I'll call the meeting to order then for Tuesday, January 16, 2018, and we're going to start with the Pledge of Allegiance, and it's Chief Brent no longer here. All right. Well, how about... Is he here? Chief Brent, will you lead us, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. All right. I next hand it over to our city manager, Dr. Dorn, who will give us instructions for emergency exits. First of all, everybody be careful tonight. There can be water on the floor from melting snow. And we don't want anybody to slip on the tile here. If we do have an emergency and need to leave immediately, please go out one of the two doors here and out into the parking lot and gather out there. If this area is blocked, proceed out back through these doors and out to the main entrance, go out the front, pass the flag, and then head over to the parking lot. Tom and I will be responsible for making sure the building is clear. Thank you. Agenda item number three is the agenda review where we can make additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. I have been made aware of one needed change, which is item D under number seven, the consent agenda, to bring that out into the regular meeting. I have three suggestions. I'm open to your ideas as well to make it 4A, 5A, or 7A. Ideally Justin Rabadou would be here. Yes. Our Director of Public Works. Just say 4. So after we recognize the retiring staff or after the comments and questions from the public. We want to add a 4A. Would you like to do the 4A right after the retiring staff? Yes. Okay. Very good. Then we will do that. Thank you. Well, I was just asking what you were adding besides 4A. Is there any other? It's the necessity resolution for borrowing the Bartlett Bay wastewater facility system improvements. Okay. 7D, that we're going to be moving now to right after we recognize the retiring staff. And I have two items to add to other business at the end, Megan. One related to the request to meet with the SBBA and one a follow up to the Wheeler Conservation Report. And I have an item for other business as well. Okay. So I have a general discussion about the possibility of having a non-binding referendum in the March vote on raising the smoking age in Vermont to 21. So that's the third item. Tim, I didn't hear you kick clearly. You didn't hear me clearly? No. So for other business, I wanted to have a general discussion about the possibility of a referendum item to raise the age to 21 for smoking non-binding in Vermont. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. No, but I would like to bring up one item when we get to new business and it happened to, and it's just a general point out there, an interesting article that was talked about on rental registries that was in today's paper, and I just have a couple of comments I'd like to share. Okay. So that's the fourth item. And I do want to make clear to everyone that our chair is joining us via the telephone. I am the acting chair tonight while she is out visiting her daughters. Okay. We will move on then to item number four, which is recognizing our retiring staff. So I believe we have two members here with us tonight. We have Darla Champ, I'm sorry, Champine, I only called you Darla all the years I've been to your window. And Karen Plantier is the French, Plantier sounds correct. All right. Will you two please join us and I will read these two resolutions. Should we do this one at a time or both together? I think they'd rather be together. All right. Very good. So if you don't mind, please stand so the camera can catch you and the audience can see you. So we'll start with Darla Champ, Champine, from Recreation and Parks Department. And this is our resolution. Whereas on September 24th, 1979, Darla began employment with recreation and parks in the city of South Burlington. And whereas on July 1st, 1970, the city of South Burlington, Vermont formed the South Burlington Recreation and Parks Department for its citizens. And whereas on September 24th, 1979, the South Burlington Recreation Department appointed Darla Champine to be the first full-time administrative assistant. And whereas for 38 years, Darla administered daily operations and performed routine clerical office and record keeping functions for the Recreation and Parks Department. And whereas throughout her career, Darla continued to support the coordination of activities between all staff and other departments within the city and performed other tasks as needed. And whereas Darla maintained communication with the public by letters, phone calls, email, and in person with respect to department activities and supporting our state organization Vermont Recreation and Parks Association. And whereas Darla maintained records, including programs, facilities, schedules, registrations, permits, and data entry of information as an important team member for department and citizens. Now therefore, let it be resolved that we, the undersigned members of the South Burlington City Council, on behalf of all officials, employees, and citizens of the city of South Burlington, do hereby express to Darla Champine our appreciation for her generous contributions of time, knowledge, and experience that she has given to the city of South Burlington and wish her the very best in her retirement. Let it be further resolved that a copy of this resolution be placed in the permanent records of the city of South Burlington and a copy be presented to Darla on Tuesday, January 16th, 2018, at the meeting of the South Burlington City Council in the presence of her family, friends, and co-workers, and I think she deserves it. And now for Karen Plantier of the Public Works Department. Whereas in 1989, Karen began employment with the Department of Public Works in the city of South Burlington, and whereas for 29 years, Karen administered daily operations and performed routine clerical, office, and record keeping functions for the Department of Public Works, and whereas throughout her career, Karen continued to support the coordination of activities between all staff and other departments within the city and performed other tasks as needed, and whereas in addition to being the public face of the Department's customer service, Karen also provided a special role to all her fellow Public Works employees in assisting them with both their daily professional and personal lives, and whereas Karen maintained internal and external building records, personnel files, ongoing department budgets, and additionally was well recognized by the city's finance office as someone who always filed her budget reports and payroll in a very timely manner. That's important. Now therefore, let it be resolved that we, the undersigned members of the South Burlington City Council, on behalf of all officials, employees, and citizens of the city of South Burlington, do hereby express to Karen Plantier our appreciation for her generous contributions of time, knowledge, and experience that she has given to the city of South Burlington and wish her the very best in her retirement. Let it be further resolved that a copy of this resolution be placed in the permanent records of the city of South Burlington, and a copy be presented, there's a mistake, to Karen on Tuesday, January 16th, 2018 at the meeting of the South Burlington City Council in the presence of her family, friends, and co-workers, and she too. We will join you. I will hand these to you, but there is a little typo in this one. Okay. Okay. It's not a question. You there, Helen? We're just letting, we're letting the merry makers make their way, and they're being very quiet, so I think we're going to continue. But congratulations to you both, and last to celebrate, and big shoes to fill. We're going to move on now to item 4A, which was just added. And this was originally item 7D from the Consent Agenda, the Necessity Resolution for Borrowing Bartlett Bay Wastewater Facility System Improvements. Hello. This is Justice. Thank you for the indulgence. Since we submitted paperwork to you, we've had additional discussions with the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank, who also has, it's worth noting for the first time in a long time, has a new staff kind of going through this process as opposed to the person we have historically dealt with, thus the reason for some resubmission of the documents in front of you. The action we're looking to take here tonight is to have the council endorse ballot language for the election in March, for the borrowing of up to $2.98 million of the sewer fund. And I understand the way the ballot reads. It's not going to be that explicit. Hopefully we can spread the word a bit about who actually is paying for this and what it actually means. Comprised within the $2.98 million are roughly $700,000, $800,000 of grants and loan forgiveness. If you remember, we kept coming back to you with additional requests for funding. Eventually, we're going to be on the hook for about $2.1 million. They're asking for us, since it's a reimbursement program, and we technically have to float all the money in the payments