good evening. Jim and Horia. Jim Fay was shambling water district from a past meeting through Justin. You're aware that I'm retiring. Um, this coming June and I just wanted to take a minute to introduce the new general manager Champlain Water District, Joe Duncan. Joe's been with us about three years now and he's been with local engineering here in Chittenden County for the previous 20 before that. So Joe will be taking over as general manager in July. Also, uh, John Temecki, the present CWD retail superintendent is also on track retirement this June. Yeah, I'd like to introduce Jay Nadu, who's replacing John as our retail superintendent, which would be the superintendent for the city, South Brunelington Water Department. That's all. Well, congratulations and thank you very much and thank you for your service. Enjoy your retirement. It's really fun. Yeah. Yeah. No, I enjoy retirement. Okay. Are there any other comments from the public? So seeing none, we'll move on to number five announcements in the city manager's report. Tom, you want to start with announcements? Sure. Not much to report, but I will say this past weekend, I went to the rotary curling a check tournament second one. Great event. I really hope next year maybe it goes for two days. It was sold out or practically. So just a great day. And then also I just want to make one comment plant a seed in our collective council mind. Was that Burlington yesterday for the St. Patty's Day turn? What is a parade of concrete mixer trucks? Just a great little fun event to go downtown. But the whole time I'm out there in the freezing cold with three kids looking for a clean bathroom because their mall isn't quite accessible. I just kept thinking I wish South Burlington did more things with the rec department in our very clean, very comfortable indoor downtown. So I don't know how we could do that. But I just think of July 4th, New Year's Eve, I think of St. Patty's Day. And so our rec and parks department already does a fabulous job, but I just see a real opportunity to possibly do a little bit more inside the hallways of the U mall. So I would have rather been at the university mall yesterday than freezing on Church Street. That's all I'll say. Okay. Well, thank you. Megan. Just report that I went to Montpelier two times last week, one for press conference and one time with you and perhaps you're going to talk about it more, which I will add in the talk about it too. Well, we were following up on made a town send our representative from South Burlington to legislature. She has two bills that are currently in the Transportation Committee. One is looking at finding some kind of governance structure that allows the cities of South Burlington and Winooski to have input on the noise mitigation programs. Up to now it has been Burlington's purview and we can speak, but what we have to say or our objections have no sway in the final decisions. And so the bill would be looking to give more weight to South Burlington's positions with regard to the noise mitigation programs. And this follows up on an unsigned MOU that South Burlington has asked Burlington to sign in order to at least have a basic level of agreement that the home acquisition program will not be pursued as a top priority. And the second bill is with regard to shared governance, but specifically a study group. And we will follow up on that. Apparently, it was well received, our visit and Helen probably has more to say about that. I attended the TDR meeting last week on Wednesday at the police station. It was also at the police station Monday afternoon for meeting with Justin Rabbit who had the DPW and Chief Burke from the police department and myself and a woman named Catherine O'Brien Barrett that I happen to know pretty well as my wife. And we met at the Community Justice Center to talk about the graffiti problem down on Feral Street and in the Eastwoods neighborhood and how those neighbors feel like they haven't had enough attention to deal with the problem. So we talked about ways to mitigate, including the possibility of putting murals on those underpassed walls, right, in order to act as a deterrent to future graffiti.  And so this could act as a deterrent, but we have to go through some bureaucracy first by applying to VTrans for a permit to do that. And Kevin was able to find that that way to apply for it. So we'll do that soon. So that's what we talked about. Is Katie going to do the mural? And well, yes, we're going to we're working on that, right? Yeah. This the funding will have will be an issue because that's a lot of paint. That's for really big or go fund me. We'll do a coin drop right there on that road. Busy road. Yeah. Yeah. For those of you don't know Tim's wife, Katie is the artist behind all the wonderful electrical boxes, I guess, that are painted all around the city. Great. Thank you. As Megan identified, I we did go up to Montpelier. And it's always fun for me to go back and see old friends and I got to show her the state house and some of the rooms that I thought are are most beautiful. And we walked into the house in the balcony. So she could see it because they were in session. And I didn't realize and Pew had seen us. So she in the beginning of every session, you can introduce people. So she introduced us. She got not of course, but as often happened, Megan's name wrong. And then realize so after we were introduced and you stand up and you wave and they all clap and then she stood up again and corrected that. But but it was fun. And I think we did make some headway and have plans to really go back and touch base with some other people on the transportation committees in both the house and the Senate. We did not talk about the car rental thing, but that's that's gone the ways and means I suspect or or no, that's right. They were expecting us to address that. They kept saying, I bet you're here for the charter change. Right. Right. That will come later. We decided to talk about that as well. But it was fun. And I think productive city manager, your report. Thanks, Helen. Just a couple things today. I met with a couple of of the staff at the Gund Institute, Michael Moser and Jane Kaldonsky to talk about the cost benefit analysis. And Michael's going to meet with Eric, then see next week, who is kind of one of the lead authors of the genuine progress indicator. But we just had about an hour and a half long meeting kicking around some ideas. So the first meeting of the Planning Commission subcommittee looking at potential potential changes in the form based code was this afternoon at 1230. I had to leave for this other meeting, but I guess it went pretty well. We have, as I've indicated to council, we've entered into an MOU with a Toronto based company called Consensus. They're a blockchain based company that does survey work, real time and ongoing surveys of the public about any issues that we might want to survey about. So we will have a maximum input on what the questions would be. They just want to test the technology. And so we'll be getting back to you to get ideas as to what you might want to have surveyed once this gets moving ahead. The first step is really to alert the public that this is coming and how to connect to Consensus to talk about the what they want to comment on on the survey. Just a note on the airport, the BTB Master Plan Advisory Committee is next Tuesday, I think, 326 at 5 p.m. at the airport. This is one of the committees going to support the Master Plan. This is not the NCP plan. I forgot to say I had an airport commission meeting and in the next item, I'll go through those dates because I have dates and times. We've set up a series of meetings among the staff who support committees, a growing number of our team, by the way, to talk about how they can best provide support to the committees. And so there's a consistency across what we're doing depending on, you know, whatever committee you're staffing, what the expectation is. Along those lines, the Energy Committee, Subcommittee met last week. Lou was unable to make that meeting, but the Consensus coming out of that was to organize some additional tours of the facilities to have both Vermont Gas and Efficiency Vermont represented in those tours. And then, well, I was just going to mention the charter change. So Andrew has put together the packet that we have to send to the Secretary of State's office, and it's on its way. Secretary of State will bundle that up and then put it with other charter changes from other communities and then take the package over to the House GovOps Committee, which we'll have first shot at. And then they'll go their various ways. Some will go directly to the floor. Ours, I think, will go to the Ways and Means Committee because it's a revenue raising. Does it have a chance to be voted on this season? Yes. I think they are pretty obligated to try to get through that, to either say, we're going to vote on this or vote against it. It's not subject to crossover, which was Friday. Yeah, last Friday. So that's my report. Okay, thank you. So now committee reports from counselors. Does Green Mountain Transit? Yeah, I have a lot to report. I'll try to keep it short and answer any questions you all might have. But we did balance our budget with an extra board meeting and a lot of extra time. We did it through a mix of new revenues as well as some cost efficiencies, which factors into one point I did want to raise to the South Burlington audience. Over the last two years, we spent a good amount of money engaging with a third party consultant to come in and analyze our system. It was called the Next Gen Study, and you probably saw a lot of announcements about it. And it came up with a set of recommendations that we're originally going to roll out over the next one to two years. Part of our balancing of the budget was identified to actually accelerate the implementation of those well thorough research service changes. So that's what we actually are planning to do. And we're meeting Kevin myself as well as GMT staff members this coming Tuesday to discuss the implications for South Burlington. We are going to get a lot more service hours. So about 100 more service hours. But these are all well grounded in a comprehensive and thorough study about serving the area that we're in. So we our assessment won't go up this year, but we can expect next year to graduate some amount. But most importantly, I think that the South Burlington residents will appreciate the changes. We're going to have more standard frequency. So we'll go to standard 20 minutes. But I also want to say that we'll be having public hearings. Those will be widely announced over the next month or two about these changes. And those public hearings are not perfunctory. They actually do factor in feedback. And I really hope that South Burlington residents that take the bus or would take the bus attend those sessions and know that those feedback are factored in and the board reviews all of them. And they do and often more often than not affect how we actually implement the service changes. So expect a lot of changes, some consolidation, some or organization, some simplicity and making like routes have fewer names. So it's a little bit easier to understand our service, our different routes. But GMT you can expect some changes to South Burlington service. Yes, Megan. Yeah, instead of every half hour be every 20 minutes when it's not rush hour for number one throughout the day throughout the day. Okay, how about 12? I believe that the mall circulator route that services the airport is actually going to be a continued and connected to the College Street Shuttle. So it'll be one route that goes all the way through South Burlington. I should know this better. But that's why I'm attending a meeting with Kevin this coming Tuesday. And I have a lot of the loose facts. But just know that these public hearings will be giving a comprehensive presentation about what the changes will be. And how will those be advertised? I'm open to we're open to suggestion. Our default mode is front porch forum. We GMT advertises and all the front porch forums of the service areas that we're in. We can also if you would like us to I can work with the other paper to see how we can promote it there. Put it up on our website. And there will be notices in the buses. Yes, they often have paper. Great. Sounds good. Um, have you had any committee meetings right this Wednesday? We're going to have our next open space IZ meeting. Okay, report next time. Tim, we had our TDR meeting last week and both Amanda and Paul attended. Um, we decided to not go down the road of thinking about totally abandoning TDRs entirely. Um, and I see an agenda item here where Tom Bailey would would like to step down and they once John Simpson to step in. So, um, that was a surprise that that that Tom doesn't want to continue. At the meeting, he he didn't want to continue with secretary. I didn't realize he didn't want to continue on the committee at all anymore. That's too bad. So, but we also heard some feedback from planning and zoning and legal counsel about the possibility of of changing TDRs so that they could be turned into another type of incentive besides just building density or units, right? And that doesn't really fit the statute. So, so now we've kind of the road is narrowing, right? What are our options? We can't really, we really, we're not going to just drop the whole program and then and like rezone the whole area. That just doesn't seem to be a good thing we can do. And we're we really can't change the value of what the TDR actually is because the statute is pretty clear about being it being units of or density or square footage or lot size. So, I think we're going to meet Wednesday night and we'll be talking more about what the existing program is and hopefully there will be starting to talk about ways that it might be changed in lieu of the recent decision. Okay, great. Okay, I had actually this afternoon the regular airport commission meeting. They changed it because I'll be gone Wednesday and they wanted me there. So, there's really a number of things that we talked about that are certainly of importance to self Burlington. One being the sound maps and they're still going through FAA compliance at this moment. So, they are hoping that by the end of April or early May the sound maps will be finalized and shared. Yes, well, yeah, April early May. They mentioned the Chamberlain School and that they've been working with David on figuring out what is possible in terms of sound mitigation with the school. They can't really do anything or apply for anything until the sound maps are completed. So, it's sort of a the sound maps are where everything begins. So, we are waiting for them. And they estimated that the school portion was about one to four million dollars. But one thing that they did determine from the FAA is that the school only qualifies for ventilation system work. None of the windows or the I guess more insulation in the wall. So, it's limited to that. And they also tried to make it very clear that it was it's really important for our entire community to weigh in on both issues. There's probably going to be a not probably there's always a finite amount of dollars that might be available for sound mitigation. So, there isn't a special as I understand it a special pile for schools. And then another pile for our bucket for home mitigation. So, it's really the community that will have to work together to determine what our priorities are. And if you know out of whatever the dollar figure is, if we want to spend four million dollars on the school. One of the reasons they suggested that that dollar figure was a little more than they had anticipated just for the ventilation system is that the building is deteriorating. So, I guess it's more expensive to fix something that's already a little bit broken. And hence the the dollars. Let's see. Oh, upcoming events. This Friday the I guess the state refugee resettlement committee committee or organization is having a celebration of and kind of an open house as destination BTV and the and gene suggested this really it's open to the public. They do sell tickets and they're going to send me the link. So, I will send that out. He said it's a really wonderful kind of dance and music and cultural event to both kind of recognize the diversity of the refugees who have resettled in Vermont and celebrate that.  