So this just points out that the first... My opinion is that we need to get our arms around all the rentals because in my mind, ethically, morally, if you accept money from people to live in your unit, right, wherever it is your personal unit or it's another unit that you own, you owe it to yourself and the purchasers of that agreement to provide them with up-to-date code for fire and electrical safety and lead abatement, right? Let's not forget that all homes built prior to 1978 used lead paint, right? So, and I know that there's a lot of people in the Old North Inn in Burlington who have had to go through the whole, you know, abatement process on lead. And I'm sure that there are homes in South Burlington as well, especially if they're going to be rented to people with kids, right? So that's another dimension that I don't think you mentioned that in your... Okay, go ahead. Yes, please. That's a great segue. So I just wanted to add that the project team that Steve led for us sort of took a two-part discussion. One was what are the core issues that the Council is looking to address in the short term, and that we identified as being the rental registry in the short term? And then we also sort of did a bubble diagram, essentially, of what are the orbital issues that relate to this? So that could be building codes for single-family homes that are ownership. It could be energy codes. It could be certificates of compliance and certificates of occupancy from the zoning side. There's a whole number of related subjects that a structure that if the Council decides to move forward here can be added to in a thoughtful way over time if you choose to also move in that direction. So we have been putting thought to that, but the team wanted to focus on the core issues in the shorter term to make sure that we don't sort of have it sink under the weight of its own thinking. So that's where we're at. Thank you. I just want to be sure that all Councillors... Okay, Andrew? So the short-term rental piece of this I fully support. In terms of the long-term, I don't know what the state is working on. And unlike S-100, there may well be a kind of scale or efficiencies to have a statewide, long-term rental registry, statewide inspection mechanism. I would want to understand that a little bit. Did it fail last year? Did it fail the year before? I believe it passed last year in the Governor vetoed it. It doesn't have legs and... No. Well, it has interest. Yeah. I mean, I guess I would just personally like to understand what that looks like a little bit before we... Well, and I would just say that because we have an agreement with the state to do our inspections of all of our public buildings, there would be an expectation from the state that we would handle our own rental registry in the inspection and those occupancies. So that office is going to have to ramp up to do that work if it does pass through. Similar to the same way we would have to ramp up, but I think they would... They'd rely on us and... I think they would concede that it is, given the number of units we have, very similar to all the large communities, it's much better to be handled locally. So then the second point is, I know, Jesse, you pointed this out in your memo. I'd like to understand a little bit about... And I know you said we need this information. The fees that we could expect to receive and would that kind of fund the costs that we'd expect to have to administer this because otherwise the rest of the taxpayers are kind of paying for this system that's really only benefiting the landlords. So I would just kind of want to understand that a little bit. And I think that's what we're looking for your guidance and the next step is to do some cost projections. I mean, back in the napkin math says it's going to pay for itself, but I don't have those numbers. I mean, we know we have about 3,000 units, Paul. Almost four. Yeah, and so in knowing, we're going to need two to three inspectors, some administrative support, you know, if you... So, but again, our ask is if we're heading the right direction, then we'll go back and do some financial projections. We'll see you balance out. It's probably going to pay for itself, but you should see that up. We want to spend some time on that. Okay. Andrew, I would just correct one of your statements and you said this would largely just benefit the owners, the renters, not the renters, but the rental owners. And I see this as benefiting our residents to make the rental properties in South Burlington safer. Right. So I don't see it as a benefit necessarily to the owner of the rental building. One last, one last. I just can't emphasize this enough. I'm really interested in the short-term rental issue, but I'm more interested in getting a handle on every single rental and whether or not the buildings meet code today. Because I have seen a unit in South Burlington, somebody in my family rented one who was going to UVM a few years ago and I referenced it in my other paper article, right? And it had at least three or four violations. If there were an inspection, that property owner who was taking in $4,000 a month would have to rectify them in a certain amount of time. And I think that's why, you know, we brought you in order to say includes both of those. We could have just focused on the short-term and, you know, for certainly for myself and those in the fire department who see these every day, if we're going to do this, we would prefer, much prefer you bite off the whole apple and take on all rental housing. Good. I think we're in agreement. All right. We do have one person online. I saw one person here in the audience. Are there other people who'd like to make a comment? Okay. If you'd like to come up to the podium and I'm sure that you'll have to probably push the button to make sure it's a bright green light to speak and then just identify yourself. Oh, there it goes. My name's Nora Sonicle. I've met you all before. So I have a couple of perspectives on the short-term rental housing and some concerns about the long-term housing. I know when I saw that we were going to be looking into this as a city, you know, I did the math and just to say out loud is that these Airbnbs, they really only comprise 1% of our housing stock. So just to have a proportion of a problem, you know, when you do the math, these Airbnbs sprinkled around the city, they only comprise 1% of the housing stock. So I don't think we're going to gain a lot by shutting down maybe somebody who has a house and then owns the house next door and shutting down that person's next door house that maybe they generate income off of. But they could, I think, convert to long-term rental. So I'm just sort of noting that, that's all. But the question, so I have a number of questions. I guess one of the concerns I have, so just full disclosure, I own a house. Actually, when I first moved to Vermont, we bought my husband at the time and I bought a house in Shelburne with an apartment under half of it and we rented it out and then we sold that house. And then back in 2009, I started renting a room in my own house and I paid taxes on it. It's nice. It's good with the insurance company. You know, for the most part, it's good. And it's not a short-term rental. People stay with me for a year or six months. But that's the only way I've been able to afford that home as a single parent. And I guess I want to offer another perspective that if we come at this problem with a very, I don't want to use the word punitive, but a very regulatory approach or maybe over-regulatory, are we going to squeeze out people who don't have the time to figure this out?  You know, I was willing to make things as legal, obviously, as possible. And because I have a license, a professional license, I'm not going to screw things up. So, but I'm just wondering if there are other people like me who are trying to hang onto a property by renting some part out for whatever reason or, you know, a lot of the people I would have, and to just also emphasize, there's a need for short-term housing. I'm not talking about the 30-day housing. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people who are going to be here for six months, three months. There is a great need for short-term housing in this community. I'm approached by various forms of healthcare professionals. Hey, are you renting a room still? Do you have space? I'm approached by students. I'm approached by other professionals who are maybe here for half a year, for whatever reason. I'm approached by lots of people. Do you have space? What's your situation? Couples, lots of people are dogs. So there's just a lot, a lot of need. So what my concern is, if we become over-regulatory, we're going to squeeze out the people who are trying to hang onto their homes, and then we're going to deplete inadvertently some housing. Now, I don't want people living in unsafe housing. I know what that looks like, and I think that's wrong. But I think we have to strike a tone that wants to conserve what's out there and obviously get rid of what's dangerous, for sure. But I just, I'm not, I just really want to offer another perspective. I can think of some Airbnb hosts who maybe have lost their job. That's why they're renting out their home or their artists. It's not people trying to get one over on the community. They're contributing to the community. So I just want to offer a different perspective on that. Thank you, Nora. Thank you. Nora, can I ask you a follow-up? So are you concerned about the provision which requires it to be the primary home of the prospective landlord or the $100 fee? Or the inspections, which part is concerning you? I would say probably, you know, I've read it a number of times. I don't think the primary owner is a hard one. I'm not as concerned about that because if you're the primary owner that sort of puts into some of the scenarios I'm aware of, I would say it's definitely going to be a big push to get everything what you've named to code for some people. I think that's going to be really difficult if you even just hiring some basics in your home, you're going to be coughing up, you know, 1,500, 2,000, maybe more, even more so. So maybe that might not be very available to kind of throw at their property. So I'm not saying that we shouldn't have that as an aspiration. I just think that you're going to, people are going to go underground, you know what I mean? Like you could have the, you know, I think there's already a little underground, but if you want to invite people out of the shadows and make their housing legit and safe, there's got to be some carrot approach to it, right? But someone has to pay for that inspection order. And somebody has to pay for that. Wait, no, I mean, it's true. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay for it, but I'm just saying that my concern is people losing housing and concerned of just, I just want to offer a different perspective that it's not all these bad land over. And I also want to make, ask you to make the regulations more clear, like does this include people with roommates? Does it include, you know, are you going to have the long-term housing regulations mirror exactly the short-term ones? Because again, I think some clarity needs to happen around that. That would be a request. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. So we have Chris Trombly online. Hi, thank you. Nora actually overlapped a little bit, but I was hoping just for some clarification of their, the 30-day cutoff, a lot of longer-term rentals have moved away from annual contracts in the now month-to-month. Would I understand the interpretations that it is a month-to-month contract that we would still classify that as long-term? I think that's a great question that we haven't really thought through yet, but it sounds like if it's over a 30-day lease, then yes, it would be considered long-term. It's these month-to-month that they're kind of the short-term rentals that Nora is touching on a little bit. We're like, I'm not really going to be here for a while. It's going to be, I'm here for some workforce issues or I need some temporary place to be because I was displaced or whenever there's this kind of a more of a niche group that I just, I wouldn't want to see any harm to that group, especially since it helps subsidize folks who kind of rely on an income to cover the bills. But if it is a long-term, if it's month-to-month, if it's long-term, that's not so, it's positive. Thank you. And Sandy, Julie. First, I wanted to thank the staff team that worked on this. It's been a, on a work plan of the affordable housing committee in particular about preserving wanting to reserve long-term housing opportunities, whether it results in more opportunities for home ownership or long-term rentals. I do, I wanted to say that I would respectfully disagree with the point that we shouldn't think about regulating short-term rentals because they're not a large percentage of our housing stock because it's, in my view, it's better to, if we think that the growth in this phenomenon is not in the best interest of the city, then it's better to start regulating it when it's small rather than when it's really gotten to be a bigger phenomenon or practice than it is now. I also, I think people seem to be agreement that you shouldn't make an exception for a lakefront cottage. I don't think there are any lakefront homes that aren't year-round. I am aware of a lakefront home that is used for short-term rentals and it's not owner-occupied and I do think, I don't see any reason for there being an exception to that. But mostly I want to applaud you because I think from the conversations, the health and safety issue of making, doing our best to make sure that when people rent, they have a habitable place to live as well as trying to promote the long-term housing stock that we have, preserve it. There are many different positive outcomes, I think, of this regulation. So I would encourage you to move forward on it and thank you for the time you're giving to it tonight. I want to echo that. I want to thank you for bringing it forward. It's actually earlier than I had thought when we were kind of prioritizing things. So you put on your superhero cape and you came through. I would really like to know the timeline for when you'll come back to us. Do you need some direction from us before you go and work? I know you were talking about also a hire and needed hire. I think we can come back to you probably in 30 to 45 days with cost projections and what that's going to look like. And then that would lead to your next steps on public hearing and it's all deferred to Jesse on when she thinks that would be on the schedule. But we should be back to you. No, Colin has vacation. I knew that there was something I was told that was going to lay this out. That's right. We lose Colin for a little while on vacation. And on a trial for it. So Colin will be on a trial for a week and then on vacation for the last weeks in April. I think we can move in parallel with the staff planning the finances of it. And Colin will pick back up fine tuning the ordinance in May and then come back to either second meeting in May or early June. All right. Yeah, I knew it. We're always open to guidance whether we're on the right track. What we essentially tried to do was incorporate in ordinance what you had suggested us to do. And so if we're on the wrong track or you think we can hit on some things that we've missed or do it better, please, like we're all open to try to address what you want us to do. Did you get a sense of the direction here that we're providing? Well, I'll just say, I think the one thing, do you as a council want us to put noise or really the prohibition of gatherings? Yeah. I heard that loud and clear from the vice chair. I just was, is that the consensus? Because I think that that's where we're headed with language that would prohibit that. So I think that's the other everything else we can, everything else I think was very clear. You wanted us to go in and the prohibition on gatherings. We take it. I think I guess that's the one thing I'm not sure where we have consensus on. Well, I would support that. Yeah, that's fine. We have guidance. I'm happy with this progress because this is the, we're making headway. Yes. Right. Like, we're going to go there. We've been talking about this for years. Right. We have. Warned the public meeting. We listen sometimes to. No, no, no. I'm just saying, I'm really impressed that you've generated this much information and, you know, a path for projects. So thank you. Yep. Yep. Thank you very much. See you on Friday, Colin. It's not vacation time yet. I'm afraid. All right. We're going to move on to number 12, receive and accept amendments to the land development regulations. Number LDR dash 22 dash 0909 and possibly set a public hearing for May 1st at 730. And we're going to hear from Paul Conner again, our director of planning and zoning. Hey, folks, Paul Conner, Jessica Luisos chair of the planning commission is also online. So thank you, Jessica for participating. So this is the follow up to your last meeting. So it's your last meeting held a public hearing on a series of amendments minor and. Well, not entirely minor, but updates to the environmental protection standards. At that meeting, you received some feedback and from the public and you asked us to work on a some additional language. So that language is presented to you tonight as a modification. If you choose to pick up that modification, then you would warn an additional hearing based on that language. If you choose not to advance that, then you have the opportunity. If you want to take action, well, I don't think it was worn for action tonight. Was it for adoption? Okay. So you could provide us with the guidance that you don't want to include that. Thank you. All right. I'll just get started since I'm probably going to be the fly in the ointment. I don't know if there'll be other flies with me or we'll actually be the ointment. I don't know, but the modification that you brought forward and the discussion we had at our March 20th meeting really opened my eyes to the risks of reverting to a 50 foot buffer for homes that were built prior to what was it, November 1st, 2020 something. And I am very concerned that we are opening up situations where there will need to either be repairs because they're building on land that shouldn't be built. And I'm also concerned that there are no limitations on what could be within that, you know, outside of that 50 foot buffer. So they, except for the percentage of impervious surface on the parcel. And I think, you know, when we think about existing properties, when we introduce a new ordinance or a new building code, it's primarily for aesthetics. It's primarily for character. In this case, we're talking about nature, who are talking about the immovable force. It's not simply, you know, a matter of taste. And we had reasons, which I thought were pretty structurally sound reasons for changing that 50 foot buffer to 100 foot buffer. I mean, I'm hesitant even to say that, you know, the people on the lakefront property that probably would not be allowed under our current regulations can replace, you know, a sinking deck or patio because of the land shifting underneath.  But I certainly don't want to create new situations in that situation where, you know, we see not only damage that could be done to that infrastructure of the house, but also damage that could be done to an ecosystem. And, you know, it was raised to me that, you know, it might not be fair to these homeowners who bought their homes believing that they could add a deck, they could add a sunroom, they could add whatever they wish to add. I'm not so concerned about a small shed, but regarding, you know, an impervious patio or sunroom, I am concerned. And it is, to my mind, kind of part of buying property. You know, I have no assurance that the property behind my house will not change and none whatsoever. So the benefits of not having, you know, perhaps an apartment building behind me, you know, I can't count on that. And that's just part of being a property owner. And when situations change, you can stay and adapt or you can sell and move on. And I really feel that this is not a negotiable item. I mean, I think about all of the houses that are now, you know, on stilts on the Atlantic Ocean in South Carolina, and now they're having to move these homes back. And should we say simply because they bought their home there that they should be allowed to, you know, develop this ocean from property? No, we know that this is not tenable. And I believe that with the rainstorms and increased flooding that we are expecting here in Vermont, that is our Atlantic Ocean, you know, situation. And so I'm willing to accept the modification, but the modification is causing strong reservations on my part with regard to the amendment, which is let me get there. I have no trouble with the retaining wall or the steep slope. And let me just find it. Yeah, so it's November 10th, 2021. So it is page 142 in our packets. It's article 12, 12.06, Wetland Protection Standards, number two, class two wetlands and related buffers. C, for last lesson half an acre existing as of November 10th, 2021, approved for or containing a single family or two family dwelling. The class two wetlands buffer is measured 50 feet in horizontal distance from the boundary of the class two wetland as opposed to 100 feet, which are the new regulations. So I, there we are. So I just thought the fly should come out in the open. And there I am. So I'm not positive what you're saying. You're, you're, you would approve the variance or whatever we call it for the couple to fix their retaining wall, but you don't want the language change so that could happen again. Right. I'm sorry. I'm just confused by that. So if there were a similar situation that was happening with another homeowner and they, they had a portion of their home that was sinking or that was, that was causing damage to their home or to their property. Oh, we should allow them. Right. That's where the modification is there to repair. Now I'm going back to that modification. Which is in yellow. Just a minute. I should probably go on down. Okay. Redevelopment of preexisting gardenings, landscaped areas, lawns, public infrastructure, structures and impervious surfaces. So, so what, what the specific language that you object to is. Allowing a new structure to be built. That might then have to be redeveloped in the future because of that damage that occurs when you build on a wetland. Well, this, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Just, I'm sorry. Can we just go back. So just in terms of the couple that was talking about their sinking patio, it's the new language is on page two. That's the language that was intended to address that. That's the language that was intended to address that patio issue. And that, that would satisfy that that what they want to do is either we'll have a positive effect or the wetland expanded and that this, this kind of works for that couple. Is that what we're saying? It's staffs feeling that that can address the, the couple's concerns. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's a simple process. So this process requires first, we're going to go to the DRB. So in order to go to the DRB, there needs to be a wetland delineation. After the wetland delineation, then the person will have to propose and have a wetland scientist demonstrate what they're doing to, to improve the overall condition. So in their case, it might be that they can put in their retaining feature, but may need to take another part of their property where, you know, they've been using the 50 foot wetland buffer and properly leaving that to grow into a natural condition, but they have some additional lawn. They may need to take some of that lawn and convert it to wetland. This is not what they offered. This is kind of like, no, they, they, right, they propose something that was a little bit more of a, that's fine. If there are tough circumstances, what to do with it? We took a slightly different approach that was narrow. I just wanted to make sure I didn't say that. So now I think what Megan, what you're saying is that you don't think that we should change the 100 foot buffer rule. The 50 foot buffer rule to 50 feet for the set of properties identified, the half acre properties that were built before a certain date. Correct. You don't want those properties built before that are, that were in the previous 50 foot to add any structure to those houses to penetrate further into what is now 100 foot buffer. Right. This, this doesn't address structures. It just says gardens, landscape, very lawns, public infrastructure structures. Well, so these are two different subsections of the rules. So the one that counselor everybody's referring to is a broad return for parcels of less than half an acre in size to having a 50 foot buffer period. If they preexisting sites. Oh, okay. Right. Yeah. We would need to add that we need both of these. We don't need both of these. Then why are we looking at the second one with wetland? They're both regard to wetlands, but one is for an existing structure and the other is allowing new structures. Can I share maybe, can I share Tyler? I was on the planning commission. Yeah. Let me just give the history, at least from my perspective and the evolution just so right poll approach to planning commission, maybe six months ago, articulating that there were a number of homeowners that had come before the DRB to say, we want it, we want to add a shed or we want to extend our deck. But doing that would encroach on the new hundred foot buffer and there were, I guess a number of these folks and so they couldn't do it. And the question that came up was, well, did we really mean to do that? Did it really mean to prevent folks who live on these fairly small lots who built their homes in accordance with the regulations that were in effect at the time to stop them now from putting a shed or extending a deck. And we had this conversation over, you know, a number of sessions at the planning commission. I have to say my initial inclination was similar to Megan's that look, I didn't think we should, you know, part-blanche eliminate the hundred foot buffer, but perhaps define a limited set of things that they could do. Yeah, if you want to build a small shed or you want to, you know, extend an above ground deck and no new impervious surface, that would be okay. But I was persuaded that because of our lot coverage ratios, which already kind of limit how much impervious surface that could be on these small lots that, you know, in unbalance that that lot coverage ratio would probably do what we need to do for these small lots and that kind of these homeowners relied on the regs at the time and it would just felt to me personally. And I was persuaded it would just be the owner's nature of it would be out of balance with what we were trying to accomplish from a natural resource perspective. And I think Jessica put it well, you know, we need to maintain the community's goodwill in all the natural resource protection that we want to do and imposing this fairly owner's requirement on these small lots. I guess I was persuaded that was maybe a bridge too far. And so, and so the planning mission unanimously approved sending this council to revert back to the 50 foot buffer for these select properties, small properties. My concern is that, you know, what's to prevent other people from coming forward and saying, I too have an issue with this 100 foot buffer. Well, that's where that's where I have to say why are we allowing some people to build new structures and not other people to build new structures. If it's an existing structure, that's a clear distinction in my mind, but the new structure, where do we say no? I mean, there's always going to be a very sympathetic argument. There's all, yeah, but the lot coverage has to include the road has to include what else is around that area, not just a half acre lot, which right should be, what is it, 40% impervious maximum. If I remember correctly. So, you know, if you put that spot where we already have roads and other homes and there's a lot of potentially impervious surface around that area. And when we're trying to prevent floods, we're trying to protect homeowners. In addition to protecting ecosystems, I cannot look at an isolated property on its whole. A wetland is a whole system. And so we'd have to look at the whole system in order to determine, you know, what this would mean for individual homeowners and for that, that ecosystem. And I just, where do we, where do we say no? I mean, that's where, Megan, there was just one other fact. I guess there were a handful of lots that were, that are undeveloped, but that were defined, delineated under the old 50 foot buffer that I gather would become undevelopable with the 100 foot buffer. And that also was a bit of the thinking that, and you can have a separate rule for a completely undeveloped lots or develop lots, but to say to someone that, you know, delineated a lot under the old rules and compliance with our rules. We changed the rules. And now you can't do anything. It also, it just felt a bit harsh for a small lot. So I guess, you know, and I had conversations over the weekend because I was struggling with this, I would like to hear that conversation that you all had in order to be convinced. Well, maybe Jessica could provide some. Yeah, but to actually see the situation through, you know, a little bit of a map or whatever. Jessica, please. Yeah. Yeah. You know, I think Andrew just did a really great job of giving the summary and overview of kind of that, that last conversation of how we kind of came together as a group. And, you know, I think there were a few other pieces of it also. One is going way back to when we were actually considering going from the 50 foot to the 100 foot buffer in the first place. And there was a lot of discussion at that time. And part of it was that well, in these existing neighborhoods, you're not getting anything else anyway. So I think there was already like a kind of acknowledgement that in these developed areas, typically that extra one extra 50 feet was already lawns. It was already mowed. It already had various structures in it. So, you know, I think when we were doing the adopting, there was a general acknowledgement that we weren't necessarily getting, getting more in these, these, you know, neighborhoods with the small lots. So that's a little bit of back history. And then also, you know, Andrew was talking about the impervious cover percentage. That was part of our conversation. And then also that buildings have additional setbacks from your lot lines. And, you know, typically what was happening with the layout of these neighborhoods was that the, the entire lot was outside of the 50 foot buffer. So you have your wetland. You have the 50 foot buffer from that time. And then you have somewhere beyond that the lot line. And then you have an additional setback from that lot line for something like a home or kind of bigger structures. You know, which is kind of further keeping, you know, a lot of the structures you're talking about either even further from the wetland. And then, you know, we also had a conversation about how, like what is the impact to the wetland. Or the wetland buffer from some of these structures, like a patio or like a small shed. And, you know, from a stormwater perspective, yes, they are impervious surfaces, but they're typically the types of impervious surfaces that are relatively small. And the stormwater kind of sheet flows off of them and into the lawn and other vegetated areas around them. So kind of in the, in the like world of impervious surfaces, they're not as critical as like a parking lot or, you know, very large structures where, you know, a lot of stormwater winds up concentrated and carrying a lot of pollutants.  So, you know, when we were really thinking about like, what is the actual impact?  So, you know, I think that's a little bit more of the conversation in addition to what Andrea was pointing out. Thank you, Jessica. And what I would just respond to that is that's looking at the situation today. So if we're looking at the situation of 50, 60 years, right, where we are having those storms, we are having the flooding, and perhaps there will be a city council here that will say no more lawn mowing, no more pesticides, no more, you know, you know, so that's where I'm looking at. And I'm also looking at, you know, the situation where all of the arguments you just gave for why you agreed to reducing that 100 foot buffer to the 50 foot buffer of these specific homeowners, I do not see what would stop of 0.6 or 0.7 or 0.8 or 0.9 or 0.1. Anybody challenging our 100 foot buffer? I just, I don't, I don't, there's, what's to stop them from saying why are you stopping at a half an acre? Because that's, that's actually big size. I live on a, on a fifth of an acre, you know, and that's actually a pretty big size half an acre to me.  