and get reimbursed on the back end. The ask of us is to bond for the entire amount, with the understanding that we're actually only need to borrow a smaller amount, but that's just the way they work. So it's worth noting that if we borrow the $2.1 million over a 10-year period at zero interest, that's $210,000 a year, which is less than what we paid to Burlington to treat this sewer. So as we've been saying all along, this will be a cash positive project in year one for us. And the extent to which it's cash positive will increase annually as the sewer rate to our north increases. Some of the earlier information given to you had a little, we didn't assume that we were going to be able to get either loan forgiveness or some flat-out grants. So I had some kind of worst case scenario, but still very good ROIs, and they're obviously even better now tonight. So what in conjunction with City Attorney Andrew Balduck, we have prepared a resolution. There's also the warning that's part of the annual budget, and then the actual item as it would read on the ballot, part of the package that we prepared for you tonight. And my understanding is it is necessary for the Council to endorse this via the resolution and then take all the appropriate steps. And I believe even later in this evening tonight, there's going to be more discussion about the actual language on the official ballot. Quick question. Chair. Oh, yes, please. So you laid out 10-year horizon, but this capital improvement has a lifespan beyond 10 years. Yeah, 10 years is just a loan repayment. In South Burlington, we're replacing pump stations, and of which this project will involve two new upgraded pump stations, roughly every 30 years, and new sewer main, be it gravity or force main, which is pressurized because you're going uphill. Life cycle of, I don't know, 75 to 100 years, or if we're shorter, if we have an unfortunate situation. But yeah, it's a 10-year debt. The infrastructure has decades of useful life being in that. Is this the only piece of our system that is being serviced by another community? Yes. Okay. And I believe you had just said, I just wanted to clarify that, obviously, and what I would believe is that the price to Burlington would have been going up every year on this and we will have a pretty much fixed area there. Yes, that is correct. The gap between what our loan repayment is and what our otherwise payment to Burlington will certainly increase with whatever their rate increases annually. Okay. Are there questions? So the ballot warning is only for Bartlett Bay? Yes. And that's $2.98 million. And so what is the cost of taxpayers for this? So $2.98 million represents the city share of this project. It's a larger undertaking involving work also with Champlain Water District. They are basically, they have two transmission mains running out of town. They run on essentially the north and south side of Farrell Street. While we're gripping this section of road up, they're basically going to connect those two sections. So the total project cost is about $4 million. Million of that is Champlain Water and the $2.98 is the city. That represents the value of our work. It doesn't represent the actual loan that we'll eventually have to repay. But it's the total value of the work for the city project. So Champlain Water District wants to do some work on their clean water mains while you're doing work on the sewer water on the Hadley Road section. They're going to be going basically north-south underneath Farrell Street over to a point just west of kind of Rice High School. It's creating interconnectivity which results in more system reliability in the event of an outage on either end of it. It's a mutual project. The city is the lead on the project just financially with a bigger part of it. Well, I think having the residents understand that we are already paying money to have that part of the city sewer handle that I think the way it was explained tonight was great and simple for the taxpayers to understand that we're not looking really at new expenditures but just reallocating what we're spending now. This money will come from sewer rate payers which is an enterprise fund separate from the general tax base. However, regardless of what your bonding for is municipality, you have to back it with a full faith of the general tax base. So that's why it reads the way it does and hopefully if we can either come back to the council before and definitely at annual meeting night. Is it considered more as a general revenue bond? It's a Vermont municipal bond bank. So we are not taking a revenue anticipation note. There's a variety of financing tools we could have used for this but the Vermont bond bank at 0% with the forgiveness and the grants was the best one on the table to the city. I do have one question. I apologize if you're repeating what you answered to Councillor Chittenden. Is this simply connecting those lines to our sewer system or is there also an update that's going to be occurring at the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment plant? This project will simply reroute the sewer. Disconnect from Burlington and send it to Bartlett Bay. Not to be confused with the upgrade and expansion that's coming down in a few years at Bartlett Bay. The two are unrelated except for the fact that Bartlett Bay has the hydraulic capacity and the nutrient load capacity to handle this additional flow. Okay, that's good to know too. You wouldn't have gotten this far in the permit process with the state if we didn't, but it's worth saying. So when you were giving us the lifespan that was specifically for the pipes? Yeah, that's for the new infrastructure that's being built as part of this project. Okay. Very good. Any other questions, Councillors? All right. So I believe that he is looking for approval of the ballot language as well as the resolution and it's. Good morning. Oh, just passed the resolution with references. Resolution. What? Or just the resolution is what I just understood, so just one motion to approve the resolution. I move to. For incurring bonded debt. That's it. I move to approve the resolution as presented. So. Very good. And I will just read that. Necessity resolution for incurring bonded debt for infrastructure improvements to Bartlett Bay wastewater. What's the T? Treatment facilities. Treatment facilities. Thank you. Okay. Any more discussion? All in favour? Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. That was unanimous. Thank you. I heard an item you're going to talk about later about rental registry. You may have caught the article in seven days last week on this very topic. It was under the guise of health officers. I was interviewed for about 20 minutes for that article. The information I presented, I think was was fairly positive. None of it made its way into the article. If you read the headline, you can make an inference as to maybe why that wasn't in there. But there is, there does appear to be some sort of grounds well, both at the local and state level for perhaps more rental registry. So I'd be glad to come back at a future time to discuss at least what's happening in South Brompton. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Then we're going to move on to item number five, comments and questions from the public not rated or not related to the agenda. And I don't see anybody here. So we're going to move on to item number six, announcements and city manager's report. And so we're going to start. I'll start here with Tim on my right. Not much report other than I attended the, the SBBA meeting last week at VHB, which is the IDX building, Chauvin Road and listened to the Chamber of Commerce talk about workforce issues in Vermont and how we need to attract, was it 1,800 people a year to come live here to enter the workforce? I just say if you're retired, come out of retirement and start working again, that would solve the problem. Thank you. Even if it was part time.  