And someone some of you may want to go at the airport. It's at the airport in that upper mason. What date? Sad. This Saturday. Oh, Friday. Excuse me this Friday. Well, I think there's tickets and I will send you that link. He didn't mention a time today. Five. It could be the other meetings are five. I know. Okay. So for the sort of continuation of the master plan work on March 26, which is next Wednesday at five p.m. The regional advisory committee will receive an update. So that would be important for both the members and the public to attend. And then in the same day, it's both the technical advisory committee and the regional advisory committees are meeting. And then on the 27th, which is next Thursday at five p.m. There's a public meeting. And at that meeting, they'll have tables set up with the different topics and sort of focus of the I think there's eight consultants that are working on this regional plan. I mean, not regional plan, but the master plan. So the format is you can go to each of these tables. They'll have it's kind of the culmination of all the fact finding kind of a statement of where the airport is right now in all these different areas. And so you can go to the table. They'll have the consultants there. They'll have their survey information and the information that they've gathered. And they are looking for both questions and comments. There'll be comment cards that you can take home with you and send in later like I thought about what I read because you'll be able to take this the information home with you. And these are my questions. You'll be able to do it online. All of the tables will be the interaction will be videotaped.  So you can go if you can't go to those meetings and I'm going to be gone. So I will not be able to go but I can go and listen and look and see what they have determined. Is that the twenty seventh Wednesday or the twenty eight twenty six this Tuesday. Oh twenty twenty seven twenty. I think it's twenty six twenty seven. It's twenty six and twenty seven. I get the day's wrong. I'm sorry. And at five p.m. five p.m. again at the airport. And how are they going to get the word out. They're doing an ad in the other paper. They'll be on front porch forum. We can probably post it on our website. This announcement I guess an invitation to the public if you're interested in this. You know the master plan for the airport. See make an effort to go. And any way you can think of to get the word out would be. Really helpful. Validation. I don't know. Yes parking validation. Yes. So I think those are the highlights. I mean we talk about so much stuff but I think those are the. Really big things frontier it's going well to Denver the flights have been pretty well fully booked every time they've been flying so that's. That's good. And numbers in general are up revenues are up. So it's looking in that respect. Very good. Oh and then the line know there's one other announcement the final four f 16s will be departing on Saturday April 6th.  I don't know sort of cruising around on the ground. And then they all take off and do some loopy loops. Above the airport. And then that's the last we'll see them. They've been there about thirty four years. I don't have the time yet. So at one fifty eight in the afternoon. Is when the salute is. Okay. So that's my report from the. Oh and then I did want to mention the last meeting and it was after our last council meeting. They have submitted a proposal to the FAA to build the blast wall. And are hopeful that the funding will come through but it's not. An absolute yet. But it has been requested. And that won't compete with the school. No that's a different bucket of money. The sound wall. Yeah well the sound wall that's for the. Well don't they call the blast wall. Yeah sometimes. Yes. All of the fence in this on the north west west yeah. Of the parking. Of the parking garage. Where I'm sorry. Can you specify where it will be. One five and. The north end okay. That's where golf we just reconstructed that end okay.  Their blast will go into the wall. Rather than straight to the airport car queen. Okay. Closer to the runway that. That wall. Well it's at the end of the runway. Well no it'll be actually it'll be adjacent to the taxiway. Yeah yeah right okay and. Where the ramble car. Yeah very. And if you recall this is something that the. City council had asked for and. You know originally was really can't do that but with enough persistence. They included that in a. Request. But the F-35s won't be coming from that direction they'll be coming from the other side and turning to the left and then turning to the left so they. They will. Be a blast for on that side is it. I don't know. You know. Like they'll answer later commercial right now. Yeah. Well anybody who uses that to make all the benefit when they turn. Right. Okay moving on we have the consent agenda. I will move that we approve the consent agenda. Second. Just a question since some of the stormwater projects are in neighborhoods will neighbors be notified before digging begins. Okay. Tom does a good job of reaching out to the neighborhood. Okay. So we have a motion. One more question so what is the benefit to bring to starting a 401 a. As opposed just another choice. Yeah. And what is the benefit of four one a over the four would have a four four one seven or four four fifty seven B. Right is the. Plan that the city adopts to make contributions along with the employee. Right. The four one a is an additional plan that is purely for the employee. Also so the only their contributions and they can choose how much they want to put into each. Okay. Okay. So I have a motion and a second. You're ready for the vote. Okay all in favor of approval of the consent agenda with the numerous items identified. Well if I say aye aye. Okay. That's pass. Thank you. So now we've come. Hey right on time. You can't believe it. To item eight an update on the air National Guard environmental restoration program. We have Colonel David Smith the commander of the one fifty eight fighter wing Mr. Shannon Kelly who's the environmental manager. So would you thank you for coming. Is there anyone else in your team. Are you. Pardon me. Oh okay. And. Do we have anyone from the state. Do you. So you want to go next or do you want to be at the table at the same time. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt the flow. Please. Great. Well thank you. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to thank the council. For providing us this opportunity to update you on our environmental restoration program. At the Vermont Air National Guard. And specifically the one fifty eight fighter wing here in south Burlington. My name's I'm Colonel David Smith I'm the commander of the one fifty eight fighter wing. I've been a member of the Vermont Air National Guard for over thirty years now. Since growing up in the northeast kingdom and attending the university of Vermont. I would like to make a few introductions first. You already helped with that but I have with me Mr. Shannon Kelly. Shannon is our environmental manager at the fighter wing. I also have Lieutenant Chelsea Clark. Lieutenant Clark is our public affairs officer. And then also with us today I have Mr. Richard Spece. From the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and Mr. Spece is here. Basically we work really closely with the state of Vermont on our environmental programs and he's here today in case there's any questions that might be better suited for the state of Vermont but he's not presenting. For us. The Vermont Air Guard draws its strengths from the communities we live in. Since nineteen forty six our airmen have been deeply rooted in our local communities. And we've been a long standing neighbor here in south Burlington and a proud member of this community. Our environmental program at the base is one we take very seriously. And are fully committed to. I'm proud of this program and we continue to proactively address environmental issues. We've maintained an environmental restoration program on our installation for over thirty for over thirty years. Spending over thirty four million dollars in the effort. Underneath our environmental restoration program is an ongoing installation restoration program. This program is currently remediating contaminants at sites on our installation. These contaminants are primarily fuels and solvents from historical aviation practices over prior decades. The installation restoration program has been successful for mediating contaminants on the base. A recent topic of concern at the installation is per and poly fluoro alkali substances or PFAS. And you may know them more readily as PFOA and PFOS. PFOA and PFOS are components of a firefighting foam called a triple F or aqueous film forming foam. This product was used at the Vermont Air National Guard installation dating back to the nineteen seventies. It's no longer in use at the base. These specific contaminants have also been identified at other locations across the state of Vermont. PFOA and PFOS contamination was discovered at the installation in May of twenty sixteen. Since that time we've been working with federal and state agencies to investigate the extent of the contamination and take appropriate action. It's important to know that drinking water for the base and for the surrounding community is supplied by the Champlain Water District. The water intake from Lake Champlain is located a half a mile offshore and a depth of seventy five feet. And testing of finished water found no detection of PFAS. The Air Force goal is to protect human health and ensure mission activities do not impact installation and supporting communities access to safe drinking water. The Air National Guard is using a comprehensive approach to PFOA and PFOS to identify, respond and prevent. Following Air Force and state regulatory guidance to assess the potential for contamination of drinking water and respond appropriately. We work with state and federal agencies to identify the extent of contamination and then to remediate. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation is a close partner through this process. Cooperatively we will continue to work towards the goal of ensuring regulatory requirements are met or exceeded as part of our environmental processes. We have completed the initial site investigation for PFAS on the installation and we will commence an expanded site investigation later this spring. I will now turn the presentation over to Mr. Shannon Kelly, the environmental manager at the wing. As the lead on environmental programs at our installation, I've asked Mr. Kelly to share his knowledge and provide an update on the specifics of our environmental restoration program for you this evening. Mr. Kelly came to the unit nearly four years ago and has dedicated his effort to continuous improvement of the environmental programs at the Vermont Air National Guard. He has 22 years of natural resource management and environmental compliance experience. Prior to his employment with the Air National Guard in 2015, he retired from the Navy after 22 years of combined active and reserve service. He's been a great addition to our team. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Shannon Kelly, who will provide an update on really kind of where we've been through the program and where we're going. So thank you, Shannon. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Thanks to everyone here for allowing us a little bit of your time to discuss our environmental restoration program. Before we get into it, I'd like to echo Colonel Smith's thoughts and extend appreciation to Mr. Richard Speese with Vermont D.C. We work closely with him as Colonel Smith alluded to, and he's been invaluable to us as far as guidance. So thank you very much. So what I'm going to move into, we're going to talk about the agenda just for a moment. We're going to cover just a bit of the regulatory background. There's a bit of delay on this. We're going to talk about the regulatory background. We'll move into jet fuel and solvent remediation. We'll do a quick overview of our environmental restoration program sites via a map. We'll talk timeline in terms of A-Triple-F or aqueous film-forming foam usage, both with the Air Force and the installation, and we'll touch on PFAS, how we got here in terms of that particular, those particular chemicals. We'll go a little bit further into A-Triple-F, the firefighting foam background and V-Tang's response. We'll also touch on the former fire training area, where PFAS mitigation is going on currently. Then we'll move into a brief discussion of the initial site investigation, which Colonel Smith touched on and conclude with a discussion of the expanded site investigation. So first, just a little bit of a regulatory background. I think it's important to set the table to help everyone understand that we're governed by a regulatory framework, and that regulatory framework for environmental restoration programs falls under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act. That's basically the program at a federal level and at the state level that deals with restoration sites contaminated with hazardous substances and pollutants. So some of you may be familiar with the civilian equivalent restoration program called Superfund. In the Department of Defense, we refer to this as the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, or DIRP. The end state is the same. It's basically investigation, identification, investigation, and cleanup. So DIRP comprehensively addresses, we identify it, investigate it, we remediate it, if applicable, any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminated. As stated earlier, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation administers those regulatory requirements. Some of you may have heard in the news the EPA has no regulatory standard for PFAS, PFOA, and some of the other members of the family of PFAS. In the state of Vermont, we are regulated. We have regulatory standards, and so we have a goal, a cleanup goal, to target, essentially. Our base environmental restoration program is managed under what's known as a centralized contract. So for us, that happens through the Air National Guard Readiness Center, which is out of joint base Andrews, which some of you may or may not know. That's near Washington, DC. They handle the contract functions, and we liaison with them. And there's also a very close, cooperative relationship with Vermont DEC that goes hand in hand with that. So we'll talk about jet fuel and solvent remediation. So Colonel Smith touched on this past practices from previous decades that led to fuel and solvent contamination on the installation. As a regulatory climate evolved over time, more intensive cleanup efforts were put into place. Our current regulations, it's important to note, and our environmental stewardship practices currently do not permit discharge or release of hazardous waste, pollutants or contaminants. Our base restoration program began sometime in the early 1980s. For example, site one, which is our fire training area that we previously mentioned, discussion on that began as early as 1983. We'll view this on the map. We have a total of six sites on the installation. Site one and site 5A were recently approved for closure from Vermont DEC. Site three and site 5B are nearing completion of achievement of remediation goals and approval for closure. To date, since restoration began, we've expended approximately 34 million on site remediation. Just want to give you a brief overview. I think all are fairly knowledgeable about the installation, about the airport. So to the south, essentially, this is the private side. These are our taxiways, the apron hangers, an extension of another taxiway further to the south. You'll notice that there are yellow dots. We'll get into that in the next slide. Restoration program sites. The rest of this is essentially our base support function buildings. And then some of you may know this formerly as Poor Farm Road, now National Guard Avenue. And eventually, as most know, all our most know, this turns into River Cove Road. This to give you some perspective. So the yellow dots represent the general locations for our restoration sites. They don't, in any way, represent the current contamination, any contamination plumes or extent of contamination. These are just general locations. So we'll start with our fire training area, which is in this location adjacent to our solar field. Just north of there is Country Club Estates. Jet fuel and solvents historically were the contaminants that we've since remediated and has since been approved for closure. It's important to note that this is also an area which we'll cover a little bit more extensively later where PFAS was discovered. And that portion of the site will remain open in terms of remediation. Site four? Essentially. OK. So drilled holes in the ground and you just force the water back down. OK. But in a different site?  