So, the small shed, okay, if they want to put their, you know, their lawn mower in a small shed, I have no issue, but with regard to a structure that could turn into a habitable space and that truly we are, we're going against the spirit and actual, you know, word of our new regulations that I think we truly believed in. I know I did. And I know that some people wanted to go to 200 feet because that's what some states are doing because of the amount of water that they're going to be seeing in 50 years. I have real, real concerns. Yeah. My suggestion, please. So Paul outlined earlier today to you and me, Megan, three different options of how, what action the council could take tonight. And I'm wondering if we want him to go, given what you shared and given the full interest of the council, if one of those options allows what the council's pleasure is for what to do next. Please. Can you walk through those, Paul? Yeah. Sure. So options are, so you have the full set of amendments as presented by the planning commission. You also have the modification that is in tonight's packet that you asked for. If you would like, I guess the first decision point for you is what do you want to do with the modification? You could choose to reject it. You could choose to include it tonight and warn a public hearing and, or you could say, planning commission, we'd like your thoughts on it before we take action, so you could table it. And then basically the same applies to anything from the whole rest of the rules as proposed by the planning commission. You could choose to modify them further, or you could choose to proceed with either the other two courses, warning a public hearing with the additional modification or any other changes or just straight with the modification. I'll just put it out there that I would like to accept the modification, meaning that I would like the commission to reflect on not saying that that's what's going to happen. So I'm not going to say that's going to happen. I'm not saying that's going to happen. It's just one Councillor here. But to consider the modification, that amendment with regard to wetlands. Can we ask the chair what she thinks? Yeah. Please. We can't hear you. Unmute. I was going to support including the language that was presented I'm not sure what you saw. I'm in agreement that I think Paul responded to the directions we gave him. And I appreciate your concerns, Megan, but I think I would. It appears to me that from Andrew, who was on the committee and Jessica, the chair of the planning commission, that this language is in keeping with. Their conversations and conclusions. Okay, but I, but this is the statement you just made. I wasn't sure you want to send it back to the commission. To have them do what? Well, I, I, I happen to know the chair of the natural resources and conservation committee quite well. And speaking, speaking with this about him with him, he's very concerned now with the amendment. So I think the NRCC might wish to have some kind of input, which is why I suggested that this could be something that could be discussed further. I mean, as I said, I might just be the fly in the ointment, but I just want to put that out there that there, there might be interest in having the NRCC weigh in on this amendment. I, I, I understand and I appreciate your perspective. And I applaud your passion. These poor people have been trying to do the right thing for a very long time. And they've been going through all the hoops. And I, I just would have done it and been done with it. And, and I just, when you have people that come and ask for help and are trying, they're darned us to do the right thing and to go through the proper channels. I think that should be applauded. And I think we have support the modification. I think we have, I think we have a risk. But on both sides, you also have the folks that Councillor Schumann mentioned, I think we have a responsibility to be timely. And to be responsive. And so I would support. Passing language as it stands right now. We have to set in a public hearing. I said, said the public hearing. Yes, but going as planned. So Tim, that was my thought. If you want a motion, I can make that. Or if you want to. If you want to, if you want to make that motion, you can share what you're thinking and then we can go from there. It's fine. You know, having heard Andrew's explanation and Jessica's explanation as well, I'm comfortable with it because the people that. That were there when the 50 foot buffer. Distance was in place, right? I don't think this is going to have a very large impact at all. I think that it's, it's fine, especially hearing that they had a lot of discussion about it. I'm okay with it. Great. Okay. Go ahead. Well, I will make a motion then to. Warn a public hearing. Just a minute. We do have somebody who would like to say something. Sorry. And please just introduce yourself to make sure the button. The bright light screen. I'm Kathy Easton. I was here recently speaking with you about our very complicated property and our slumping embankment. And Paul Connor has been in touch with me. He's been very helpful, but I have to say. In coming to the city council, I so respect all the time that you give and all your thoughtful energy that you apply. But when I come here, I feel on the one hand, sort of like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, that 1939 movie where a person is fighting against what they perceive to be injustice or an illogical situation. But I also feel like the protagonist in Joseph Heller's Catch-22 where I think it's Yosarian, is that that person's name is placed in a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules or limitations. So on the one hand, you know, we fit so well within the guidelines for the slopes. Everything that it says is exactly what we want to do.  But we also fall under the wetlands. And so even though what we want to do is appropriate for the slumping ground, it may not be appropriate for the wetlands. And I actually took the time. I read through all 31 pages or so of section 12, which I don't know if you've done, but I have. And every time I go through that, it almost seems like the language started off in one direction and then it started to get massaged. And when you're looking from one to another, when I compare them to the state regulations with which I think we're in accord, that doesn't quite match up. So in the case of this recent change, I appreciate it, but now this means that for this area, we're going to have to hire the services of a wetland specialist. Now back in 2009, I think they built out at $95 an hour. So for the sake of this, we'll have someone come in. They'll study the ground. They'll write a report.  It is rather the obligation of the prosecution to prove that you're doing something wrong. So now we're going to have to approve that this modification that's returning the soil to what it was, we're not doing a bad thing. And I think when Nora made her comments about the housing, I could identify with that because you and I both know people that when they get pushed too hard by regulations, their answer is, well, I'm just going to do, as Tyler said, I'm going to do what I want. And we haven't done that. We keep coming back to try to find redress within your regulations. And I know you have a tough job. And you're trying to balance all the environmental issues that I think are very important.  And for them to say, I want to have a little bit bigger deck, I know you may be thinking 50 years down the road, but they're thinking today and tomorrow and the enjoyment of their family. So whatever you do with these regulations, there has got to be a way to have a balance that doesn't reflect a heartlessness, a perceived heartlessness when people listen to what you say. And I'm not lecturing you. And I think we can find a way to fix the slumping ground and to fix our sitting wall, which is not a retaining wall, but it is at Mont Saint-Michel, even though we have water. And the stream doesn't meander only at the very, like, 10 feet where it goes into the lake. But I hope that you all working with Paul and your committees can come up with regulations that people in their hearts accept and people know in their minds that make good sense and that we'll be able to go forward and fix our slumping soil. So thank you for hearing me out. And I do appreciate all that you do. I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but I am. So thank you very much. Well, all I can say is that there are neighborhoods where, you know, the frontage changed and things changed. And I think that fighting against a wetland is a losing battle. I do hope that you enjoy your home. Okay. So can I move that? Are you done? No, I was done. I don't have to make the motion. Someone else can go ahead. But I will move. I will move that we set, accept this new language and set a hearing for what is the date that we have on the sheet? May 1st at 730. May 1st at 730. Second. All right. All those in any more discussion? Can we discuss? Sure. Yeah, no, I mean, this is the first time that I'm seeing the, the modification, right? That was proposed to address the, the situation that was presented to us. And I, I'm just, I'm wondering whether or not we could adjust it in a way which meets the community needs and doesn't impact the natural areas that we want to protect. And this is the first time I'm seeing it, I can imagine it could say something like, if the applicant has proposed, you know, an alteration and there's no reasonably feasible alternative, you know, to accomplish a repair, then as long as that repair doesn't have a negative effect. I mean, I could see writing this in a way which protects what we're trying to protect, but also provides a little more flexibility. I guess this is the first time I'm looking at it. But, um... I wanted the commission to look at that, but I was... Yeah, so I'm just... I'm nowhere to hear. I'm, I'm, you know, I'm sensitive to, to what we heard and I, I could under, this is not really addressing the case we heard, which we're trying to fix something. We've tried a lot of ways. We haven't found a reasonably feasible alternative and we're trying to do it in a way which doesn't have a negative effect. And if that, you know, if we crafted a rule which addressed that circumstance, I'd personally be comfortable with a rule like that. I don't know if that would address your concern. And so, again, just seeing this, the rest of this, I'm fine with, right? I mean, I was on the Planning Commission when we went through it, but this particular rule, I'm wondering whether it could be tweaked still a little bit to address the concern we heard. It's not meeting her needs. I just want to make that clear. She's saying it's not meeting her needs. Well, I think what she's saying is that she, I think she feels like, why does she have to hire the wetland, the wetland scientist to evaluate this little tidy piece of slumping ground, which by the way really is next to the outflow from a brook, right? That's mostly dry all the time. It's not like it's, you know, if you're thinking about South Village, right? We have those homes backed up too and it's all marshy and it's usually next to the Great Swamp. This is not like that at all. It's like, the land goes down and then there's this like dry bed creek. You've seen it? Yeah, because as part of the DRB, I was there for a related thing, which I don't know what that application was or what we were doing, but I was like, wow, look at this channel. It just cuts right down between these trees and it goes right into Shelburne Bay. So it's kind of a unique situation, which I mean, I guess it qualifies as a class to wetland, but it's only wet when there's a lot of water coming down that brook, you know. So anyway, I don't know how to make that. Well, I may have misunderstood your comments, Andrew, because I thought that you were so eloquently describing the conversations. Oh, no, no, let me just be clear. So this language was the language that you supported. Oh, no, I'm sorry, Helen. I was surprised to hear that this didn't resolve the issue. No, no, no. So the Planning Commission didn't look at this very latest language that's yellow highlighted on page two. The Planning Commission looked at all the other changes. And so I was addressing all the other changes, but yes, I fully support this. This is I think the first time anyone has seen this language, this modification. Right. And so I don't think anyone's actually had an opportunity to think about this and what it does. And so that's the only piece that I'm expressing a little bit of concern