And then later on I attended the legislative luncheon. Okay. Can I ask a question? You may. How many fields do they need employees, workers? That's a good question. I think it's probably all fields, services, tech, you name it, especially health care. And it's probably all levels too. And so you have that problem where you've got cost of housing, cost of transportation, lack of housing, lack of the type of housing that you want. If you have professionals that are thinking to come here, then they look at what's available with realtors and they go, they're coming from a lower cost housing community, they go, I can't afford that. But there are different layers to that cake. So every layer should participate. It's going to be an interesting challenge. All right. Thank you. I would have liked to have made it there. And so the luncheon I was out of town that day. I'm sorry, Pat. Well, there was a pension meeting today that I attended online, on phone, I should say. And these gentlemen that are going to report tonight. And we had, I think, is good news for our pension fund doing a great job. But I will hold off on that until they make their presentation. And there is an airport commission meeting later this week. Okay. Very good. We'll hear about that next time. Tom. I attended the same SBBA meeting. I remember her saying a lot of states or state professionals in her same position are always screaming jobs, jobs, jobs, and she's screaming, I need workers, workers, workers. So Vermont is, is envious problem of having so many, has a very low unemployment rate that she was talking about building up the workforce. I don't remember the specific skills, though. I don't think she spoke to that other than that, I had a GMT meeting report, but I'll debrief on that later on the agenda. There was, I'll add one piece, there was an interesting piece I was looking on, on line at Vermont Tech. And apparently their enrollment was down or something and their faculty, I think in the last year was asked to take a pretty significant pay cut and on some benefits. So I think it is, it's kind of a two-fold piece. We haven't got enough people out going into the education system, not only that don't stay here as we see at our university and so on, but that we have circumstances I think within our state colleges that they're not getting the enrollment. So I guess I'm not sure whether that goes back high school and getting the encouragement to have them continue or what. So that or we are losing more to other state schools. Anyway. Thank you. Tying into the employment. I think the meetings I would have attended, I couldn't attend, so I am going to pass it over to Kevin. I don't have a whole lot, I was sick for the meeting at SBBA and you're all better off not having me there. Representative Townsend has introduced two bills in the legislature relating to the airport and airport governance. One is a pure study bill, calling for a study. The other is essentially what you had requested by way of city council final say over the provisions of the NCP, the noise compatibility program that affects South Burlington. Let's see. We have begun our dialogue at the staff level about the broad sustainability project that we want to engage in with the council over the next few months. I think you'll see multiple areas that we're going to want to discuss with you from financial to services to energy and conservation and so on. That has begun at the staff level. And then I have three things for you at the other business. Very good. All right. So we will keep it up. We don't have bill numbers on that yet, do we? My guess is they were assigned today, but I don't know, I think you put them in on Friday. They are probably assigned bill numbers today, but I'll contact them. All good. All right. So item number seven, which is the consent agenda. We have the disbursement. We have the minutes of December 18th and January 2nd. And finally, we have the formal acceptance of easements for market street right of way project, LBCMT 2007-C3 Dorset Street LLC, Dorset Street Investment Group LLC, Dorset Square Associates, Century Partners LP, Rich Burlington Hotel LLC, Poon Trust LLC, South Burlington City Center LLC, Chastonay Estates, Black Bay Ventures 8 LLC. So is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So, second. Third. I see that Pat made the motion. I heard Pat's motion. Is there a second to Pat's motion? Second. Very good. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. We have the meeting unanimously. And now we have Council's reports from Committee Assignments. And I believe that's Tom. The brief, we had a leadership committee meeting last week. Last Thursday we're starting the process to review the general manager for the first time. It's his one year annual. He's only been here a year now. And then also at the board meeting this morning at 7.30 a.m., we started to get the presentation from the next gen report on our fair analysis. And they've looked at five different options to balance service improvements with ridership improvement versus revenue generation. So nothing was set in stone, nothing is recommended yet. They just started to paint the picture for what we're looking at with possible fair changes to GMT. One of the alternatives is this very often discussed fair-free model, which is common in other parts of the country. So we are looking at that, but things cost money. And so fair-free is something that as much as we're intrigued by it, we really need to see the numbers work itself out. So not much more to report.  What about electric buses in the VW settlement? We just also approved the letter today strongly supporting the use of the money for electric buses and we are buying for electric buses. So how big are they? I don't know. Gilligs. So just this big? Yeah, definitely. I will get the sizes for you. Are they, you think they're relatively like the ones you have today? Yes. I believe they are the same size, full size. Well, I wouldn't want to have to pay to charge those things. Okay. Not much of an automotive guy, but I will get the specs. I rode a new bus this morning. We have eight new buses as well. Yeah. Yeah. So brand new that my UVM pass didn't even work. Oh, nice. They had it updated. Oh, nice. UVM's happy, I guess. So, but yeah, brand new. Brand spanking new. I think there'll be 12 total new ones. Eight are now deployed. Is there federal money available for buying those? Is that what helped with that? Yes. That was approved a couple of cycles ago. I'm just curious when they take buses out of service or are they taking them out of service or are they adding this to the fleet? A little bit of both. So I believe two are for some service improvements, but most of them are replacement of older stock. And are they curiosity? Are they sold to other communities or? We do sell them. I don't know who's been buying them. So now I feel like I'm doing a terrible job as your representative. But the other thing that I need to note is that we need an alternate to the GMT. And Kevin suggested that if any of the other counselors wanted to serve, nobody responded to the announcements posted this summer. So we still are looking for a South Burlington alternate to GMT. Okay. So if any of you are interested, but I will look into the. Well, the reason that I asked is, is when we sell off one of our old fire trucks, it usually goes to some other area. And I was just curious how the financing went on, not what it cost about the buses, but when they were taken out of service where they went. There is an item in the budget for recouped value of sold vehicles. So I do know we get some monies. I don't know someday when you find out, there's a desert spot in Arizona where they park all of the transit buses. Like they do the airplanes, you know, probably it's probably up in Arizona. Area 51 is 52. All right. All right. Very good. I did see a Chicago transit bus riding down. I think it was interstate 90. Anyway, it was interesting. Nowhere near Chicago. Next, we have you two to come up here please. We're going to have Ivan number nine presentation from SEI for the South Wellington retirement income plan. And we have Cap as the lead man on our, is that the... Yes. Both of you I'm sure have something to say. And Michael Burke who works with our advisory team to help support the plan as well. So does everyone have a copy of the presentation? I do. Great. So we'll start on page three, just a quick SEI update. We are an outsourced chief investment officer. That's the platform we offer to your investment plan. What that means is we do pretty much everything. We come in with advice. We make recommendations. And then once we decide on that, we're full fiduciary with respects to all the manager changes we make underneath the hood. So the hiring and firing of money managers over time. So we take on full fiduciary responsibility for that. So we'll see funds later on in the presentation. Each of those funds have multiple managers and it's a very well diversified portfolio. A couple of other updates. We just received the award for that actually. A national award about a month ago was presented from the Fund Intelligence 2017. It was awarded to us in New York City. So we're the top provider to pension plans with that OCIO model that we have today. So we're very pleased about that. We have our institutional group which services the pension plan has 93 billion in assets under management. So that continues to grow. Obviously it's growing with the market as well and new clients and new monies from existing clients and 325 billion in total worldwide assets. So we're a big company and we continue to grow. And we're very highly scrutinized, honored to publicly trade a company and we're doing well. So that's important I think from a fiduciary standpoint to know that we're a healthy company right now. So I'll hand it over to Mike to go through the next couple of slides. Okay great. Good evening everyone. What I'd like to do is take us through starting on page 5 and just provide a brief summary. We spent quite a bit of time earlier today taking a bit of a deeper dive. What I'll try to do is keep my comments summarized and I'll try to make sure I cover kind of all angles in a