It's the same site. Same site. The same site, yes. But it's clean. It's clean. Is it drinkable? The requirement is to bring it down to below a regulatory standard to a drinking water standard, essentially. If Mr. Speese wants to expand on that at all, I think almost every sample we have has been non-detect, which is, you can never say there's none in there. We can only say it's lower than the detection limit. And the detection limit is about 10 times lower than the current drinking water standard for PFOA and PFOAS. Sorry about that confusion. No problem. No problem. No, I understand. No, no, there's a lot technically to these systems. How are we on time? We probably have another without questions. Well, we did have a public hearing scheduled for 7.30. But I think we'll continue with this because I think it's a pretty important issue. And so I don't know how much more time do you think you need? I can be done in about 10 minutes. We'd stop asking questions. It would probably be five minutes. No problem. No, it's an education. That's what we're here for. So 10 or 15 minutes? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So our initial, our first site investigation looked at these areas of concern. So it's important to note these are just locations that were important for us to take a look at. This doesn't define contamination. Just provides you with a general idea of where we had areas of concern. So for example, in the upper right or pardon me, upper left, your upper, our upper left area of concern five, there was an F-16 emergency response. If you look at that long strip where it says area of concern for AOC four, fire, fire equipment training area or testing area, yes, that long rectangle. That's where the discharge equipment was tested. And then the larger square AOC three is where our current fire department building is. And then the smaller, almost rectangle directly below that area of concern. I believe it's to, that's where the former fire department building was. And then of course, we discussed extensively fire training area one, which is the larger circle. But you don't use the new AFF? AFF? AFF? Not for testing. Yeah, only if we had an emergency, you know, a crash response. Didn't you treat that stuff as hazardous waste if you did so? We did, yes, sir. So our PFAS initial site investigation, essentially we had groundwater exceedance as observed. Surface water samples were above the regulatory limits for groundwater. Soil sample results were below the regulatory screening values for Vermont. So these results drove a need for the expanded site investigation, which we've referenced, and brings us to current, current day. So we anticipate our expanded site investigation. The difference, it's important for me to note what the difference between the two. In the initial site investigation, what we were looking at is trying to identify on-base contamination and extent. What the expanded site investigation will do will determine the potential and extent of PFAS migration from the base. So those are two key differences there. So we would be looking at things on and off base. So we'll expand our sampling not just on the base, we'll extend off the base. And that will once again be groundwater, surface water, and soil. And that's well-drilling? That's correct, yes, sir. And is that to determine liability, potential liability? That would be a potential factor. We want to get an idea of where this stuff might be going, essentially. So that would help you find a plume if there was one, right? That's correct, yes, sir. So finally, to basically summarize, the results of this expanded site investigation would inform what is known as a remedial investigation. We talked a little bit earlier about how we've remediated jet fuel, solvents. What we would look at is the feasibility of, OK, how do we remediate PFAS? We know that granular activated carbon works well. But when you have them in disparate locations, then we would move into steps to look at, OK, how do we remediate this effectively, just as we did with jet fuel and solvents? Is this jet fuel different than the commercial jet fuel? I mean, it's really similar. All right. Yeah, it's very. So if there were a bunch of spills in the commercial section, part of the airport, I mean, it's the same airport, but I mean, a commercial spill or whatever from their tanks that could, they could also add to this. Depends on where it would happen in terms of where, like if they were on the on the main taxi way and surface water flow were to flow to our side, for example, then potentially. Yes, ma'am. That begs the question, were there ever any underground tanks on the BIA side? I don't know if anybody Larry might be able to answer. My knowledge, we've had a lot about fuel tanks for vehicles. Currently, the tanks are at the heritage above ground. Scorched tanks were on jet fuel. I don't know the history, though, before that. We did an extensive cleanup of the rental agencies. Yeah, right. We've closed those sites out. That's good. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Can you identify yourself? Larry just very lacky, Burlington Airport. OK. Go ahead. No, no, no, no. I was just going to summarize. Yeah. Thanks. First, thanks everyone again for your time here. I know you need to move on to other agenda items. But thank you for letting us talk about our jet fuel, salt and mediation, and PFAS work that's going on right now in the installation. Thank you. Are there any other questions or any questions for Mr. Steece? I I did want to know if the river was going to be tested. I heard from Mr. Kelly that the Brooks were not impacted. Is that because there's been testing that has determined that or I don't know if he said that if he said that. Then I misunderstood. So do you have specific Brooks that you're referring to? Centennial. OK, so Centennial would be in the other part of the watershed. So over on the private air. Coddash then or? No, no, no. The flow direction is not in that particular path. So but we have we have ranges on the installation network sample. They're not they're not there on you can barely call them tributaries. They're basically ditch lines that become small unnamed tributaries that go to the new ski. So those were looked at during the initial site investigation and they will be looked at again during the expanded site investigation. And by looked at they'll be tested for the levels and the river too. If that's where the investigation leads. So that is you move away from the site to see where it leads to. OK. Tom, do you have a question? I just want to say thank you for all your really thorough effort while Larry's here and we have the AV set up. Could you show us where that wall you're talking about is going to be? Would that be possible real quick? Oh, we can't go backwards. It doesn't go reverse. That's right. Plains only fly forward. There's a little delay, Larry. It'll take me just a second to get back there. But I don't probably know. Right. This place. Here we go. You've got to keep going. Is that good enough, Larry? You want me to get it. Everybody knows we're moving taxiway golf closer to runway one five three three, correct? So the taxiway golf is here now. There'll be a holding bay right here about in the same location is actually golf used to be. The wall will be right here. How long will it be? Can you just show us? No. I guess about that much. About that, OK. Just like your hand was. And that's happy. That's like six inches. We have designed it. We're 90% as of today. We're putting in for a grant, May 1, to do it. Be perfectly honest. They've asked us to put it as an additive alternate in case there's not enough money. But if not, we'll go back again to continue to try to get the money. But it's in the project. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate you coming and filling in and answering some questions. Thank you. And Larry, thank you. That was helpful. I just wanted to, since the Belchers are here, I just wanted to say to you, Mr. Mr. Belcher, that we represent you. And so if you have something to say, please do not hesitate either tonight in front of everybody or personally through email or telephone. It was reading about your well that led me to ask for this hearing. Did you want to make a comment tonight or not? No? Another time? Sure. Let us know when you are interested. OK. Thank you very much. I just wanted you all to get copies. This is one of the things that picked up at the state house. It was the new bill that the Senate passed. It's in your packet in the room. I know. That's all right. But I promised for copies that were there. Right. OK. So moving on, I need a motion to commence a public hearing on amendments or repeal of city ordinances. Can we do this as one public hearing for all of them? Yeah. OK. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. So we are now commencing a public hearing. The first ordinance, I guess, will take up is the emergency management ordinance adopted in 1995. This ordinance has since been largely duplicated by state law and is warned for repeal. Do you have any comments you want to make, counselor? Yeah. Yes. Amanda? Councilor Lafferty? Unless the council has questions. I also have, if you wanted to see the copy of the. Do you want to see the ordinance or? They were the same as they were in our packets last time, right? Yes. Nothing has changed. OK. I don't need to see it again. All right. Do we have to read them out loud all the way through? No. OK. Do you want to? No. Please don't. I have to get up really early tomorrow morning. So for the people at home, we've already reviewed these and this is really for the public to be heard. So that's why what we're talking about here. So are there any comments from the public on the emergency management ordinance? Do we want to adopt each of them? You can. Separately? Or after the public. Oh, after the whole thing. OK, after. OK, so moving on to 9B, this is the motor vehicle and traffic ordinance adopted in 1958. This ordinance amended at least 18 times is warned to repeal and to adopt a new ordinance in form that provides the council flexibility to amend street sign locations, speed limits, et cetera. Didn't address. And part of the reason for the amendment is to kind of separate them into each into their own ordinance. So there's a parking ordinance and a motor vehicle and traffic ordinance. And each of them has different enforcement methods. And the city is also using this as an opportunity to inventory and update the information that is regulated in the ordinances, specifically the information in both that the council can designate or establish by an appropriate resolution. And so actually there is the minor change that doesn't is a process thing. The city, to the extent that the council chooses to adopt both of these ordinances, they would be, they would not be effective upon passage because the city is still out actually in the field confirming the field and where stop signs are, where traffic lights are, what the speed limits are. And so there's the language that they will be adopted if the council sees its way to that, that it will be adopted today effective upon adoption by the city council of all necessary resolutions on whatever that date is.  Oh, are there comments from the public? I have some. Bob Britt, 3 Adams Court. Do you want to come up to the table? You can sit next to him. I don't think he'll read your private paper. Let's see, I had sent a few in and I guess everybody saw them. I don't know if I need to repeat those comments or are they read into the record? If you would like to have their their public record now, but if you want them. Well, OK, so one that I haven't mentioned yet on the motor vehicle one, I didn't, I was reading it again and really hadn't thought about it. And I'll mention of any type of right turn conflict that we have in town where people are taking right turns, have to yield for pedestrians and bicyclists. And I didn't know if it belonged in that ordinance at all or not any mention. So I just personally, that's its question, should something like that be in the motor vehicle ordinance? It's this whole idea of that on Dorset Street, you're riding your bicycle on the rec path, but you've got driveways everywhere. Is it the obligation of motorists to maybe it's overridden by state law that that it's required that you yield to bicyclists, scooters and potential scooters and pedestrians. So just a question on that ordinance, then on the new parking ordinance in item 2B, where they mention on a sidewalk or so as to interfere with pedestrian, just wanted to add the word recreation path, so on site, so we don't have parking overnight on a recreation sidewalk. And there's two items there. I don't know if you've got these or not already. And then on item 2O, it talks about on any public highway there's a restriction of thanks for 72 consecutive hours in the same location. And I didn't know if that was too definitive, same location because if they move it 10 feet, is that same location or not? So suggested maybe saying or nearby location, but I don't know if that can be legally restricted. Also, I skipped over one that I hadn't mentioned before, part 2C. And it says that you can't park within 50 feet of a intersection. And that was 30 in the old ordinance. 