about, this very latest new language. I understand. So just a procedural note. If you would like to review other options, as Councillor Chaunek is referring to, I would suggest for efficiency of the whole thing, decide that now rather than warning a public hearing and then making a change, because if you warn a public hearing and then you decide that you want to do as Councillor Chaunek is suggesting, then you have to warn another public hearing for June for that. So I would suggest that, you know, become comfortable. Can we separate these things? Any time. Not really. Once you take action to adopt, then it's done and it's back at the beginning for any other changes. So you're now, it is in your hands. You can work on it as long as you want, but I would suggest working to something that you feel comfortable with as a whole and then warning a public hearing on it then. Well, I can withdraw my motion and go along with asking the planning commission, I guess, to review this language and come back with something that is more specific. That's what I would recommend. Going back to the point about having a heart, these folks have been waiting a long time. This isn't satisfying them, Tyler. It's not, but I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I think it's that it's a step in the right direction. But at the same time, they're still going to have to pay ungodly sums of money to have an environmental engineer come out and take a look at it. I mean, it's. So this doesn't resolve the issue for her. Can I ask the applicant, would this, would further, would waiting longer be more satisfactory or less satisfactory? If the rule could be altered. Well, we're talking about Paul in two weeks. You can, let's see, when does the planning commission meet again next Tuesday? Right. Yeah. So we could come back to the council in two weeks if that was your wish. And if you'd like the council, the commission to look at it in that time, we would continue to press them to make sure they're focused on the comprehensive plan, but I'm sure we could find a little bit of time on the agenda to address this. If that's council's pleasure. I don't want you to think that we are ungrateful for Paul's efforts, nor that this solution that he's come up with is doesn't, doesn't have merit. It does. But our problem will still be there. But you need, I think, to take the time to get whatever it is you want to do in the best form that you can. I would not want you to rush a wording or a decision to our situation if, if it needs some discussion. And just to make sure, for some reason, you are thinking that the slumping land is near the stream. It is not. I should come visit. It is not. It is. If, if you took this room, this wall has some slumping land. And about two thirds of the way over, there's part of a stormwater management system and a swell. And then further out beyond that wall is a stream that has varied water depending on the time of the year. But the slumping land is not near the stream. It's, and this, this should be a relatively reasonable thing to be able to fix. So, so I appreciate your, your efforts and your work on this. And I'm, we're only one, one job among many that you all do. And, and we appreciate that. We appreciate Paul. Thank you for coming out tonight. Okay. Thank you. What we've got, we have a motion and a second. Did Helen, did you withdraw your motion? I'll withdraw my motion and change it to ask the. Planner commission. Sorry, Jessica, to take this up. At their next meeting and work with Paul and come back with. Hopefully potentially anyway. Language that addresses this in a more narrow way. For our, whatever date it is the. Seven. Team. Yes. Right for April 17. Can you do that? So that's my motion. I'll second that. It's complex. All right. Any other discussion? All right. All those in favor. I was unanimous. Thank you. Thank you for your time, everyone. All right. So now we are up to item number 13, which has approved the use of up to $30,000. $30,925 in the general fund balance to support one crossing guard at the Rick mark at central, central school for the remainder of the 2022 2023 school year and purchase a speed radar sign at the Gertrude Chamberlain school. Yes. Can I do a little table setting? And we have lots of our friends from the school district here with us tonight as well. So a couple of updates I want to provide since our last, since your last conversation about this, I think we have a lot of time to get to the topic and talk about it immediately. After the last Monday night council meeting, public works and principal McDonald's who I think is also on the phone. And a number of other team members spend a lot of time looking at the city center. Traffic patterns made some pretty significant operational improvements today. I spent an hour with the superintendent talking through that. And I think that's the end of today is that I think we've made a lot of progress, but that hasn't been well communicated. So we are going to jointly work on a communication to the community about where we have been as a city and making improvements to safety for our children and families where we currently are and where we're going into the future. And send that out hopefully by the end of the week in her report and in our city news. So what's really before you tonight is the things that we're going to be working on. We're going to be working on some of the things that we're going to be working on. We're going to be working on our council action that are specifically policy related. For your consideration. Additionally, at next week at the 17th meeting, you'll be receiving a traffic planning manual that public works citywide traffic planning manual that city works has been or public works has been working on for many months and be able to comment on that. So what we're going to be working on is the allocation of funding from the general fund fund balance for FY23 to pay for a crossing guard here at Rick Markot as well as fast tracking the funding for the speed signage to Chamberlain for a total of allocating as as Councilor Emery said $30,925 from existing fund balance to pay for those things this fiscal year. That brings us down our fund balance down to 9.09 percent of our operating budget. Just as a reminder, council per council policy, you can't go below 8.33 percent. I do want to foreshadow for you that I anticipate that the school board will continue a request for $43,184 to fund that crossing guard through FY24. I would recommend that we consider that as we consider the FY23 fund balance or the FY23 surplus and how we're going to treat those funds moving forward. But that would be another ask for later in the spring, well in advance of next fall's school calendar standing up. So that's the summary. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jesse. Does anyone from the school district wish to say anything? Alex. Sure. I'll say anything if you can hear me. Yes, we can hear. Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you everybody for your attention to this matter. It's been heavy on my heart since last year when a student was struck near the South Burlington high school campus and very badly injured. And I think a lot of us within the school district are very, very nervous about when the next tragedy is going to happen. And we're trying to head it off as quickly as possible. And we are so, so please thank you for your patience in, in with our sense of urgency towards this. And we do a very much appreciate your consideration. In particular, we'd also like to ask for better communication between the construction site that's occurring at market street, along with the elementary school and the school district in general, because it is helpful to know if there are going to be dump trucks and so on going through and along market street. And if it coincides with the morning pickup or the early, or the afternoon dismissal that is an especially dangerous situation. And I'm going to leave it at that. If Lisa wants to say anything great, but anyhow, I just want to say that everybody in the school district is thankful for the city council considering this. Thank you. Principal McDonald. Good evening, everybody. Thanks for having me again. And thanks for your comments, Alex. I just wanted to say that we have had really great communication with the developer. We had one, one day where we got some news that was unexpected, but since then we've really had excellent communication. And I just want to tell everybody that I appreciate you considering supporting us by helping us with a crossing guard. I know Sue Conley has been on tonight. She and I have been managing the crossing at out on market street. And we've had some training from officer three, Williamson at the South Wellington police department. We appreciate everybody's support. And the more we're out there, the more that we, we notice the urgency that we really have to be thinking about because our young people are pedestrians on those busy streets. And they, they need everybody's support. So if you approve this tonight, thank you in advance for that. And I look forward to continuing to work with you as your neighbor. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. So I do have a couple of questions, but let others ask questions too. Okay. I'll make a motion. Oh, I just had a couple of questions if that's all right. Yeah. Have you thought as a school board or as a school district or as a school principal McDonald about future years of the crossing guard, even post post construction? I'm thinking about through 2024 when that development is completed. And I also know that Tom talked to us about the traffic study. That might result in some traffic lights or some help. And so no, to answer your question directly, I haven't thought beyond 2024 because I'm still waiting to see the results of the traffic study to see if that helps us with electronic pedestrian support. If we don't have that, then yes, that would be a priority. Okay. So that is just for the council's information, that comprehensive traffic study of city center that we started a couple of months ago. We should have findings of that by October, which would allow us to build costs into the FY 25 budget for either crossing guard needs on either side of the traffic city or school fund or infrastructure for signage and lights and other things. And is that just for central school? Is that for all of the other schools? So that's specifically a traffic study for city center and therefore Mark Hott. But the other school zone studies, CCRPC is helping us with that are on different timelines, but we think quicker or similar annual timelines, but maybe quicker month timelines. This will all be in our communication this week. Okay. Very good. I just wanted to make sure because I received an e-mail from Kate Bailey. Helen did too. I forwarded on to the council. I said Helen, sorry. Until I had finished my e-mail. But the reason why Chamberlain school received the study last spring and is having these modifications on now is because the principle of Chamberlain school is that it's not the same. But the principle of Chamberlain school is that it's not the same. I mean, I think that the reason why the study was in the last spring and is having these modifications on now is because the principle of Chamberlain school contacted the director of public works back in, I don't know, fall of 2021, asking for modifications on White street because of safety concerns. So I just wanted us all to be thinking ahead to, you know, also thinking across the school district since those were concerns that Kate Bailey raised with me and wondering why one school was put ahead of the others. So I just wanted to make, put that out there since I communicated in an e-mail with a school board member. All right. You have a motion. So I move that the council approve the use of up to $30,925 in general fund balance to support one crossing guard at Rick Marcotte Central School for the remainder of the 22-23 school year and purchase a speed radar sign at the Gertrude Chamberlain school zone. Second. Second. Okay. Discussion? Sure. Question for Jesse and for Principal McDonald. Are there any, were there any, was there anything else that was discussed that would, that we could do right now that would have an impact? Just in the future, I prefer that question to be before the motion in the second because the reason why there was discussion before the vote last time was because I think all of a sudden Andrew said, oh wait, I hadn't really looked at this language and processed it. Testimony on it. Right. Right. Okay. I apologize. No, no, no, no, I just, it's just for information. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. So is there anything else that's been discussed that we could do right now that would further improve the process? Yeah. Okay. So is there anything else that we could do to this? Or these felt to be the most? No, no, no. Was this, was this felt to be the best solution time? So I'll start, but principal McDonald, please jump in. So what's before you is the things that require council action, IE allocating the resources. There have been a lot of other things that the principal and public works have done in partnership that don't need to be, so we've, and listen, this is where you know in the details better than I, we've eliminated two parking spots out behind the building that we're creating a visual hazard. Public works has purchased some traffic. Like pedestrian little dollars that you put in the middle of crosswalks for more signage that I believe are now in place. The developer installed the path behind the construction site. So the kids who live at garden street can walk with no crossing of market street. What else am I missing? The fencing, we took down the screening at the corner of the fencing. So we've done a lot of operational changes that don't require council action. So what's before you is really the immediate need for money now so we can hire, so the school can hire their crossing guard and so we can get going on the. So is there anything else that could require council action that we could take action on tonight? We've already got a motion and a second on a table. So we can't add any more action items right now. This was just a clarification question. Yeah. So before the motion, you could have asked that question. Okay. Tim, would you like, I would like an answer to that because I think we have responsibility. Can we call the vote? Yeah. Madam vice chair, do you want to respond to the motion here presented by the city manager about what's needed today and what the school board has asked for? And that's what we're looking at right now because they need this approved now. So I understand nothing. They've taken other actions on their own. I'm sorry. Madam vice chair, did you want to respond to? I would just say that we have specifically warned items that we are agreeing to tonight. So if there are additional, you know, Tyler, I think that there is a lot of communication going on with the school board and the superintendent and Jesse about the very long list of requests that the school board made. And I think the city manager tried to make it clear to us and it may not be responsive enough for you or many of the parents in the school, but there's timelines and information that were required to get through studies in order to have a plan in place to make some of the changes that the school board requested. I don't think there's anyone who is thinking those are outlandish requests. I think a lot of it is the process to get to the point where we can have potentially an action item before the city council to make it happen, but to just add some stuff tonight, I think would be irresponsible because we don't have any information and we couldn't put it in place for quite a while. I understand. And thank you. I just, this is something that is, it's a very important issue. And if there's any, I just wanted to make sure that we're doing everything that we can to preserve or to protect these kids. And if there were other things that were asked for and it's a question of budget, I just wanted to make sure that we were prioritizing accordingly. So that's, and if there were other things that were asked for, I just wanted to get clarification on that. So we've all seen the memo from the superintendent and she prioritized the top three and I believe that we are responding as quickly as possible to those top three. There are two remaining items including speed bumps and lighting, I think, lighting that will be dealt with when that time allows. Fair enough. But, but yeah. Okay. I think I'm ready to call the vote. Okay. All those in favor of the motion, which is to use up to $30,925 in our general fund fund balance to support one crossing guard at the Rick market central, central school and to purchase a speed radar sign at the Gertrude Chamberlain school zone. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. which is to discuss and approve the 2023 to 2024 council liaisons to committee assignments. Jesse would you like to discuss that? Sure. So last year you adopted a policy about establishing council liaisons to committees. Thank you very much for doing that. I think it's been really helpful for the staff liaisons and the committees to to have those have you all as partners in that work. So with specifically with Matt and Tom stepping off the council there are some appointments that need to be either reassigned or shifted around. I've outlined for you in the memo who the current liaisons are when meeting groups meet and it's for your discussion how you would like to move forward. The specific ones if you're just focusing on the ones that we no longer have a liaison for. We're talking about bike ped common area for dogs public art recreation and parks and then green mountain transit as well. Councilor Chalnick suggested that he might like to be on the liaison for the energy committee and I graciously would let you take that position if you would like. Well then I'm gonna take it back then. So well I would be happy to let him take over the natural resources and conservation. Well that's very those are dream assignments that's very gracious. Except that doesn't solve any of our problems. Because I am sure that Helen and Tim are then gonna say what they're willing to take on. Because I already I already have an inkling. I would like to remain on economic development if possible. Okay. And but I need to take I need to move to another place right. All right so the other places that we have open I am very happy with my assignments as well. I know that for the Charter Review Committee that that is we're in an ongoing process here. So I would really like to see that through. I was invited to be the liaison for the affordable housing committee. I have not been asked to step away from that invitation. And I've been enjoying that work. And I enjoy that it really dovetails nicely with the Housing Trust Fund. So I would really like to hang on to my three. Feeling that the Charter Review Committee in particular I've been so close to their work that I believe I should stay on. So that leaves recreation and parks, public art, natural resource and no no sorry. Common area for dogs, bike and pet. Yeah. I'd be happy to take bike and pet and rec some parking parks and rec. All right. Is that acceptable to people bike and pet? That's a nice combination. That's a nice combination. Okay. I would like to stay on planning and you have to I'm planning. I have to stay on planning. I will stay on planning. It's like my second job. And then I'm you know I'm willing to do the dogs and you know the common area for dogs that occurs right before planning. So make it like one night and that'd be good. And then I'm happy to stay on the airport I could take public art. All right. I know somebody that's very interested in that. And you're gonna stay on pension right? And what? Yeah. Well that was done earlier. Yeah. We'd have to. Oh that's right. Yeah. That was an organizational thing. So it's set in stone. So we need the Green Mountain Transit. Is that something that Tyler you would do? You would be interested in? I would be interested. I just want to be careful not to over commit. Tell me about it. So I can I can it's I'm just being totally transparent. Two is gonna be a stretch as it is to do three. I'm just concerned. So I'm happy to take up the mantle with that understanding but I have if I'm being honest I have concerns. How often is the GMT? Once a month it's on a Tuesday morning. It's 7 a.m. Yeah. I'd be willing to do it. I mean you've got to be having probably more time. I'll tell you when they put both of our names now. Yeah. And we can back each other up. Awesome. You know what if we can rotate? We could rotate. That'd be awesome. But as a price for the energy committee you know I'm gonna miss the energy committee because I really like those people and I like what they talk about. Okay well that sounds good. Is that everything? No there's also Channel 17 town meeting TV. Channel 17. I just I can't do that. Yeah. It's just too much time. Right at the moment. Yeah. Helen I'm sorry I didn't look this up earlier. Is that a requirement that that's a counselor? Is that something that we can advertise for? No. It can be someone from the public. Yes. Absolutely. Would you like me to explore advertising for it? That would be good. That would be great. Yeah. Just for council's awareness I'm gonna do that in conjunction with advertising for the communications union district appointment which also can be anybody in the community. And I think there are some individuals who have more skills to do that than. Oh super. Yeah. That sounds good. Okay. Thank you. I think we have agreement. Very good. Well thank you everybody. That was very very. That was easy. Yeah. Smooth. Well I appreciate you Helen and Tim because you get connected to committees. It's true. We appreciate you too. We appreciate Tyler and Andrew and Jesse and Helen. That's right. And nobody else. Steve. Can you take a quick vote just accepting as discussed? Of course. I guess somebody would like to make a motion that we accept the council liaisons as expressed. So moved. Second. All those in favor. Aye. Thank you. Aye. That was unanimous and I want to thank all now that we have approved the full slate. And I move that we go into liquor control commission. Please do. Is that a motion? I needed a second. Do we get a second? I second it. Very good. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. So now we are in liquor control and we have a whole slew of enterprises. I'll move that we approve all of these first, third and second class liquor license renewals. Except for one business. Let's pick one. For some reason. That's just a joke. I'm just kidding. It's already 1045. Is there a second? Second. Second. All right. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. It's only 1041. And I'll now move that we come out of being the South British Liquor Control Commission. Second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. All right. Now we have other business and Tyler you had a letter to share with us. Yeah I was I was I made it started out almost inadvertently but I went last weekend to or two weekends ago to go investigate the path that had been created out in front of Central School and when I was down there I had the opportunity to speak with a bunch of residents in that building and they started or several of them voiced their concerns about safety within that building and along that road which is that the garden street apartment building you talk about? Yes. Let's see it would be the one that's set back. Well let me think if you if you walk it's the one that's immediately adjacent to the path that's been constructed so it's behind that's behind yeah that's the path that's behind the new construction. Yeah. Is that garden street apartment or a different property? No it's a different one. A different property. Okay. And what struck me is how passionately these residents spoke about the safety issues in the building and around the building number one and number two how they felt as though they had no choice but to try they all of them were trying there were six in total and they were all trying to actively move out and they felt as though they were being forced out and they had nowhere else to go in South Burlington. They don't feel safe. One woman is a two two of the individuals are senior citizens they have grandchildren they are not comfortable having their grandchildren come into the building or be around the building because of residents and they don't they don't feel it's safe and they have asked you know what what measures they've taken and they said well you're the first person we taught you but candidly we're a little scared they only wanted to speak with me on the condition of anonymity and they didn't want me to share their names for fear of any sort of retribution in in the apartment complex. They haven't spoken to management. They've spoken to management several times but they felt as though things that their concerns have fallen on deaf ears and so I I felt as though I'd be they took the time to write a joint letter I felt as though I'd be remiss if I didn't at least bring it to the council's attention I don't know what action we can take other than to but it it's concerning to me it's it's concerning to me for several reasons I don't want to the biggest one being that that if that is how we're directing kids to go to school on a day-in-day out basis that makes me really nervous that these residents have these concerns and I also think it it perhaps some of their concerns much lesser than and much less urgent but some of their concerns revolve around and I think it something that we may want to consider as we start as we start developing our comprehensive plan several other concern particularly from the senior citizens were around this not being a suitable arrangement for families with small children they're they complained about kids running up and down the hall being disrespectful it's just not a they've one woman her she characterized as feeling terrorized by the behavior and the actions of these kids and she was careful not to try and blame the children she just felt as though they had nowhere to go they can't play after school at at central because of schools out they have no other access they have no other avenues and they were asking for help I don't have any solutions I don't know what recourse we have but as a counselor I felt compelled to share it and to to share their concerns with the council so I'm I'm bringing it up I'm happy to go to read the letter if it's helpful I've summarized it as best I can but my most urgent concerns are one their safety to the safety of kids that are walking by there on a day-and-day basis and and I guess that I'm asking the question of the council what what can what actions can we take if any and and what can we do to help these folks I for one think it's a business a building management first step is contacting the summit and and sharing you know that counselors have been approached by residents and that there is a concern of feeling insecure and we certainly you know want all of our residents to feel to feel secure I mean I think that's the the first step I don't know I'm looking to someone who has more knowledge about the children that have been kind of running around and being disruptive are they school age or I think they're elementary school age I don't know it also may be a conversation with the school aren't there after school programs or why isn't there something to occupy these these kids there are wait lists there's not capacity in our after-school programs I'm assuming I don't know that's maybe the core issue then okay but but I mean so I think yeah I'm happy to have an anonymous I don't know who these folks are conversation with the property owners I am curious what which build if it's both buildings because some of the concerns that you're articulating we've also heard about the cht building so I it could be it's happening in both buildings so I'm happy to have a conversation with both property owners because we've heard the concerns I also I'm wondering what the options are for better engaging our community outreach team with the property managers because it sounds to me like there's some unmet service needs and that's what that team is for to try and connect folks up yes there are waiting lists but there may be other you know there may other service things that we could help and provide so that's something I would immediately offer and then also you know encourage I don't know whether it's through signage or community development within building or something for folks to I'm thinking out loud here kind of go through some restorative process internally or create their own neighborhood in the building or are there ways that we can support support the communities in having their neighbors within building kind of positively identify each other so that's where I would start and I'm happy to do that if if you all would like I think those are great suggestions and I I I wholeheartedly support everything you said Jesse and I'm grateful to you for reaching out and I I do think that there's a lot of work to be done uh in inside of these buildings and the owner I think would be the the good person to speak to but I I do think that the building manager needs some more support and perhaps in both yeah is that a good next step I think that sounds great I think that sounds reasonable if I mean put that on your long list of things you do but that's you know I have a deputy that's great that's what we need to do but it's it's you know goes on and on and on doesn't it what I'd like to add to to that conversation if I could because in the affordable housing community conversation for the city plan the residents of cht the the garden street apartment building that we're attending that meeting one of the issues in addition to kids running through the hallways and and somewhat creating a feeling of of unease is that the garden plots were being dug up by kids because they have nothing in other to do than than to and so my husband suggested an idea which is simply to defense that off and actually provide keys there there are plots I think they're like four by six feet box box plantings and if you put a fence around there and with the the owners of those plots or I don't know if they're owners or or or or what but they would have a key to be able to get in and to and to do the gardening that might deter some of that vandalism that you know might be completely innocent for lack I also took a walk back there and I saw the swing that was covered in snow we heard at that affordable housing community conversation that the the cht garden street apartments manager had threatened to remove that swing so I would follow up and ask about that um there certainly is not a lot of a playground here for if that was intended for to be a playground for for the kids it's really not much of one um so maybe some just communication you know that there could not in a you know not only be supports uh with regard to social services but you know what could be done with the the areas I mean the woods are beautiful if the if the cleanup could occur um what a great place to explore for a kid um I don't know I'm just no no just if you go down that wood chip path you know you're you're there are woods that some belong to the school some belong to the city and and some will unfortunately become a road road yeah become a road extension but you know now that we know that there aren't encampments there you know once I don't know I haven't been back there again since last week but if it's all cleaned out it's a really nice wood I mean I don't know is there anything that recreation and parks could do that you know let's go explore let's have you know scavenger hunt let's these are little kids yes I agree I agree on it it's a very tough conversation all right anything else I think Tim's ready to go home I think we're already go home thank you Helen for tuning in from Florida welcome take my way home so okay at least uh President Trump's coming and going won't affect my flight oh right right closed airspace but anyway and take good care Helen all right bye bye motion to adjourn we're adjourned we don't need a motion for that in my book okay um so but while the four of you are here um


Those of you who have just arrived, well okay, two things. The reason I'm using this microphone is because we hope at some point in the middle of my speaking or some other thing happening that we will actually be streaming this event live. And there are people watching are waiting for the speech to come up. In Australia, New Zealand, Vancouver, House parties in LA and in Chicago. Singapore, you must be Singapore. So we have to speak into these mics so that they can hear us. So shout out to all of you watching in internet world, wherever you are. We're here at Georgetown University and this is a program of the American Voices in Plain Institute. And as much as I appreciate the round of applause, we really need to give a big round of applause to the Andrew Mellon Foundation that's in the house. We're advancing the infrastructure for new play development nationwide. And that is at the good graces and the great wisdom of the Mellon Foundation that we're doing that work here. And this convening is part of the institute. The house lights are out. We have an extraordinary group of participants who have been here all weekend. And I just, again, one more round of applause if you could hold it for one second. But these guys started talking yesterday afternoon at around 6 o'clock and I didn't let them stop until about 6 o'clock when we drove for dinner tonight. And they've been talking about the state of device work in the American theater today. Even trying to decide what device work means. And actually, even more than that, trying to decide if we care what it means. Because if we know what it means, it's perhaps to put a box around something that we've read and not put a box around it. So here we are talking about device work all weekend and we haven't actually seen or talked much about the work itself. And you're here tonight to participate in that. So thank you guys for all your energy all weekend to get this convening going. So round of applause for our participants. And all these thank yous are important. How's the internet doing? Oh no, that's dull. And so then, lastly, the front row here, these guys are great souls. This is the group of people, and I'm going to ask you all to stand up and turn around. This is the group of people who volunteered to be the guinea pigs tonight for our master teachers lecture demos which will be four samples of the kinds of work and the way work is made from four of the ensembles that were participating this weekend. But here are our guinea pigs. Please stand up and turn around and think about what they signed up for. They just didn't happen to do it. So without further ado, I'm going to go ahead and start the program. And we're going to start it with the fabulous Kirkland of the Ruby Camp. So I've been trying to find a way that I can pray. And that's a really difficult proposition for an agnostic lapsed Saturday night. Who called me? That's not stopped me. So I want to try it with you guys.   