concise manner. So on page 5 I think the chart that you see on the right hand side really helped sum up where and how we saw the performance of the overall plan. We saw over 15% in the calendar year of 2017 and we're very happy with those results because we got there with a very broadly diversified portfolio. One that's globally diversified and diversified amongst managers as well. For many years it was really a story of just U.S. equity performance and no place else. It's kind of been a change in 2017 as you see on the chart. The broad globally diversified portfolio has been working. Non-U.S. equities have done quite well. There was international stocks both developed and emerging markets and across the fixed income space. It wasn't just about traditional fixed income but areas like high yield and emerging market debt which are represented in the portfolio as well saw a very nice return for the year. So again just to summarize we've been very happy with the absolute returns and where we've been getting it in such a diversified manner. Page 6 really takes a step back and says where were we thinking as we entered 2017 or what were we thinking? What maybe was a surprise to us? Where did we feel like we got things right? The portfolio has really benefited from SEI's view that we thought it would be another positive environment in 2017. Where we were a bit surprised was just how strong the performance would have been. We thought that the U.S. political agenda, the U.S. political scene would have set the stage for markets reacting to repeal and replace, tax reform. We thought 2017 at the time of election was also going to include some form of infrastructure or deregulation. We really haven't seen all of that come to fruition except for the exception of tax reform but at the same time we've seen a broader global synchronization which has really kind of helped buoy the markets. Again we feel as we move into 2018 we are due for some volatility. We think that it's been a very quiet year. Markets have kind of gone up rather steadily. We expect more of a volatile market going forward. Our portfolios being as diversified as they are and to benefit if we saw a little bit more volatility we think we'd smooth that ride out a little bit easier or better than some others based on kind of the way we're built. So I think the other one last point that I'll make is a lot of questions we've been getting from clients is that the markets feel very expensive right now. We've kind of moved very fast to kind of such elevated levels. Part of what gives us a little bit of comfort, well we certainly recognize that and we would argue that we are certainly due for a little bit of a sell-off, say a garden variety 5% to 10% sell-off we think would be a healthy check to the marketplace. But the low interest rate environment, the low inflationary environment we think allows these valuations to be a little bit more on the elevated side until we start to see some surprises and things like inflation. If we were to see interest rates move meaningfully higher in a rather quick fashion we'd be a little bit more concerned. Today we think the portfolio is well positioned and we think the trend is our friend a little bit right now and we're going to continue to look at this portfolio. We'll work with the committee to make some changes or as we see fit as we continue to move through the year but as it sits right now moving into 2018 we're still comfortable with where the portfolio stands. Any general, I tried to summarize instead of going through all of these slides but any general questions that I can help answer we'll go through the numbers in the portfolio as well. I think probably the only question, well one of the questions that I had asked today is in looking ahead I might be getting ahead of myself here but I did want to comment that when we got up to page 6 that is a new piece and I really like that part that was put in but my curious point was do you believe that with some of the changes we've had that are in there and I'll address both the equity and the fixed market with this but on the fixed market side do you feel that as far as the feds raising the rates has already been taken into consideration and do you feel on the equity side that we have already seen I know as you're saying there that we should be expecting at some point a correction and I mean I understand that but do you feel that it is everything has already been considered under the changing tax code that is coming out especially with corporate on the fixed income side when we think about the fed they've been very consistent with the way that they've been communicating to the market there we would say we're pretty well priced in the expectation that we have which is not uncommon versus many of our other peers is that three to four interest rate hikes as we move through 2018 is to be expected on the equity side tax reform is one that I think still is trying to be priced into the market right now you have from a tax rate standpoint a lot more clarity as companies begin the earnings cycle again reporting earnings which has just kind of kicked off and will last a month and a half or so you're getting a little bit more clarity on what these companies think they'll be paying in 2018 where we see some potential for some surprises potentially to the upside is areas like a repatriation holiday a lot of these companies have all this cash parked overseas if they're able to bring that back to the U.S. with a lower tax rate applied to it what are they going to do with that cash what could we see a lot of folks a lot of folks think what they'll do is well but what they would do is share buybacks increase dividends shareholder friendly activity that would be a little bit of a tailwind to what we continue to see right now does Apple have an Ireland like 30 billion what is it well there's about two and a half trillion dollars and that's really just using the top 20 companies that have all this cash Apple's size in that is hundreds of billions of dollars it's incredible Helen I just heard you and I apologize I haven't made a specific point of asking if you have something to ask do you have something to ask of Mike no I don't it sounds like things are going in the right direction and that's great I have another question I don't want to drag this out because this is a really concise summarization of what's of the good news that I think everybody experienced in the previous year and I know you don't have a crystal ball if you did you'd be paid a lot more so but how do you believe that you expected worse or higher geopolitical risk but we actually had less than you thought I mean I guess I understand that but to me right now in terms of watching the market watching international economies improve that there are these geopolitical risks out there and there are probably maybe there it seems like just from the media's point of view that there are more now than there have been in the past mainly because of some missile activity you know in the Korean Peninsula but on the other hand you have what seems to be greater stability in areas of the Middle East where in 2011 and 2012 there was a lot of emphasis on the fact that ISIS had taken over large swaths of Syria and that seems to have that tide has gone in the direction so which France so I just the biggest question mark here to me is the geopolitical risk we know there's going to be lots of cheap money around for a while the Fed's not going to raise interest rates too high there's going to be a ton of free cash coming because of the tax breaks for the corporations and possible repatriation the big question mark in my mind is like what is a grace one event sure sure so you're actually correct to answer the question of where did we feel like there would be more earlier in the year Brexit had a much bigger potential German elections French elections had a much bigger potential we thought that could have been much more disruptive than it actually was grace one events when we think about things that we know exist they don't actually come out of nowhere military actual military action with North Korea would certainly be one of them continued Middle East tech tensions that you brought up or even just simply the US political environment continue you know if it were to see some kind of deterioration of any kind of progress or general rhetoric we would you know it's those are the types of events that have the potential to spook investors they don't exactly come out of nowhere but you don't want to make wholesale changes to your portfolio as a result of trying to protect from that type of event in our well-diversified portfolio we feel like we're giving us the opportunity to kind of be as as reactionary as we can kind of under the hood the reason I say that is in areas like small cap equity for instance where it can tend to ride a more volatile kind of roller coaster of returns it's been doing very very well as of late we've been a little bit more cautious you know our managers under the hood have been a little bit more cautious we've been willing