50 sounds like a lot, but I don't know whether that's being driven by the need for fire trucks to turn or school buses to turn. I don't know what's driving that increase from 30 to 50. But on my little cul-de-sac, that's a lot of the cul-de-sac. So I'm just curious about that. So again, a question. And then in item 3, paragraph 3, what we call it, talks about unregistered motor vehicles. And it talks about you're not allowed to park motor vehicles, campers, whatever, that aren't registered. But it seems like there was something missing there. And that is boat trailers, too. Should be in that list to make it very clear that unregistered boat. But I also didn't understand why it was for just unregistered, because I wanted to cover registered boat trailers that are left over 72 hours in the street. Because in our neighborhood, we've had cigarette boats that take up almost half of the, well, at least half of the road. And they, school buses and everything have to go around them. So, and it becomes a one lane. And so in the old ordinance, I mean, the police always had them moved after requesting that they be moved. So you just want to make it clear that boat trailers should be included. But I also was concerned that this was about unregistered. What about registered boat trailers or other trailers on the road? Just didn't seem to be mute to that. Did you send us all these in an email? Yeah. Not all of them. I didn't, I didn't talk about the 50s, but for the right, for the right turn. I came from conflict. So it was Bob's email that I forwarded. So I tend to agree that having distinction between, you know, the city center more dense urban core versus the neighborhoods, the various neighborhoods that having some kind of district language, I don't know of city center district. I don't know if we have a term like district, but as opposed to, you know, the residential neighborhoods, I think that they're, it's, you can't fit each, each circumstance equally, right, with the same language. So I, I do see. So I was just curious about that. And there, those were comments on it. And I don't know what the process is. Does it come, do you? No, this is the process. You bring them forward. So it's a public hearing. You're the public, Bob. Okay. Republic. That's that. Unless anybody follow up question. Sure. These all seem very reasonable to me. I'm just looking at our lawyer, like, what are your thoughts on these proposed changes by Bob? And I have not some, the new ones, I would want to just double, check on some things, but they all sound reasonable. And it's certainly something that I can add or subtract as necessary from the proposed ordinance. Can you respond to the 30 feet versus the 50 feet from an intersection? There's no way to do that. I can, that's what I, one of the things I want to look at, I don't, this was kind of following up on a process that started, I believe it was 2016. And so I actually don't know the reason for that change. That was what Jim said. And there may be a valid one as far as fire trucks or buses or whatever, but 50 feet in a residential area is a long way from the intersection. I think that, I don't know. I mean, the new parking on the condos on Market Street, you know, they have some, they're closer than 50 feet, no, no, on Market Street. The, what? Yeah. On Himesburg Road. Yeah, on Himesburg Road. There's parking right in front of them and it's parked, isn't it? Right, and it's certainly closer than 50 feet to the, it seems to me, I believe. On the Long Street. If it's marked, it's marked, right? If it's a marked parking spot. Yes, it's a marked parking spot. Right. That's an issue. Yeah, yeah. I haven't, I mean, I'm just realizing here that this 72 hour consecutive parking period is interesting because like on Farrell Street, there are designated parking spots along the street. And they're very, some of them are very close to Grand Way where Eastwood Common One and or the Odell Apartments. And sometimes people choose to park there overnight and they might park there from over the weekend if they're sick on a Friday. I mean, it could be more than 72 hours easily, even in my own neighborhood, people park on the street. Right. Except from December 1st until. April 1st. 1st, it's four months times. 30 days times, 144 hours. So I don't understand the purpose of oh, is it to discourage people from parking more than three days? I think it's, I've got an answer. Well, and I'll just note that the opening paragraph in two provides that except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with law or the directions of a law enforcement officer or official traffic control device. So there's those except whens. But I think the purpose is so that someone does not simply park a car and never move it. It's right, and just leave it there if you've ever seen a movie better off. I was wondering if it was getting at the airport situation where instead of parking in the parking garage, people would park on one of the roads. And this is where the one size doesn't fit all, where I really, yeah, I see the need for districts. And the city is, the city does have authority to consider, to differentiate among areas within the city as needs may differ. I mean, if you're parking the vicinity of your residence and if it's not impeding traffic and it's possible to park there safely, I don't wanna impinge on somebody's right to park their car in front of their house on the street except between December 1st and April 1st. If parking is allowed on that street for more than 72 hours, right? So I guess it comes down then what Amanda's suggesting is that we would determine which street should not have on-street parking or for more than 72 hours, right? And then we would put signage. Correct. I mean, we have distinct parking regulations on Eastwood Terrace, right, that are distinctive from the rest of the city, right? You can't park on Eastwood Terrace during the daytime period, right? Yeah. East Terrace. East Terrace. East Terrace. Right, which is to discourage students from sneaking over there from UVM and parking their car and then walking back to classes. Right, so similarly the airport, the roads near the airport would want the same difference. And you probably can't park on a highway, so on Route 116, you can't park on that, right? That's correct. But I mean, a public road, does that include a street? Yeah, it does. Yes, it does. So I... Go ahead. Okay, I would... Sorry, go ahead, why don't you finish? I'm just thinking, and I would have to think about the best way to address the different issues, but I'm also thinking of neighbors where someone has just, even though they have a driveway, they've just parked their car in front of their house for, and just left it, and that can annoy neighbors. So I will have to, I can look at that. So the... I understand. One of the issue, the benefits of the 72 hours is down to number three, where it says unregistered right now, but I don't think we want both trailers and other trailers in the road for more than 72 hours, even if they're registered. An unattached trailer, doesn't that cover boat trailer? I think it does. I mean, personally... You just want to make it clear. Well, I mean, because, you know, there could be other instances of trailer, not just boats, right? I mean, it could have cars on it, right? Yeah, or scheme mobiles, sir. Like, what about the... Yeah, scheme mobiles, sir. Right, right, you could have a trailer that's one of the big enclosed ones that has, you know, skiddos inside. And then you may not want it there for more than 72 hours. Have this 72-hour rule now, or are we putting this in place with this ordinance? I believe it is currently in effect. I gotta make a call. Cars. That's an important point for me. If it's already in place... How far do you have to move it to make it a move? Yeah. That's what I... Yes, one spot, move it up to the next spot. If you have a lot of foot-frontage, you could get away with it. I'm talking about enforcing that more. So if it's already in place, we're just talking about updating our ordinances, and it's somewhat working now. And if we want to enforce it, we can. I will... No, I'm sorry, I don't have it with me, but I will double-check that and... That's a good point. But for talking about the ordinance now, so... We don't know. You're not certain if it's already in place. I'm not certain. I've been to neighborhoods where people park... They get their boat out of storage, or they get it out of the lake in the fall, and they park in front of their house, and then they take it away, right? Or they put it in their yard, or they put it in their garage, or whatever it is. But I also have been to neighborhoods where people park really big boats right on the street, and leave the trailer there. Call me long, and then use it on the way forward. Yeah, for a long period of time, and it squeezes the street quite a bit there, because sometimes they're fairly wide. I guess I'm of the similar mind to what Megan was saying, and I don't see there's one size fits all, and so I'm fine with just updating the format and standardizing it, so if it's already the rules, and I think we can move this forward, but I'd be hesitant to apply a new rule across the whole city when different neighborhoods have different character. So do we have any... I mean, I think it somewhat depends on the width of the street. I mean, there's lots of... She's like, Megan, you're on the street. You know, you're on the street. When people are parked on both sides, it's not really a two-way street anymore. It's called traffic calming. That's what my husband calls it, and he parks his car there specifically for that purpose. We don't have sidewalks.  Well, that's a new traffic calming technique that we could incorporate into the LDRs, right? That's on street parking. That's what floor-based coaches are supposed to do, right? It forces people to... It's designed to do narrow streets and... Nears and travel lanes, yeah. I was always told that if you, on a regular street, you could only park every other place. You can't have two cars right next to each other. You have to have one car, and then the other car has to be offset so that people can go around. Right, you have to keep the road clear. That was how I learned to drive with that, I believe. Well, people move here from out of state. Different driver-ed streets. It was a long time ago. So what do you wish to do about this? Wait, you know, obviously not agree to this till Amanda can come back with a little more information and certainly incorporate some of Bob's recommendations. Okay. Conduct and parks ordinance. And you have copies of that for us too, Amanda. I'm sorry, my box did not have this in it, so I'm going off of what was sent out to the media. I don't know why. I didn't have the March 7th or... From the prior meeting. Yeah, I didn't have one of them. I don't know, maybe. I can, I only have one copy because the change is... I've read it before. I just so I can follow along discussion. Why don't you tell us the change and maybe we can just move on. Okay, so it's in section 10 on page six of the current ordinance. And it currently, the second sentence provides, dogs must be under owner control by a leash no longer than six feet at all times when in Red Rocks Park, Dorset Park, or on recreational or bicycle paths. And so the update is to add JC Park after Red Rocks Park and to delete Dorset and add instead Veterans Memorial. Okay, any public comment on that? Okay. So those, so I guess I would entertain a motion to... Oh, we have to go out of public... A motion to end the public hearing. All in favor? Aye. So now we're in our deliberative time. It sounds like we agreed to A, repealing the emergency management ordinance. Yep. B, which is also repealing that. Did you see you needed B and C to be passed together? Yes. Oh, okay. So let's then let's approve A and B. Is that, is that something? Second. All right. Any further discussion? Okay, so we will approve A and D. All in favor? Aye. And we will come back and see some more language for the B and C. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot. Okay, 10 is an update on community center design and related issues. Alana? I don't know that we, did she want us to read it or just put it on agenda? I think it was. All right, I would read it, but I didn't cut that. Sorry. But I will, we can just, I can just and say, let's discuss it. Out of moving parts. Pardon? It's a forgiving system. Eventually get everything done. Yep, I'm just waiting until you're done. Just, sorry. What did I just sign? For A and D that we approved, right? Okay. This is one of the parts that we don't need to sit. This is like a piece of paper. This is for the parks ordinance change. I think it's good. That is good, but I didn't get, I didn't get one of them. Did you just sign two of them, Tom? I'll just sign one. Okay, I'll just sign one, okay. You ready? Whenever you're ready. Okay. I can't see my screen, so hopefully this won't work. For the record, Alana Blanchard, Project Director, and I'm happy to be here tonight to give you an update on the status of the design for 180 Market Street, the new Library, City Hall, and Senior Center that will be located on Market Street next to Allard Square and just south of the Central School. So just to let you know where we are currently, we are in the thick of the draft of 100% construction documents. So that's going through layers and layers of all parts of the site and the building. So electrical, lighting, wall assemblies, so all types of different sheets, there's about 180 different sheets in the plan set, or 130. I sometimes mix up which plan set I'm looking at, but this is the, it's quite complex. So we've also hired a building envelope commissioning firm, and what they'll do is they'll look at the overall air tightness of the building, they'll work with the architects and the contractor, both in the design documents and during construction with the mock-ups to make sure that the building performs at a very high level and that will help the whole building both to achieve a very high level of energy efficiency and also to ensure that the air that's coming in is the right air for the building. The construction management firm Engelberg Construction is, ECI is beginning to coordinate with the budding projects and properties. We started with Market Street, we're working on setting up a meeting with the school district, and then we'll be following up with Allard Square. So they'll be discussing phasing and what the operations of each of these properties is and how to work with that, those needs. And then we're also prepping permitting documents. There's a slew of permits that are needed for the project and they'll all need the signatures of the respective owners so we're working through that. So I wanted to start with an overview of the exterior and then give you an update on the interior with some highlights on some areas that have a lot more definition now than they used to. And then I'll give you a sort of what's next, next steps. So this is the site plan. I say we, the architecture team and landscaping team developed a series of designs that were presented to the school district and the school district selected this one as working best with their operations. It has a drive, a new drive around the exterior of their first parking lot for school bus pick up and drop off so it fits more buses than their current situation. It also adds all of the spaces that were removed at the south end of the parking lot. Does that work? I'd love to. Thank you. Usually I can, I can't see my screen, red line, okay. So this, the parking spaces that are added in this area replace the spaces that were down at