I want you to raise your hand when any of the following phrases apply to you. And there's no limit to the number of times you can raise your hand. Alright? Raise your hand if you feel like I want to have fun. I want to live with abandon. I don't want to worry too much about what other people think of me. And if that means sometimes I'm going to risk giving a little embarrassed to you. I want to be a little bit embarrassed a little bit more often. Raise your hand if you feel like that. Alright great. Now raise your hand if you feel like I want to be more serious. I read the works of Chekhov and Tolstoy. I read Emily Dickinson and Sylvia Plath. Now I like when the notes read a little bit and shine. When I read stuff like that I feel like I want to train myself to express the weight and depth of my emotions and thoughts. I want to be more serious sometimes. Oh great.   Not some fancy European beach but a place where I can wear a skiffy bathing suit and drink wine coolers and listen to John Hoover mellowing camp and really understand what he's singing about. Who here wants that kind of day off? Alright, that's nice. Alright, I want to work harder. Not the frustrating kind of hard work, banging your head against the wall doing the same thing over and over but the kind of hard work that's a pleasure to do. I want to get in one really hard day's work and I want my friends to be there with me and I want to laugh through it all and I want there to be plenty of food and good strong coffee to carry us into the night.  There are people in this room that I want to take away and have with me the next time I device theater or write a grant or go see a show. Raise your hand if there are people in this room that you want to steal into your life and make a part of your art and work. Now raise your hand if there are people in this room that you want to steal into your life and do a little more than device to me.  Raise your hand if there are people in this room that you want to get your responsible with. Finally, maybe there are some of you out there who feel like I want God to turn out to be real and I want to feel God's presence in my life and in the lives of my friends and family. When I open my eyes I want to feel renewed and filled with the spirit of God which may be very much like the spirit of fun or the spirit of good hard work or the spirit of vacation or the spirit of the people in this room. Alright thanks, you can open your eyes. Will my new friends come up? Do you wish you had a microphone friends? Do you have more friends too? I have more friends. That's awesome. Now this will work perfect. Are you also my friend? Now I feel like why just five friends? Yeah I want to share. This is going to be so good. So I'm with the Rue Mex. I was just talking to Jeff and I was saying how weird it is. We're talking about the Vice Theater but you sort of don't know anything about the Rue Mex if you just know Kirk because there's six Rue Mechanicals. It's sort of like just sending your arm to a conference. I don't know what it's like. There's six Rue Mechanicals and we've been making theater together for 15 or 16 years. I think we're a collective. There's six artistic directors. We do everything by consensus for the most part. There's a working company of about 30 designers and actors and directors and writers and all sorts of people. And we sort of don't have a process. We actually sort of avoid process as much as we can and make a new process every time. So what to do with you what to do with you friends? I think to become a part of our work recently is that we've had a more sort of curatorial approach that we just ask everybody in the company and in fact everybody in the community and neighbors and friends to make something in the sort of theme of what we're doing and then we slowly sort of cobble it all together. So I thought I'll just do like if the Rue Mechanicals were here today and they said let's make something this is the sort of thing I'm into right now and that I'm doing so this is what we've made. And actually some of this is some of the question work that I do in Melanie Joseph and I are doing some of this work too. So as you confuse you in later it's like I found you shows what purpose. So first we're all going to play in a second but first I'm just going to play with one person. Hi what's your name? My name is Rachel. What's your earliest memory? In preschool having snacks and saving my family. That's great. Would you be surprised if I told you that never happened? How old were you when that happened? What kind of documentation exists for this evening? Video tapes or photos? How many people would agree to your version of this event? My mother. And how old did you say you were? 24. And how old are you now? 21. Alright so if you were 3, how many years have passed since you had this memory? This is an 18 or 19 year old memory. What else do you have in your life that's that old?  You know what sort of upkeep is an 18 year old car? I would probably have to be checked pretty often. What sort of upkeep do you think memories take? I would probably have to think about them pretty often. When you're not thinking of a memory, what do you think is happening with it?  Is it fair to say that memories are the oldest things that you have in your life, older than most of your appliances in your car? How old do you expect to become? I think I'm about 80 or 90 so I hope to be the oldest 80 or 90. That's great. How far away is 80 or 90 from your president? 60 or 70 years. What do you most hope will happen to you in the time between now and then? I hope that I'll find out what I really want to do. Are you afraid of dying? Do you think it's possible that you could really enjoy dying? Under what circumstances do you think dying would be the most fantastic? I'd appreciate a blinding bed if there were enough ones around you and knowing that it's much harder to go. Would you allow everyone in this room to wish that for you?


My question is, what are we supposed to do when we are angry and how to deal with deep-rooted anger? It depends. Who is the victim?  So who is your victim right now? Accordingly, you should do. But now you are asking this question as if anger is a natural part of you. Are you angry right now? What's your name? Rohini. Are you angry right now? No. Then why are you bothered about anger? Once in a way you get angry. Yes? You get angry. Anger doesn't happen to you. You get angry. You like it? You don't like? Then why do you do it? See, around us so many people will do so many things that we don't like. Yes or no? So many things in Mumbai happening, things that we don't like are everyday happening. But at least within you, only what you want should happen within this, isn't it? Huh? I cannot decide that only what I want should happen with you. But I can definitely decide only what I want must happen within me, isn't it? If you could decide only what you want should happen within you, would you choose anger or joy? What's your choice? Please choose, I'm going to bless you. See, you want the highest level of pleasantness for yourself, isn't it? Then why is such a thing not happening? As I said earlier, you never hit the user's manual. How this function says, not been looked at. Do not go by the example of people who came here a few years earlier than you that, no, no, my mother also was like that, my grandmother also was getting angry, so I am also getting angry. They should not be the leading lights of your life. I want you to look at it.  Huh? If somebody else can decide what should happen within you, this is ultimate slavery, isn't it so? What happens around you, maybe we can decide.  If you decide, you would keep this in the highest state of pleasantness for sure. You wouldn't be battling with anger. It's not just about anger, fear, stress, tension, don't address them separately. Essentially your mind is not taking instructions from you. Why?  Yet, we gave you a super computer, you do not know where the keyboard is. So one day you did this, something worked, another day you did this, something worked. You know, have you seen people? The radio doesn't work, boom! And it works sometimes. That's not a technology, that's chance. Have you seen this? If something doesn't work, people think tough, tough, tough, it'll work. And a lot of people are using this for human beings also. Something doesn't work tough, tough, and it'll work. In Tamil Nadu there is a saying, naala kurtha yalla shariya edu. That means if you slap them four times, everything will get fixed. It doesn't get fixed like that.


Hey everyone, it's Gabrielle and today I'm over here at Oxma or Toyota for our pre-owned vehicles of the week So you guys I have three vehicles. I'd like to share with you all all three of them have extremely low miles So perfect vehicles. So let's go over some details on this first one This is a 2018 Buick Encore preferred the extra your color is called Summit white Now it does have those 18 inch alloy wheels There is a Bluetooth the vehicle has a backup camera. There's a clean car facts interior color isn't an ebony Mileage is twenty four thousand sixty five. The price is sixteen thousand now This one is the best value within about fifty miles So our second vehicle, this is a 2015 BMW a three series Three twenty eight X drive it is all-wheel drive Now the extra your color isn't a black sapphire metallic The vehicle is all-wheel drive. It has 17 inch alloy wheels. You have a sunroof. There's a power driver seat There's Bluetooth backup camera, and there's also a clean car facts now that interior color isn't a black Mileage is fifty eight thousand eighty one the price is eighteen thousand This is the best value within a hundred and fifty miles For our third vehicle. This is a 2015 Toyota Tacoma pre-runner v6 the exterior color is called Barcelona red metallic now this vehicle has only 15979 miles that is incredible. So you have 16 inch alloy wheels. There is Bluetooth backup camera There's a clean car facts, and it was locally owned now that interior isn't a graphite Mileage again. I will say it again is fifteen thousand nine hundred and seventy nine the price is twenty nine thousand Does have the lowest miles and best value within two hundred and fifty miles So if you all have any questions feel free to let us know all of our contact information is listed right here Thanks everyone. I'll see you soon. Bye