to give up some in the very very good times knowing that it would protect us in the downside so even though we sit here tonight and say we don't have any asset allocation changes we don't want to change how much equity we have underneath the hood we're being very active in trying to navigate each individual marketplace so just to kind of remind you of our manager of manager models allow us to do that as well Tom did you have any questions I have heard talk of us being in a potential bubble and I'd like to know your thoughts on that sure and it and you could look across many areas of the market to say that you know you could say fixed incomes or the treasury market is in a bubble you could say equity Bitcoin you could say a lot of places feel expensive or fully valued there really feels like there's not a great place to turn to that would deliver kind of true value again this is our idea of you know the fundamental backdrop for a lot of this is still intact in some of the material that we show tonight we say yes valuations are high we still recognize though that this is a growing economy the earnings picture for a lot of these companies continues to improve until we see some deterioration in the fundamental picture we're hesitant to make massive changes or kind of try to buck that trend that we're seeing a lot of investors are still coming into equity markets even in this new year which is hard to believe but there is you know a lot of inflows still coming in and we're hesitant to try to move against that at least here in January what would trigger a change sure meaningfully lower earnings expectations than what you know the market's trying to look for a deterioration in the growth across the globe internationally as well as the U.S. maybe a little bit more of a deterioration in the labor market you know that's been something that's been notably strong and it's been a little bit of a surprise the other thing too would be if inflationary pressures really start to kick in that's something that could spook some investors that would be a flag for us for instance those are some you know broad categories that could constantly you had mentioned earlier today when we had a meeting that specifically related to that to inflation if that started and we do have about 5% in an inflation adjusted type area could you just expand on that a little how that might change percentage wise or what have you yeah sure so there's a 5% allocation to something called the multi-asset real return fund the fund is designed to kind of protect the portfolio or allow the portfolio to benefit if we saw some inflationary environments across kind of the marketplace today it sits at a very low 5% and it hasn't really kept pace with the broad market but again we see that as a bit of an offset it's kind of our inflation hedge in the portfolio thankfully because it hasn't been doing well the rest of the portfolio has equities have done well those areas like high yield and emerging market debt have benefited it sits at a very low level today that would be something that we would look at as a tool in our toolkit to maybe increase if we were to see some of those inflationary pressures creep in so again we feel like we have the right tools set up we feel like we're allocated well today to continue to benefit just like we have in 2017 but we do stand ready to kind of make some changes if we see the market change for us so and would that have to come back to the committee for those approvals or would that be something that you could nimbly do yeah sure so is there a threshold for when you'd have to come back here that's what we paid for right yes so right now we're full fiduciary with respects to the changes we're making for the underlying managers but we have co-fiduciary with respects to making any asset allocation changes so we'll come and we'll make a recommendation and a couple of times I've actually had recommendations in between meetings and we've done quarrels through emails and so forth so like more recently earlier this year we increased international because we know the valuations on the U.S. side are a little bit more expensive there's areas in New Europe where we think they're attractive relative to the U.S. so we've made changes on the margin doing those types of things Tim asked my question about your high volatility anticipation relative to your geopolitical risk assessment and you answered it really well but I did want to I heard you say bitcoin to confirm none of our pension funds are in bitcoin right it's all in Kodak coin I can promise you with SEI that is not what you're getting as a solution good to know I guess that's a good thing today anyway packed up gone home closed the fund and parked it in you know so I have another question so you know March 9th 2009 was a dark time right and my feeling was that you know there seemed to be a lack of regulatory oversight previous to that time and that thing that happened was not totally unanticipated there were some people that capitalized on that quite nicely for themselves because they saw what was breaking down so the question is I mean in light of the fact that congress passed these massive corporate tax cuts and also some you know personal tax cuts do you see any regulatory irregularities that could participate or be potentially harmful to the country or international you know scenario economically not that it precipitated another breakdown like we had you know with subprime mortgages per se but I worry about that ourselves in the foot more often than somebody else so and that's the whole nature of capital markets right is that greed swells and then at bottom is it the bubble pops right so but I want to know if you have any opinion about our own regulatory environment not being adequate enough at this point we you know we naturally as when you talk about this topic we naturally look to kind of the financial sector as where you see that most right where and how strict are we being with the big banks to make sure that we're not kind of seeing the same type of behavior that we have seen in the past you know one thing that we look at today when we compare today versus say 2009 when taking all of that into account is how much speculation or leverage is in the system you know and how much of the regulatory environment is facilitating that today those leverage levels are low nonexistent you know much lower we see the growth today as a much healthier more organic growth so again we kind of look for the backdrop to help kind of provide some clarity we don't have a perfect answer on what is the right regulation level or where exactly do we need to see it but when we think about what is being discussed in Washington we look at that broader backdrop of where do we see speculative investing in the marketplace today is that providing unhealthy leverage in the system and do we have to kind of think more critically about that so I know it's a non-answer I apologize but I think it's you take that kind of leverage concept and apply it to where we're seeing discussions in Washington all right I do see that we're nearing 730 when we have a public hearing but am I holding any big question back here no if we need to contact you may we email you of course is it okay Kevin are we having any questions sorry what page is all of our contact information all right well I want to thank you Mike and Pat for traveling here to give us the report and may it be smooth sailing ahead there was just one item that I asked if the representatives would just let us know our bottom line numbers but also if you would just show us how broad the investments are because we had had a and it was several months back but we had a resident who felt that we were too narrow that we only had a certain number of like funds or whatever and I wanted that to be just reiterated to Mike for the record how broad the brushes that you use on the investment areas for the managers that are selected absolutely so why don't we just hit the numbers really briefly on page 14 we have your all the funds you're invested in today which again are multiple managers I'll talk to you was at 33.5 million at the end of December 31st I got an update through yesterday it was at 34 million four hundred forty six thousand two nine so we've had a nice run here so far in January it's pretty significant increase in one month so far page 15 just to focus on your fiscal year to date you can see the fiscal year to date line there this is it's a six month period so far we're halfway through the portfolio was up eight percent seven point six four percent net of fees we're outpacing the index on the fiscal year to date basis at the total portfolio level and answer the question and then I'll just jump to slide 30 in the back to answer Pat's other question just for instance here if you look at the world equity strategy we have multiple managers within the strategy that we hire on your behalf we constantly evaluate backup managers sometimes we'll fire these managers there might be some sort of organizational change or different investment philosophies and