the southern end of this parking lot. This also has a new stormwater pond currently. The stormwater is treated underneath this row of parking for the school, this school parking lot. This pond that's here addresses the water on this lot, this lot as well as the south side of the building. The roof area and courtyard. And the lever too. And it also addresses this water for here and this water here. We're looking at shifting the water from this area over and for the roadway to a new pond that will be built behind the pier one on Snyder Braverman as a Snyder Braverman or South Burlington city center LLC project. That is the plan. So Tim's question, does the pond take our stormwater in? Currently it does. Yes. But the plan once the building's built is to take it over to another stormwater pond. So it's this section of the project is currently permitted to go to that future pond behind the pier one. Which is not built. Which is not yet built. Yes. Parents have raised concerns about safety issues with the stormwater pond. Could you speak to how deep it's gonna be and if there will be fencing? And I misspoke because it's actually a gravel wetland. So this gravel wetland should only hold water in rain conditions. So conditions that would normally cause flooding. And it will also be fenced. And we'll have some plant material within it. So, but and then the side slopes are also at a one to four normal ponds or one to three. This is not a pond, it's a gravel wetland, but it's one to four because that's an easier slope to walk out of than if you think of, if you go many developments that are built today have very steep slopes on Market Street and also on Ivy Street, we've put a one to four slope because that's the type of slope that you can walk out of. But it's not a pond. Most of the time it will be just rocks with no water. It'll actually be soil with plants growing on it. So it really won't be a pond. I mean, unless there's heavy rain, like things puddle when we have a big storm. And it's approximately, I wanna say it's five feet deep. Meaning that from the surface, it's a 12, it's an eight to 12, so it's four to five. I'm not sure where the outlet is because I know the outlet is below the limb. So there's, and that's why it's fenced. So do you know what the engineering is for that pond? They're gonna have to excavate down X number of feet and then put layer of this and layer of that, a layer of this. Yes. Yes, that's correct. Is that clay there or sand? Sand. Sand. It's sand. And so that's one of the reasons that it's fairly wide is because you can't have it be deep because of the groundwater. So the groundwater is fairly high. It's in the sand, allows water to come through pretty quickly. So there's a separation that's required to meet stormwater regulations. So the gravel wetland needs to be up a certain height. So it will have natural growth in it? Yes, it will be grown. It will have more, most likely a wetland mix that gets mowed once a year. Expect it. Go ahead. So I just have had parents ask me specifically about this and as a Rick Markott was then central school alumni, I remember fondly growing up in the 80s, having a big ice rink in the back of there. Is there any chance that if this were to collect rainwater, would this possibly be an ice skating pond too or is that off the, it's just not gonna work that way? It's unlikely that there would be water there for that length of time. The rocks would be wicked on your blades. That's what I'm asking. Just wondering if it's dual purpose here. There might be some conditions where it ices over and then holds water, but I don't think it's something that could be planned on. And so one last thing I wanted to point out on these are the three entrances and that's also where the snowmelt will be located. So, and this is the main front entrance. This is the entrance closest to the auditorium and this is the entrance closest to the senior center and also flanked on two sides by the two reserved handicap parking spaces. So as the school administration and all the people who are interested in busing and stuff, have they signed off on this design? They have not requested, yes. I mean, I don't know if it's in their authority to sign off on it, but they've approved it. They've said this looks good. I'd like this at the staff level. This meets their needs and we're on to just discussing where our trees, making sure that the curbs are right for fire lanes and snow plowing and things like that. So this is, we've been in the same layout for the parking and the sidewalks for quite some time. And there's questions about cost. So they approved the layout, but are they? We're paying for the cost. We're paying for it. We in the TIF district. Well, all of the school board needs to sign off on this. The school board needs to what? Sign off on this. I'm saying, I'm not pretty. I don't know if that level of oversight will be required by the school board. I don't know. I think the question is, would the school board need to approve these plans? Yes, I believe they would. Oh, okay. And that has not happened yet. Not yet. So I wanted to do just a bit of a close up to let you know what the landscaping would be. In particular, the front of the building. This is the main entrance again. So these are sort of angular projections. Projections echo the building. The building is essentially two forms. So one and then two that are crossed on each other. So the landscaping echoes those angles. And in front of them is a quality paving stone. So an actual stone, not a concrete pavers that extend the sidewalk on both sides of the entrance. And then there's clustered more towards the entrance and towards the corner. There's additional seating. And you can see the seating here and here. This is a rendering from the model. So the model, you only get the choices that you get in the model. So the landscaping is not gonna be that bushy. It's planned more in the modern grasses, variety of grasses. And there may be a flowering plant when they are beyond the grasses. And then in the rear. So this is like the sunny, more dry side of the building. The rear has very columnar trees along the back. And you'll see why when you see the rear of the building. And then I believe it's swamp azalea in the back. So sort of more of a scented flower type arrangement. And then there are also smaller benches beside the two rear entrances. More for pickups or if someone's waiting for a ride or something. What's the gray spot up on the left? The gray, it looks like it's a building. That's a face without a nose. Sorry, there we go. Oh, and I went too fast. Okay, sorry. Well, never mind. No, we'll get there. There we go. Okay, so this up here. Oh, right here. Yeah, so that's a trash enclosure. Okay, thank you. The what enclosure? Trash enclosure. So it'll have trash and composting, assuming that we will move towards composting and recycling. So this is the front of the building. It's fairly similar. This is the entrance. We anticipate that the name of the building will be located right here. We don't have a name yet for the building. So, you know, what we would like to see up there. So that's something to think about going forward. This is a very, this feature of the building is related to the main stair that goes all the way up to city hall. So it's a fire stair, but it's also the stairs that the public will use. And at night, this will be partially lighted most of the night. So the corner of the building will have a column of light on it. Just basic light. I, I, yes. I'll leave the lighting to the shaper and sheeper. We have three days. So kind of mood lighting? Yes, you can change it according to what you want. I will, I will mention that. Seasonal or mood lighting? Green for St. Patty's Day. Red, white, blue. Yeah, yeah. Whatever. Take a look at the Lutheral Credit Union down in the shower room. I will. Their logo is inside the building, right? So it doesn't really need the requirement, but you know, but they change the colors all the time. Could be nice and red at night or? I'm fully supportive of that, I'd be awesome. I will bring that up, Sam. So the exterior is generally zinc, a zinc cladding. This is Trespa, which has a, has a wood pattern on it, but it's essentially a UV protected, very durable plastic. And then the ground level is granite. So it's split face granite here, and then this is a smooth granite around the entrance. And then again, granite columns, and then this is a different color zinc. So this is more of a very dark, dark greenish grayish, and this is a much lighter, more bluish gray. Zinc. Which is. Plastics to look like wood. Yes, so, and what these materials were chosen because they're integral meaning so that their color comes from the material itself. So it's not like a painted cladding, and it will last for a very long time. And then the side of the library portion is brick. So both this side and the other side is brick, and I'll show you. So this is another view, a bird's eye view. The side is brick, and this is going to be either polished concrete masonry or brick, we're still getting pricing on it. These are granite. In order to conform my zoning, we had to change our materials every 60 feet. These were added after a lot of study trying to figure out what would make, because it is one building and we wanted to read as, like this is the library, something that would still carry that forward. Did you go back to the last? Yes. It's not too far-fetched, and maybe this is already the plans, but digital signage is getting increasingly cheap or renewable, I think of what's up here in front of the high school, but is this possibly gonna be electric or geared for possible electrical outlets exterior so that we can do things easily with that brick wall? Yeah, so currently there are outlets on this wall because this section here, this is the terrace. It's the public terrace for the library. And there are also wallpacks on the side. So there are already some penetrations in the wall. So you could advertise different things? Voting, don't forget to register. I don't know if we want that. I'm just saying it's nice to have options. Speaking of notices and so forth, we will probably still have the notices right in the front window of the vestibule, similar to how we have them right now. And then from this view, the clerk drop box will be right here and then the library drop box will be right here. This is the back of the building. This is the front of the building. Or the front, sorry. Yeah, so this is Market Street. Yeah, sorry, yeah. And this is the new street that will go to the central school. And so this is the front, the library front, and then the clerk's office is over here, city halls up on the third floor, and the library is the whole second floor. And where the road butts in, in front of the library, across from the big front and along the street to the school, that's parking. This is our parking. And this is an older version. So this will be parking too. And they'll be parking on both sides of the road. And this is the senior center right here. So this is a view of the rear. So this is again, the street that goes to the school. This is the trash enclosure. And then this is the entrance by the auditorium and the entrance by the senior center. And these are all windows related to the senior center. And so the solar panels are the ones that butt out as well as on top of the roof, or is the top of the roof a green roof? So this, so... Those are solar panels, all of them. This is all solar panels. And as we were going through the project, there were certain things that were identified as fairly expensive, where the architects and the construction manager worked together to reduce costs. So one of them was originally, all the solar panels were up on essentially risers and on a steel structure. So what they did in order to reduce the costs, but keep the design, was to give the front part of the building a slanted roof. And then the back part of the building is where all of the HVAC equipment is. And the inverters for the solar panels, everything will be tucked back in this area and then be screened. And so the only, so we still are putting in structure for the solar panel along the front, solar panels along the front and along the edges by the eaves. Not on the roof. And then this roof right here is a slanted roof. And so the panels will be able to lay directly onto the standing seam. So the back is painted metal. So it's a less durable, but it's also on the north side. So it's less, it's not in the sunlight. It's never, it's almost never, the sun shouldn't hit it most of the time, so it should last much longer. And on the senior salary level? On the senior salary level, we currently have polished concrete masonry units along the whole back. We're not, we're still exploring whether or not there's much of a price difference to move to a brick. So we're, we're sort of, we're waiting to see how the pricing comes in on that. Yes. Is that the center of the brick? I like the brick. Can't it be on the front of the building? Is that a done deal or is it still like you're waiting to see what the costs are gonna be? So this, this portion of the project, we're holding out and we would fold the cost for the supports into the cost of the solar array. So the solar array would have to carry those costs as part of that. That's a pretty substantial structural entity to support those hanging out over the edge of the building. Right. But they, so they, it does, it does, it does function also as a sunscreen. So there are some efficiency gains by having the solar screen or the overhang over the front of the building. But from a funding perspective, we're looking at those costs as being all part of the solar array. So this is the rear, just from the, from the Northwest perspective. And this is, this is the meeting room upstairs that will function similarly to the Champlain room. And then this is a small patio that's right off that room so that if you're having a public event, you can open it up to the outside. Because while Rick Markot is all red brick, is there aesthetic value to matching the Rick Markot facade because they're gonna be facing each other? There should be enough landscaping between the two that they shouldn't be that, I think we'll be much closer to the Allard Square building. Overall. I believe this is blue. Dark blue. Yeah. And I- You mean like concrete blocks, like those big long ones? No. They're, it's more, they're more brick shaped and they're dark gray. So closer to black, but not like more like a slight color. That makes sense. I hope the brick works out. Yeah, well, and I, you know, I think we're looking at that too. And it's not- The back of the building, remember. It has more, it's like more of a polish. It doesn't look just like concrete. It's a cut. It's just that it doesn't last as long. It should be very durable, but, but we are also pricing brick, so. And then just to the west of the building is a structure that covers the bike racks. So moving to the interior. This is the nicest picture I have of the interior. So I apologize. The other ones are not as lovely. This is an earlier view. So, so this is the ground floor and not much has changed, but I am gonna break out and show you slides of the lobby interior, the lobby entry area and the auditorium and the library living room monumental stair area.  