we'll make adjustments as necessary in the portfolio so again that's just one of the funds you're in you can see it's very well diversified in the multiple manager approach and the nicest part is that when you have any question on a manager whether you're hiring one or you are letting one go we have the information in here that talks about the reason why and what that's going to cover so again it was just that this was brought up and has been on several occasions and I think going over that one more time to show how broad the list of managers are is pretty impressive there too when did you start with us what year are you looking for? I'm looking for five years so August of this year will be our five year anniversary 2012, August of 2013 13 okay well thank you thank you thanks guys thanks Megan just ask to have the report that you all have email committee I will send this to Helen we've got it in email we'll send it right out to you thank you very much I could forward her a moment Helen I got mine by email I will forward that to you oh super thank you sure so we're just past 7.30 we have a public game scheduled on South Burlington application for a Vermont community development program grant related to a proposed housing development sponsored by Champlain Housing Trust and possible approval resolution for VCDP grant application authority and we're going to start with Kevin Dorn who's going to explain this to us so the first thing we'll do tonight is go into a public hearing and open it up to the public this has been a warned public hearing the advertising was handled in the paper appropriately and take questions from the public and then you can ask questions of our partners here I'm not an applicant but we won't be actually building an Amy and Ken are here to talk about what the project is I need a motion to enter into the public hearing so moved second I don't see members of the public but if there is someone maybe anybody who has a question all right so and it's up to us then to have a discussion here would you like to go ahead and talk to us a little bit first thank you for considering this application I'm Amy Dimetruits with the Champlain Housing Trust and we're partnering with Snyder Braverman on the construction of 60 affordable apartments in city center so Ken's here to talk about that partnership event yeah we're extremely excited that announcing our partnership with CHD Champlain Housing Trust and Housing Vermont as you guys know a vital part of city center is creating an inclusive community that will include affordable and mixed income housing and we think the most effective way of delivering those housing units are through public private partnerships with non-profit partners we've successfully done that as you guys know with Cathedral Square and we're kind of replicating that model with the Champlain Housing Trust and Housing Vermont as you guys know affordable housing resources are incredibly scarce and very competitive throughout the state and we appreciate everything that you guys have done to help support this and last year both city staff Kevin and his team and the entire city council including counselor Emery really kind of did everything that was necessary to help support that dream from becoming a reality and we think we're well positioned again this year to make that happen and effectively bring these resources back to the city and we're going to do that and we're going to do that at Burlington to help make this project happen and I could hand it off to Amy to talk more about the details of the project but thank you again for your support yes thank you very much for your support so the project that we're talking about now is 60 new apartments and we would be building that Snyder Braverman will actually be getting all of the permits will be building the infrastructure will be building the actual apartment building two hour specifications and then we will be purchasing it when it's complete we are requesting and we've done that two times previously it's worked beautifully they're great builders and it's a really wonderful partnership it's been very successful we are asking for 625,000 in a grant that's federal CDBG money that comes to the state and only municipalities are able to request that money from the state so we're asking that south Burlington be the sponsor of that application that's 625,000 but it's a $17 million project so we have many other sources as Ken alluded to we're applying for low income housing tax credits and we're also applying for a new housing agency in April with a request for those funds those are very competitive and actually on the 24th of January we're in front of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board with a big request for funding and that's directly coming from the bond financing that the state was able to allocate seeing the incredible need for affordable housing the state allocated a $35 million bond for the production of new housing for that funding and that will be happening next week so it's a great way to bring those resources back to south Burlington south Burlington has identified the sort of desperate need for affordable rental housing in south Burlington as well as the Chittin County area and this is in response to things like the affordable needs assessment that the city did back in 2013 sort of a direct response to that identified need meaning a mix of one, two some three bedroom and even some four bedroom apartments because we've really found that there's a need for larger units, larger families we are targeting a broad range of incomes with those apartments including nine that will be specifically targeted to folks who are either experiencing or are at risk of homelessness so nine of those households we also on the other end will have 18 of the apartments will be sent to 120% of median income so it's really going to be a broad range of incomes that are served here are going to be able to live in will there be some that is market market rate? those are those 18 that's a part of the 18 and the project will be located on the northeast corner of garden and market and it will be a four-story building four-story building over parking located as you know city center is really an ideal location we're so excited to be able to bring affordable housing there so close to all the schools and all the services and jobs and the bus it's really a great location and this is in the T4 of the form-based code zoning district so we're obviously along with Paul and his staff becoming probably the next largest experts in the form-based code but that's going pretty well the pieces are coming together in terms of design and how we all kind of feel about the direction of the project and how that kind of connects with the code we think that that's all going to work great we've been having regular meetings with Ken and Chris they're taking the lead in getting the project through the permitting and it's their architect who's doing the design and we're having some significant input into how the building is designed but they're taking the lead on that that's part of that turnkey model so the way that this application would work very much like with Cathedral Square we try to take on the administrative burden so that your staff doesn't have as much to do the town always retains that financial responsibility but we'll be writing the application we'll be responding to requests for further information from the state we'll be taking the lead in any monitoring and reporting needed for the grant the grant comes to the city as a grant and then we would be asking for it to be loaned into our new housing partnership that will own the property that's part of the model that it needs to come into that project as a loan as part of the tax credit structure for the low-income housing tax credits so it'll actually be a 0% 30-year deferred loan to the partnership from the city on the city's books in that way and it's likely that in 30 years we'll come and say we'd like to continue this as affordable housing would you extend that loan so if any of you plan to be around in 30 years just remember I said that we all plan to be around that there's no end it's possible and the updates that we would have on this I mean obviously they're going to go through our administration and so on but we will expect that we will have council updates as well as we go through absolutely and even after it's funded and built we'll annually send you an audit of the property so you'll always have access to whatever information you want about the project so the way the process works you have a resolution that you're considering today the application is actually due on February 6th so I've been working away on finishing up that application and then there's a VCDP board meeting where the VCDP board considers our application on April 2nd and at that point probably on the 13th we'll know if we're successful or not I've got a pretty good feeling about this but those resources are also very competitive so certainly not a sure bet I did see Mr. Britt come in did you come in for the hearing or for another item okay very good okay so I think now the council is turning before we come out of the public hearing we can ask them questions now so are there questions? yeah so the T4 is four stories the maximum? yes and are you going to build a steel spine building with wooden partitions that'll be pre-delivered pre-fabricated? it'll be a parking garage the first story will be both a combination of steel and wood depending on how the structural lays out and then three stories of wood frame construction above that probably like brick veneer everything that meets the form based code there's a clear kind of guidance on materials materials that are suggested specifically materials that are prohibited but the plans that we're currently reviewing have largely break on the facade so you should be able to do it on one piece of paper in your application right to this that was the theory yeah I think it ends up being more like a dozen it's still very streamlined we're pretty excited about it do you have some elevations yet? we don't in terms of we're making progress but we we hope to have those wrapped up shortly I just hope and this is a bias right is that as I've traveled around architects seem to like leave their presence presence as in gifts all over different counties and different states you see the same themes running through different new housing projects I would hope that you would be able to instill in your design team something that would try to be a departure from the average that happens everywhere else and I'm not going to name other designs that I've seen because I don't want to belittle them all I can say is that we went through one heck of a process with the Trader Joe's right and they went through two architects in that process I think so and I know you'll probably end up doing a great job just keep that in mind that that building is going to be there for a long time so some of the design themes that you're going to have are probably going to be taken from other places and if you could just make it look interesting you know it would be nice I appreciate that guidance without having seen anything and I'm just voicing that concern early one thing I don't want to see is that driving down Marcus Street or Garden Street to see the same themes over and over and over again and I don't want to see the same things which is exactly what the form based code says doesn't have to be done right so Helen do you have something not a question just a comment I really support the comments that Tim was making with the encouragement and effort to really make it stand out a little bit more than what seems to be the kind of typical building that we see I think that would be wonderful and again I'm very very supportive of affordable housing and appreciate your interest in partnering with our city so we have access potentially to this $34 million state bond affordable housing so thank you for your efforts thank you Cat or Tom do you have any questions yeah I will just echo my two colleagues comments wooden steel sounds lovely with a warmth and a strength coming together and also just the project in itself I like the mixed income so in addition to affordable I think that the mixed income is really important and not just to be able to afford the address but also to live in a community where all kinds of people can live together so I think yes and as a design that just helps ensure that that goal so I wanted to stress that as well so I think we can have a motion to come out of the public hearing and then look at this resolution so moved second all in favor all right now we have a resolution before us and we can it is I can help you all I had it open here before my oh it's right here but it is on page 36 36 in our packets so this is the resolution for the grant application authority that's right and it also lists Amy Demetrovitz Demetrovitz to be the contact person and to complete the application Kevin Dorn is named he is the authorizing official for the grants management online system and telegrants it cites the receipt of VCDP funds move the adoption of the resolution for the VCDP grant application authority second any further discussion very good all in favor hi that was unanimous all right so good luck on the sixth fingers crossed okay so that takes us to item number 11 and we have our project director for the library city hall basically our city center guru here Alana Blanchard and she is going to be giving us an overview of this new project that we're having some visioning meetings for starting Thursday evening at 7 and then Saturday morning at 10 a.m. here I believe in this room two hour meetings where residents can come and they can share their ideas and construct a vision together for a new public library on market street free standing for the record Alana Blanchard project director and so I do have a short PowerPoint very short and Helen chairs and I also have a handout to provide some more information in depth and the top page is a page that you've already seen me for and the second just gives you a sense of the outreach plan for the engagement portion of this project these are all the same two documents here just one document just a top page in a that staple together that this project the end of the year contracted with wayman Humphries Pauly to start Sobu Spaces 2020 engage which is a design process for a library in city hall on market street and process will work with the public and stakeholders review existing conditions and material and look at different options for what a library in city hall that would be built in 2020 or open in 2020 would look like so this project follows the same process that we've used for all tiff district projects and that's a little small but all of the two squares are so the outreach phases the green circles are council actions and the orange are sort of for larger projects which this one while it's larger it's more specific to a smaller space so we don't have to go through a federal process fortunately for this project so this same process and right now this week is sort of the kickoff outreach and then in February the architect will be working with all of the information that they've collected to put together a purpose and need statement which the alternatives will then be tested against to be presented in March to the public once they've come up with a few viable options and look at how a city hall and library can fit together look at what types of spaces might be in each structure and look at how the site might be used so those are sort of the three schematic ideas that they'll be looking at and then in April that and actually I should say they're doing something that we asked them to do specifically which is once they presented to the public to take a single recommendation and present it the following Tuesday so they'll be turning it around rather quickly and they're doing that in part because they need a lot of time to do a cost estimate for the council presentation so before they start the cost estimate we wanted them to bring that generally put it out there and just get some feedback on it before beginning that phase so in April you will have a full concept for a library and a city hall to consider and you can see here's the full schedule so the portion that I just talked about takes us until just before May with the city council meeting in April at that point they will begin more of the specific design for the building so once the council has selected a concept we'll begin preparing public outreach for a November vote and the architects will begin moving the project forward in order to have it ready post-vote for estimating to sign a construction contract we will begin putting out a request for qualifications current right now for a phase 1, phase 2 construction management we have a risk contract which will have bring a contractor on board to assist us with estimating and scheduling for the project and then they will have the opportunity as long as there's a good working relationship to also manage the construction phase of the project so that will be a competitive process that will be undertaking this month and will bring that to you by the end of the middle of next month so that takes us through to the beginning of construction and then we have I believe it's just under a year for construction and then about a month and a half for move in and then opening so that's sort of the whole project there's obviously a lot of pieces to it and right now we're in the outreach phase and so as you can see that's the first part it sets the foundation for the rest of the project so we're reaching out to as many people as we can we're really pleased to see the coverage by the other paper on the front page there's also a half page on the last page of the other paper and we have a website up and we'll be going into this website to offer an opportunity for people to engage online that will begin right at the end of the first set of workshops we'll put the presentation up and ask for feedback as well as the same questions that people were asked during the presentations