This is the door next to the auditorium and the vestibule next to the senior center. So the main entrance coming into the lobby. There's been some, a lot of work done on the information desk to make sure that it faces the right way and that the public will be able to find it and know that's where they're supposed to go. And also within the clerk's office, they're not really an office. They do a lot of production in there and they also have a lot of documentation that they're keeping track of. So we wanted to make sure that that space really met their needs and enable them to work in a very efficient and effective way. So, so they now have their own counter area and then the public area is here and they can all sit and anybody can see from their desk if someone needs assistance. So that was very important to them. The auditorium and I'm gonna show you more of a closeup but it has now has fixed seating and then it has a slight depression in the floor so that by the time you're at the stage, the edge of the stage, it's a foot below the stage height and then there's a ramp on the side. There is an AV closet and I'm gonna tell you more about that in a moment. And then another big addition was a gender neutral bathroom which will also be the family restroom. So that's in between a woman's and a men's bathroom. And how many seats? So there's three in each? No, no, no. I didn't mean... Oh, well, thank you. No, no, no. No, no. It's actually very important. We're good. You were only two. We're good. No, I'm just the seats in the auditorium. Approximately a hundred. And I made a hundred. A hundred. Okay. And which means that there's probably going to be about 96 and then some seats will be open for folks in wheelchairs. What sort of capacity in this room? I think it's like 60. And I would just like to point out that there are some chairs back there. So hopefully the gentlemen have been sitting in them for a while. Are they comfortable? You like them guys? Yeah.  Not yet. So one, I did ask for, and one of them has more cushion than the others. So let me know what you think. Still talking about the auditorium. Yes. So another change is that the tweens area is now open. So it had a door previously and it's currently no longer, is now more easily overseable from the general floor area. So the entry area, this is a kind of zoomed in. Maybe I'm not sure if it's easy to see or not. This is the vestibule and then the clerk's desk, the info counter. And so there's a raised ceiling for the front windows and then the ceiling drops down a little bit so you can see. So the raised area has more of the highlight. And then there's wood all around the front of the clerk's office and the welcome center. And then it, we got the pushback from the construction manager but kept the mountains at the main desk so that that's the first thing you see when you come into the building. Will it be a discern it will know which mountain range? Is it going to be the green mountains? I believe this is the green mountains from Wheeler and from Wheeler. So here's the auditorium. And so I have, this is a section down the center. And then this is the view on each, each of the two walls. So the north wall and the south wall. So this is from the electrical set and this shows all of the underground conduit. So it will run all of the wires, all the wiring for the mics for data and for lighting. So these are two are for lighting through conduit through the floor back to the AV closet. And then there's a big gap in here. So there is some space for wheelchairs to sit on either side at the top. But there's also a new booth that will, so you, you'll either have plug and play where you press the button in the AV closet for a council meeting and you can turn on the lights that you need to. But if you're a small production and you like someone from the high school, the kids from the high school who do, who put on small productions and they've been, I know I've seen it, they've had them over at spotlight who are working with lighting and working with sound and know how to run a booth. They can set up here and run the equipment from the back of the room, which is where folks who listen to sound like to sit. Like they do with the flim. Right. Conduits on the floor or the ceiling? In the floor. So this will enable you to have the DRB, including staff on the stage, the small stage. And then have two tables of different parties, minute taker. And then also a podium if you want the public to come up and speak separately. So it gives you a lot of flexibility for how you set up both the stage and the floor in front of the stage. And there's also a storage area off to the side so that you can move all of the tables and so forth into the storage area. That's mainly it. I didn't clip out the electrical plan, but there are also bars so that people coming in can plug in lighting on the side. And there will be fixed cameras. I don't believe this one shows it either, but there would be fixed cameras so that Charlie or someone else could just plug in and pull the feeds from the camera and pick which views they want to use or zoom in and operate the cameras. And they can also do that from the back of the room. And there will be a box so that multiple medias can plug in to the box. I can whip through it. So this is the monumental stair. It changed slightly. It's more angular. It used to be circular, but it's in the same location. And the second floor is relatively the same. These are some of the finishes for the library area. This is the third floor, also pretty much the same. So the next steps are to complete the stormwater design. That may entail an update to the school district MOU. So we'll still be meeting with them next week to discuss. Receive the permits. The construction manager will need to bid out the project. And then we will work with them to develop the guaranteed maximum price, which is their ceiling of costs. And that will then be brought to you to review and approve. And then we will also need a contract for a clerk of the work. So someone to keep an eye on everything. The architects will be keeping an eye on everything as well, staff, but we want someone there to sort of measure everything and just make sure it's all going smoothly. And then we can break ground. So that's it. Boom. Thank you very much. That was a good update. Thanks a lot. See where this was. Yeah. That was great. Okay. Item 11 is council discussion and possible guidance to staff related to the court's decision in environmental court matter, Snyder group, Inc. PUD final flat. So if you recall, we did have an update on this in an executive session. And as I recall, there were a couple options for us to discuss and determine about the related to the TDRs. So what is your, what is your thinking? I mean, I think we were told that there were two or three, two out of the five issues for clarity, I guess, around a TDR were either unclear or missing in the language that the city adopted. Unconstitutionally ambiguous. Yeah. So one option is for us to fix that, have legal counsel look at the language and fix it. Another option, I guess, was to do nothing. What else was there? Were those the two options? Or appeal. So let's take it in reverse order. Are we interested, do you need to share any more information? No. Are we interested in appealing the decision as a city? This is brought to us with any advice from council on which of these three options to pursue? Was that shared in the executive session? I missed that day. Oh, it was shared in the executive session. But our conversation or discussion needs to be public. All right, the decision was reviewed in the executive session, but the discussion about whether the city council would like to consider, well, what the options are, especially with regard to possible amendment to the land development regulations to respond to the shortcomings alleged in the court's decision, whether that was something that the council wants to consider. Well, I am of the mind that we're reviewing TDRs currently, and it's because there is discontent in our population with regard to how they're being applied. I think that from my perspective, appealing on a document that I think most people are hoping we're going to change is a use of dollars for something that's going to change. And so I would rather focus on changing and improving and making it constitutionally sound our current program, TDR program. So that's where I would like us to focus our effort. I mean, ideally, I'd love to appeal because I think the regulations are sufficient, but obviously Judge Durkin, did not agree. And found for the appellate, but I don't have any legal training, and that could be a long costly fight to try and prove that, probably. I mean, there's some money involved in that, and it might actually have been bounced back to us and then put the onus back on us to go fix what he thought was broken in the first place. But one of the things you have to understand with the TDRs is that there are some strange bedfellows here, right? Because you have the Montland Trust, which owns quite a number of TDRs, and so they would not want to see them stranded by a regulation change that would effectively nullify them, which is what we talked about at the last TDR committee meeting, which was about a possible just nullification of the whole TDR program, which we discounted and we decided not to go down that road. So I mean, the probably best choice is to figure out a way to fix them, as Megan said, that still seeks to follow the objective of what the original 2006 zoning change was, right, which was to give incentive to those southern, southeast quadrant owners to conserve their property because it's more wild and more natural and doesn't have the city services like the northern southeast quadrant, which is sewer and water, right, and to keep them as open as possible. And you know a number of TDRs have already been purchased and used in other developments already, some for very small numbers of units and some for quite a few. So the question is, do we have a proposal from P&Z and Council about how we might adjust it? Because those ambiguities, as we start to screw down on those ambiguities, that might then change the value of some TDRs, right? I mean I don't know, no one's here from P&Z, but what I recall is the judge's judgment was that we did not set parameters around how much density should go where, and I think that is something. Or the DRB's ability to define a real number that they could decide on, it says they can approve up to the maximum allowed, doesn't say they have to or that they don't have to. So that's, I think that is, am I correct in saying that's part of the ambiguity? So the court, there were two kind of main parts to the court's decision. There was the determination that the city, the TDR regulations in the land development regulations did not accomplish two of the requirements in the state's grant of authority in 24VSA 4423, and those centered around the definition of development right. What is a development right? Then the next part was the court held that, yes, that there was not a sufficient delegation to the development review board of basically how do they determine the number of development rights are appropriate to be transferred in connection with any project. Unfortunately, the court didn't address the city made arguments in connection with that particular claim, and the court didn't say, well, those don't work. The court just said that focusing on the section 9.13. So there, but in order to be, yes, the safest, it would be helpful to include something in any proposal. And by, I'm not talking about the long term TDR plans, the idea is whether the council wants to undertake an amendment that would almost kind of maintain the status quo until the TDR committee and the planning commission and the other, and the open space committee, every, all the city council created committees under the interim bylaws can accomplish their work. Do you foresee a means to fix the current TDR to comply with what the judge is asking for? Yes, there is the, without regard to any interim bylaw related issues, yes, there, it is possible to amend the land of own regulations to respond to the perceived invalidities and constitutional issues. Do you know if the Snyder group is going to appeal? Have you heard anything? I have not. They have how many more days to determine that? They have until April 1st. Oh, then. Yes, very soon. I talked to Chris the other day and they had not made a decision yet as to what they want to do. Would your advice to us depend on whether or not Snyder appeals? No, the city has its own concerns, right? And so if there is another appeal, the city, an appeal by another party either by the appellants who actually, you know, there may be issues that they still disagree with or the applicants will have to come back to the city council to determine whether this council wants to participate in someone else's appeal. But the city's determination about filing an appeal is its own without regard. So what is your council in terms of, I mean, it seems clear we need to probably make some changes to comply, but in terms of a logical sequence to that, does it make more sense to agree that we need to do that, but making sure, but waiting until the interim zoning committee comes back with their recommendations so that you can kind of amend them once and incorporate the two items the judge identified as needing clarity, as well as whatever you recommend and we agree makes sense in the larger sense of or is making this clip or maybe clarifying it would be, you need to clarify that regardless of what other changes are made. I don't know. So I'm asking you, is there any logic to doing it step by step or really waiting and doing it comprehensive? This is what the TDR program is going to look like and we're going to clarify those two areas and add whatever else we want to add. So I mean, just from a, there's a couple of things to take into account, I mean, just from a timing perspective, the council adopted the interim bylaws on November 13th of last year for a period of nine months. If the city council were to give staff direction that yes, we'd like you to proceed with some, with getting together some amendments just to respond to the court's decision. The process is approximately three months from when you actually get the language together that you want to then proceed with and the, it's my understanding staff hasn't started down that road because they wanted to get some direction from council because the interim bylaws are in effect. So those time periods might, I don't think it would take very long to get draft language together to that responds to the court's decision. So let's, you know, assume that takes two to four weeks, then we're talking approximately four months from now. Because of the public hearings in the process. That's right. The planning commission would have to hold at least one hearing and then pass it to the council, which then also has to hold at least one public hearing. And there's the, you know, becoming familiar with the language and how it works. To follow up and then just let me ask you a question in terms of your, your work on the interim zoning committee, from your knowledge base, do you think clarifying those two pieces would be counterproductive to the work that you're doing about discussing the TDRs? So we spent a lot of time arguing about what our charge is, right? And we've told you that before. I have heard that. Yes. So the charge says an analysis of TDRs. All right. That's part of it, right? And what's come out of that committee so far is we could repeal the whole thing or we could turn TDRs into something else. And council has told us that in the, in the latter, that really doesn't work as it doesn't fit the statute. Okay. So now if you just take an analysis of TDRs, it's like, what's the current state? What's the history? How did we get where we are? Where have they been purchased and applied? Right. What's pending and hasn't been built yet, right? So that everybody understands exactly where the TDRs came from, where they're going, and how they're going to flow, right? And the next thing is we could change the charge to that committee and say, wow, we already have a TDR subcommittee. Why don't you come up with a proposal for changing them?  And if we worked with, you know, council on that, that council, then, you know, we could bring that proposal. We could bring that proposal back to city council and then move forward. That's a proposal that I'm willing to make. But I don't, I can't speak for the whole committee, but that seems like a logical thing for us to do. That's to me. Right? But I'm sure that they'll disagree with me at this point. All right. Tom, do you want to? So I'm ready to support that notion, but what I would love to hear is our lawyer tell us, you understand the parties involved, the procedures, staff time, availability. So I'm, I love in the past when Andrew Buldak gives us those memos about his recommendation. We can still do whatever the heck we want, but I would love to see what you would recommend we do. And if it's what Tim just outlined, then I'm fully ready to support that. But I'd hate to be charging forward against advice of council. I think that we didn't do that because there, well, it was a question of basically what does the council want to do? And we didn't want to go too far down any particular road. If we wanted to appeal, we wouldn't change them. I mean, I will say the, this decision has thrown a lot of things into confusion. They're, I mean, right now there actually aren't all that many applications in the pipeline that are affected. It's just that there's, you know, the one that was the subject of the decision. And then there is one currently before the development review board. There's also one currently before the council that will eventually go to the development review board. So there are also, you know, without regard to particular projects, there are property rights at issue for some people. I think some people probably haven't even thought about the fact that they have the possibility of selling, of severing development rights from their property and selling them to somebody to be used on another piece of property. But there are people who have, you know, development rights that they have that aren't, they don't consider them tied to land right now. So, you know, that's the question is, is there, would it be a good idea to provide some certainty in the meantime? While the council and the planning commission are proceeding with any proposed amendments, and which I think are, that work is perhaps broader than, I mean, TDRs are certainly a main topic, but they are not the only topic. It's, I think it's a broader number of issues, excuse me. So I will answer your question. Is there interest in having a more narrow review separate from the IZ discussion? You mean from the, from? For all of the interested parties. Oh, there is. The developers, the TDR owners. I think there is some interest, yes. I think narrow, fast solution that you would undergo outside of the interim's own process. Well, fast with the three months for all the hearings. I think we have an obligation to do this. Yeah. There are ordinances, the judges found them to be unacceptable, unconstitutional in the words. I think we have an obligation to try to fix them. In Amanda's timeline, if we get started on this, and it really is a four month period, at any time in that we can say, let's stop that process because the committee has come up with something that is, is going to materially affect that. But I think it's important to start now and try to correct this flaw in our ordinance and let the committee do its work, independent of just this fix. Because this is fundamentally an issue for warriors to figure out how to address the courts. I'm, I'm, I'm there with us, you know, paying attention along the way, getting updates. Because of course that would come before us for, for some kind of amendment. Eventually it'll come to you. Right. So, but in, in fixing the regulation, I have a feeling that the language is going to have to pin down some constants, some concrete values with the DRB, right? And so that means we're going to have to make a value judgment. The question is, who do you want to have making that value judgment? The, the, the TDR subcommittee or, you know, the council or this council or. Well, I think it would be just another team working on it. And it doesn't mean that it is contained because we would be able to jump in at any time, like Kevin is suggesting and saying, hold on, our subcommittee is working on something that has, you know, a real value to, to these changes that are being discussed at the staff level. Right. So. I'll say what, why don't we change our agenda for Wednesday night this week for our committee and talk about this exact issue and see what the consensus is. Is that acceptable? And then. You mean what the TDR? Yeah, the TDR subcommittee, if they are willing to undertake as their new initial charge, right, to, to look at working with, with PNZ and, and council to figure out how to fix, to come up with, you know, language proposal to fix the, to fix the TDR program. Kevin, to be there or, I don't know if you're free or not, but to lay that out, what you were just describing so that they can understand how, how different pathways forward could work. You can. I think if, if a man that can get started, the best way to, to move this into committee is to have a draft, a concept. Yeah, I think so. To present. Yeah. This is what we think would meet the standard. Here's where we need input on. Right. On different things. Right. And then the committee can weigh in on those things. Right. But I, I wouldn't, I mean, we could start looking at that, but I wouldn't take any serious action until the one month, the 30 days has passed, right? Because we really don't know what Mr. Snyder is going to do. But we can still do some stuff, but. We're going to have to change. We still have a flaw in our order. We do. We do. But I mean, it, if it went to the Supreme Court, there's the possibility that they might disagree with Judge Erkin, right? In which case that we don't have a problem. So we launch that could take another year. I don't, I don't know how long those. Well, but you know, even if they, if the Supreme Court said your, your ordinance is fine. If there, if there really is ambiguity among people, I mean, you read. And I think that's. So I don't think it is. It must be really useful. I agree. And I think that the city has a responsibility to the public and to the developers, right? And to the landowners to fix the problem. Right. So I, I. So I think it sounds like we're asking you, I don't know. We want to take a vote or tell me if this sounds amenable, that we would direct the city councils to work on new language to correct the ambiguities or uncertainties. And that the committee for TDRs will have the opportunity to look at that draft language and it can inform what recommendations you might make further amendments or you may have a difference of opinion and you want some, to add some additional clarity. Does that sound like that would get us moving in the right direction? Yes. Whatever she, whatever you bring to us, I'd want to hear what the TDR committee has to say about it if they endorse it or not. So. Okay. Was that clear enough? Good. It was done with its work in a couple months and. Right. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. You could, you could make a comment. Sure. Dave Crawford speaking is a private citizen. Dave Crawford speaking is a private citizen. How much of it appears to be a lot of chaos of understanding unknowns. Is it appropriate for the city to live with this in the interest of appropriate protection of our open space and protection of quality development on either side. I'm just wondering, you seem to be headed in a direction to move positively, but it seems like there's some correction that's needed. Like Kevin was saying, it's a problem. It's got to be fixed. How long can we live with that problem as a city? And is it appropriate? I think the consensus you just said is addressing it. I think our consensus is to address that problem to reduce the chaos, but at the same time, make sure that the IZ committee looking at TDRs is understands maybe or is amenable to the public. Is amenable to those changes and then can use that in whatever framework or way that they may need to to help them set forth a slightly different TDR program, possibly, or that it's perfect the way it is. And we've now made it more clear. So I think that's our, our hope. One final question for the public in my recollection. Are we the only city in the state using TDRs? How many are there? Not very many, I believe. Well, I know for sure of one more, but I think there are actually more than that. So it's definitely a handful. And more municipalities have allow planned unit developments, which kind of they involve an aspect of transferring development rights. It's just all the properties actually involved in the application, which is different than a transfer of development rates. Most communities aren't concerned about how much development's going on. I'm just making the case that reverse, they would like some. Just making the case that we're stumbling through something that could benefit other communities as Vermont continues to grow. Okay. It's quarter after nine. Can we take like a five minute break so we can stretch and then we'll continue with item 12. Okay. I would like to call back into session the South Burlington City Council meeting of Monday, March 18, 2019. And we will continue with item 12, which is a council discussion and possible guidance to staff related to the outcome of ballot items placed before the voters on March 5th. This, if I may, was put on the agenda my request so the council would have a chance to kind of debrief after the votes on specifically on local option tax, but on other things too. And if you wish, give council guidance as it relates to any of the projects or moving forward or whatever you would like to do. So it's just kind of an open question to this council. Okay. Well, personally, I would like the staff and other council to work hard with the legislature to get them to embrace the half a percent on the rental cars. I think that amount of money will be really important to helping to maintain or repair our roads for next year and going forward. I wish we could go up to like one percent or two percent on it, but we put half a percent there. So, you know, I think we should make a concerted effort. The legislature's open to not just a half a percent. I'd love to keep doors open. Well, we'll be able to vote again. I think so. Yeah. The council or the legislature could change it to whatever number they want, but I think that they would be very much inclined not to do that because the voters have taken a position here. They almost always almost, of course, it happened before with the South Berlin Charter Amendment a few years ago, take a different position than the voters do. But on this, I think that they would listen to the voters. That's my thought on that issue. I guess on the other issue that was defeated, I mean, I personally believe that it was defeated in part because it wasn't connected concretely enough to a specific project. And that I wouldn't necessarily discount that as a possible future funding source for a project that through lots of communication and input from the public have they have defined as something that they're strongly in support of. I mean, you could do it incrementally, right? I'm sorry, did you? Yeah, go ahead. So if the half percent car tax, rental car tax passed, you know, it's possible that the 1% just rooms and meals by itself may have passed if it was separated from the 1% sales tax. I think the 1% sales tax is what kind of was the tipping point. Some people that passed me going into the polls expressed their disgust with a rise in sales tax specifically. But a lot of people also asked and said, what is article three? I mean, it goes on and on and on. And I'm like, you know, and here's the funny thing is that as I said, like on the web page was that it orchard 109 people bypassed all four, at least 100 people bypassed all four races and didn't fill in any bubbles. And went straight, I'm sure, to article three and went no. And then handed the ballot back and said, I'm done. So the focus was for that margin of voters was like, I don't care about the contest and whether Barrett's running against Davis, you know, or these other uncassessed races, I'm going to go straight to article three and just say no. So there was some of that sentiment. Sure, I think there always is that, you know, the sort of, I don't want taxes. And the margin wasn't that bad considering. Considering, yeah. So the question is, I mean, if we get a second, if we wanted to take another whack at that particular tax, you know, maybe just rooms and meals. It might be more palatable if there were a project, you know, and we did have, you know, one really good project and two sort of dreamish ones, right? Well, I think that depends on people's perspectives, too. But I think the recreation center plan, while it may have been really good in our minds, it really wasn't discussed by the public to the extent that it needs to be. And I think the reason I wouldn't shut the door on a local options tax is that I think once we have that engagement with the public and a design and a price tag, then we would know what kind of mix of taxes and revenue you would need to, you know, build plan A or plan B or plan C. And I think that's the kind of granularity or tangibility that the public needs. I think it just was too ephemeral. No one really knew what project we were talking about and sort of what the cost. And, you know, are we just going to raise this to raise this? I think that's possible. I did sense, and it's something that I was my initial and immediate reaction to was the rejection of the sales tax and the rooms and meals tax as well. But I hear you when you say you think that the sales tax is what received more opposition. And I would like for us, you know, not to dismiss that but to look at other options. And I think that we have some retired debt. We have some impact fees that we could look at. I also wonder when we hear from, and I'm trying to remember his name. It's not coming to me. The man who was here who does the adult sports leagues. And, you know, looking to actual leagues and see if there would be, you know, some kind of, if there truly is a need that these populations, you know, see as a need that they might be willing to pay an extra donation when they sign up for, you know, hockey or whatever they're going to be doing.  So let's build a new arena. Let's build a new first for soccer, for pickleball or for basketball.  Court. A new court. So it's, I think that's another option for us to think about. You know, I was, I was really struck by the level of disagreement over what should be in that recreation center when we were, when we all just eavesdrop on the SBVT watch page. There's a lot of disagreement. And so I think that needs to really involve a more public process, too, in order to get people behind it. What I recall, too, and really hang on to is that the, I don't know if it was the general manager from the windjammer who was present to two employees of the windjammer were here. What's the owner? The owner. And the second person, I don't know. The marketing staff. The marketing staff. All right. Was we can go along with the performing arts center because that is a revenue builder for us. And I don't see that for the recreation center. Right. So for the rooms and meals tax to be used for recreation center, I think you're going to get some real pushback from the, you know, hospitality industry. That could be. So really think about that. So if you take your kids to any soccer tournament in New York state, there are, you know, they have 15 fields and, you know, a couple thousand kids with their parents who it's a two day affair and you rent a room somewhere. And you spend the night and you buy meals and it is a revenue. So that's what we, I overheard on the SBVT wash page was if you're going to have a track, make it so that we can have meats here indoor meats, you know, for the high school level. Right. And that might attract people into the hospitality, but the current design does not allow for those indoor meats. Right. So there has to be some. Basketball tournament or something. I don't know. But it has to be really, really carefully put together. Business plan as they say. Exactly. Tom. I was focusing on a project fleshing it out, having the council say, yeah, we should bring this to the voters having us endorse it from our perspective representing our constituents and then asking him to bond for it. And I would just strongly recommend that we separate and detach the conversation about how we pay for police fire our roads and our recreation centers. Through different types of taxes as a separate conversation. Do we need a rec center? Let's put it forward, let's flush it out. Let's see what the cost would be. And do we also think it's fair to ask our hotels, our restaurants, which generate more traffic, which use more of our police services? You can remember the standoff at the Sheridan just very recently that those people aren't paying property taxes, paying for these very expensive roads and very highly qualified and exceptionally professional fire and first responders. So I support the rooms and meals tax because I think it's fair because it's comparable to what Burlington is charging. It would put us in parity there in order to reduce our overall tax burden. I also support a rec center because I need it. All right. But I just don't think we have to tie these two things together. So I'm not opposed to keeping the door open on rooms and meals taxes. I just don't think we need to tie them to these projects. I think we just need to look at fair ways to pay for the services we as a city need to provide. Okay, well, that's another... Because I mean, we've had the city center reserve fund for quite a while, right? And like it's going to be pegged at 460 a year for the... 870. 870. We're paying into a 680. 860. But for something out of it's going to be going to the library for a long time. No, 740. 740. Isn't it 740? 740 or 670, I can't remember. Oh, maybe it's 670. I can't remember off the top of my head. I thought it was 740. Maybe it is 740. But don't forget. I mean, there are a lot of planned and or approved or soon to be approved, one way or the other projects, right, that are going to add to Grand List, right? And over the next 10 years, you're going to see a lot of housing and commercial stuff come online. The question is, you know, can we somehow pro-rate the tax revenue from that and say, I think we can keep x% of it, right? Four, and then start thinking about that project that we want to do. Oh, like have a different reserve fund, not... Well, it's, you know, I mean like, so we had 1.5% growth in the Grand List last year. I think that was pretty good. I mean, it's hard to replicate that every year, but there's a lot of stuff on the books right now. You've got 100 plus units at Cider Mill 2, right? You have spear meadows, which will probably get built someday. I don't know what density. Dorset meadows will probably be built someday at some density. Hillside Farm is still in phase one there and before the DRB with phase two, right? So there's a lot of stuff and there's also redevelopment along the traffic quarters too. So I'm just saying is that, you know, and I'm an expert in this, but I'm supposing that with new building coming online, we're gonna have new tax revenues. The question is, some portion of this gotta be paid for the infrastructure that built it in the first place and supports it, right? But some of that also can be returned to another objective. So I just... Yeah, no, I think we have a lot of work. So I, you know, it was a referendum and we didn't make it real clear in some ways in which I think there was a NPR comment today talking about referendums and they were interviewing someone and they were saying it's the problem with referendums is that you ask a very complex question and you want a yes or a no. And it's really hard to get a yes or a no on something that is really complex. So that's why I've always thought we have to be very careful about referendums. And I don't think we were as careful with this question as it was too hard. There were too many steps along the way for someone to say yes or no really easily. It was more like I don't know. So I guess I'll vote no. Could the ballot have been written, that article had been written in it? I mean, you have to have the language of the charter change. Does that by statute have to be printed on the ballot? I think it does. There's other arguments that we could criticize how it came about and the length of time and how much vetting there was and how much buying we got. But I don't think that's productive to look backwards. I'd rather look forwards, which is what you started and I fully support fleshing out a rec center seeing what that cost is gonna be and bringing that forward to voters. Is that where everybody is? Is that kind of the direction you wanna give staff to continue the design process at least on that project and the creative arts center is still out there but it wasn't as far along in the design and conceptually. But we can continue to work with the committee on that too, if that's what you wish. And this bike path, I mean that has to be shared that cannot be a self, I've said that from the very beginning. It cannot be just a self. That's a Burlington contribution too. Yeah, but people come from Williston and they bike all the way to UVM. So this is a regional asset. It is. That should be regionally funded. Through your question on the Performing Arts Center is there a committee that we appointed people to? You didn't really appoint, two years ago you asked a group to gather to put together the concept. When we met over at Spotlight. Spotlight. So if we wanna, I would want a committee of appointed South Burlington representatives that understand all the trade-offs and competing interests of our tax dollars if we're gonna move that forward at all. So what has happened wouldn't, I wouldn't wanna get behind what a group of individuals that have something directly at stake are recommending to us. That's just me. I would like to see the Rack and Parks Committee or the Design Art Committee to start weighing in because those are individuals, South Burlington residents. I agree. Okay, I think we definitely should focus on that and see if that is what the public is interested in. But we also have to wait for the mass division and planning hearings that the school is running here because they have a Performing Arts facility and those plans. That's great, that's a great idea. Sorry, I mean that you're breaking. So we have to see how that works out. Oh, absolutely. Because that's gonna involve some bonding too. Yes, it will. But also it's a dual, it's an overlap. So we have to, and I think that the community should have that discussion. Is that in the school, right? Kind of umbrella or is that in the city? The civic umbrella, right? It could be a partnership. So if the city contributed money, if it was on the high school campus, I love that idea of a Performing Arts Center attached to the high school. The only thing that the city contributes to money. It's just, it's my taxes, right? Is that what you're gonna contribute? So in the, we have to be careful too. We have to be careful too. One percent is gonna go over to the school. The schools have a level of security requirements and they've just in the past year and a half put in so many new, you know, guards and doorways that are, you know, heavily monitored and we, I don't see that as a public facility to be quite honest. Unless it's after school. Essex has a black box theater. It worked for many years. They pulled back after it got older. But I'm just saying it's a model worth exploring because there's dual purpose utility. Schools aren't used all year round. I have to say that the further we've come away from our decision to move the library to a public area and the schools have really upped their security, it would have not been a public library even close to being a community library. I mean, they have now a guard at a window and you have to go through two sets of doors to get into the high school. How could they have had that public library there during this time? We use our schools for a lot of public events. We have plays there already. But not during the school day. I just wanna serve the needs of the school and the community and the city. And I think we're doing that with the spaces that we have and it's a proven model elsewhere. So we let people into our schools all the time for different functions. But then. Well, I think that's a conversation and some collaboration will be needed about how we define that space and support it. That's good guidance. Is that enough guidance? Okay, let's move on to 13. This is to authorize the city manager to execute interlocal agreement with the Champlain Water District related to projects in Red Rocks Park. Second. Is there any discussion? We have a motion to approve and a second. This is the tree removal project? Okay, so there's been a lot of discussion on the SBVT Community Watch page about what's the best way to get rid of the wood? How much carbon will be released in, right? So, but the plan is to chip everything and move it off site, right? That means the logs, the branches. And to then replant with natural. If we're able to. If we're able to. But CWD needs to have access to the long term. So I think it's sort of a no-brainer. Well, the reason to remove the logs is because there's no place really easily to put them, right? To drag them off in the forest, I suppose you cut them up small enough, but then you're dragging them through the forest. Then you're causing damage that way. So the plan is to, we would give them permission to do this, right? And then the logs will be chipped and taken off site on that road, through that road. So they don't make a new road or. To be used for other South Burlington public projects. Good. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. All our items could be that quick. Item 14, council review and possible approval of a letter to the members of Vermont legislature related to hate speech in Vermont. And Megan, we asked two weeks ago, or a little less than two weeks ago, I think, to develop a letter which she did. Tim had some concerns which he then edited, I guess, Megan's letter. I heard back also, I sent it also as a courtesy to Monica Ospi since she asked us to do this. And she also came back with the edit. Have you all seen Tim's edits? Okay, Monica's, and I wish I'm connected but I can't draw up her email. But she wanted us to really remove any discussion of past council chair and really get to the pall that it puts on our process. So really to, you know, turn to the second paragraph on, I guess. I can respond to both with regard to Tim's. I don't see this letter as a means to give anybody a podium from which to speak other than our legislators to issue this bill and turn it into law. And so I thought we are not in a position to direct them because of the intricacies of this kind of legislation. But what we can do is condemn. Condemn acts that we find unacceptable. And I don't know, we can certainly remove the name of a perpetrator, although I do not see this as anything that's glorifying him. I wish to dispute that notion, but I also think you have to speak clearly. And euphemisms I've always found to be very difficult when you're trying to be clear. With regard to Monica's suggestion, what I responded to her is, we can make any and all of these changes. This isn't my document. This is now for everybody to make changes to. And I struggled putting it together, but what I was trying to do in that first paragraph, because we had talked about expressing our sympathy and solidarity. And so I wanted to give some background as to why we are responding as a legislative body to what occurred in another municipality. But also to get at what I read in the press, and I don't know enough of the facts in order to say it clearly enough, but there was some question as to whether the, our attorney general could have intervened in Bennington and really take an issue with the manner in which the police responded to vandalism that Ms. Morris and her family experienced. I don't know enough to state that clearly. So I tried to kind of finesse that and state that we hope that, or we believe that she should have received similar protection as our council chair received. That was my way to kind of make some kind of acknowledgement that there has been some disappointment in the manner in which that was handled without coming down clearly on that. So those are my responses. That was my thinking behind it. Well, did you like Tim's? You know, I mean, I sort of agree with him. I'd just soon not talk about Max Mish, okay? Make my little statement here. And I just really appreciate what you just said. Council Member, it's really important to speak clearly. So on this topic, I like to organize my thoughts and I just want to state this for the people at home. From the articles I've read on hate speech that have been targeted at Kia Morris, I support the spirit and intent of this letter because in a free society, the best answer to hate speech is better speech. A specific individual mentioned in this letter stepped into the public domain when he made these public statements about a public servant. So I am ready to publicly condemn these actions for the reasons Councilor Emery articulated. If a vote on this letter is made tonight, I will proudly support it to make clear that intolerance and racism are not acceptable tools to sway the public debate, especially in a citizen legislature. My only hesitation to endorsing this letter as currently written as a council is that it may introduce a legal liability to the municipal entity that I sit here to steward. When I take actions in this seat, I do not do so in my interest, but in the interest of the city. And if a formal action by this governing body of the city, specifically accusing by name an individual of improper action offers that person legal recourse to sewer municipal entity, then I would ask that this language be first reviewed by our legal council before we as a governing body take action. More specifically, I'm concerned with some specific references and you guys were just circling that. And I think Tim's revised version might directly address those concerns. So I would gladly and proudly make these statements as an individual at whoring and condemning these actions as an elected representative and as an individual, but I'm cautious to formally make them on behalf of the c