we have postcards that will be ready on Thursday to hand out to folks and we're also using social media and would live if you would also use your networks and do personal invitations we've asked the friends the library board of trustees and others who are interested in this project to reach out to any networks that you may have or organizations that you may be involved in and to pass on either social media or e-newsletters or just a personal invitation those go a long way to bringing people into the process so this is the postcard that is being printed we also have hashtags for this project so that people will be able to find it in social media and one of the and I wanted to give you a sense of what's happened and what's going to happen in terms of the big picture we have had a lot of outreach on the library and we've we've had it for many many years I have a feasibility study from 2006 that we used to apply for the TIF district designation we had another feasibility in 2013 there was a library visioning process in 2015 there have been mission statements both from the city hall and for the library we now have a site and we'll be looking at public input and staff input and then what opportunities there are for design and just to conclude and open this up for questions this is what we expect to hear this week at the presentations we're going to see a lot of ideas but I think what the architects really want to know from the community what is there in today's library in today's city hall that's really special and that we really love and want to see in spaces and then what do we love from somewhere else or just generally that we think should be in those spaces and then also what's very particular about south brolington that's really important and how does that get expressed in these new spaces so that pretty much concludes the overview and I also provided you with a handout and this just goes a little bit more depth into some of the media if you have any ideas let me know or if you have things that you would like to pass on or like us to push out about libraries about city hall we're happy to do that there's a purpose statement which we have on the website and we'll be sharing with the public and then just a list of some of the stakeholders and ideas about how we can talk about a new space so the types of things that it might do alright very good I think you does anybody have questions if you could go back to the timeline would it be fair to say the following that a lot of this work that we're starting in this week is so that at this point right here September 3rd we can go with a clear vision to the community what the library should look like where it will be and also what approximately it's going to cost yes correct so that will be for September 3rd even though the state permitting would still be occurring over that time but starting September 3rd we would have all of those visuals to present to the community April starting in April where are you oh sorry did you where are you handing out your cards so those will be at the public library and we'll be looking for businesses that can help out they'll be at city hall I think those are the main places that they would be I will say that my daughters elementary schools sent out a page asking people to attend so you're I'm assuming reaching out to all the schools to have families and attendants as well any other questions down here alright no but I would love to have had a copy of that I'll send out a copy of this thank you see you Saturday I'll see you Thursday my husband on Saturday alright very good that brings us to item number 12 I'm sorry Helen did you want to say okay please chirp in here so we have item number 12 which is consider amendments to city's newest sense ordinance this is the first reading potentially first reading potentially first reading and we have our city attorneys Andrew Bouldock here good evening I'm proposing two potential amendments stems from something that our police chief brought forward to me which is what it kind of boils down to is where our land development regulations are a little bit different than just speak up just a little louder where our land development regulations are a little bit different than our new sense ordinance where the DRB may approve a use that ends up being a violation of the new sense ordinance so the amendments here and certainly the first one is the exception in now new D8 which is noise from a permitted use in an applicable zoning district of the city's land development regulations provided it complies with the regulations specific performance standards for that district it's sort of a cleanup and it references to the noise performance standards in the land development regulations and I realize I didn't attach a copy of specific standards I'll just briefly read number one the creation of permitting or operation of any of the above sets, instruments, devices or vehicles causing said noise in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the building structure or vehicle from which noise emanates shall be prima facie evidence of a new sense and a violation of these regulations and Ray Belair our zoning to issue municipal tickets just as a police officer would be able to under the new sense ordinance so this would loop loop that in with the LDRs and number two is shall be a violation of these regulations for any property owner to create or allow the creation of noise and excess of the following state of the limits in the city during the hours of 12 and 8 a.m. 12 a.m. and 8 a.m. which is a weighted decibel average number which is the 45 dba based on one hour average measure that any point or the property on which noise emanates adjoins any property used for residential purposes and if it's commercial purposes it's 60 dba weighted one hour so that's the reference there the second amendment and I referenced a little bit and memo provided which is to expand C7 which used to read persons keeping this is a violation of noise ordinance persons keeping or harboring any dog or cat which by frequent or long continued noise deserves the comfort or repose of persons in the vicinity my recommended changes that's by far the most broad language we have in the new sense ordinance for any activity thought to provide a little bit more consistency with the rest is to amend persons keeping or harboring any dog or cat which by frequent or long continued noise unreasonably disturbs the peace or health that's language consistent with other sections of persons in the vicinity and is plainly audible between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. so those are a couple of thoughts about amendments to the new sense ordinance to kind of help the police chief with some enforcement I have a couple of questions are there other questions that people I am willing to let you go before I do I have a small one I'm fine with this I'm just looking at item 5 at the bottom of page 4 of the current new sense ordinance so the last paragraph of page 4 of the new sense ordinance is one of the noises from the following sources that shall be exempt from prohibition specified herein I just look at the first sentence and I feel like we're already permitting by the city these activities through our LDRs so I just I don't know if that's something you could stand on but it says events or activities conducted or by or permitted by the city our land development regulations permit that activity so it's already exempt I support your language changes with that term with that use since that's already an exempt activity activities that are permitted by us and I felt like our LDRs permit that through our zoning but you're the lawyer my reading of that that came up part of the original legal opinion but my general thought is that seems to be more events oriented rather than events or activities the general sense of that I read that to be parades large events I don't necessarily read an ongoing use of the property as following under that other questions thank you for this yes Helen on the change in the definition of 7 I'm just curious on your striking comfort or repose and replacing it with peace or health is it your opinion that peace or health is a broader concept or more narrow what would unreasonably be disturbed I think of it as probably a little bit more narrow but also a little bit more attainable and understandable from an enforcement standpoint more modern language yeah I don't know how that's determined either did your answer did your question get answered Helen I think peace or health is pretty broad actually I agree I guess the comfort is the health part in repose of peace it's okay I'm just curious what if this was language that's more universally used by other communities yeah this is the language that we already use in the in the ordinance so I was trying to mirror the language that we already had comfort and repose is something we don't use for any of the other noise provisions thank you yeah Tim has a question yes I remember this application at the DRB quite clearly yep I remember stating very clearly that I was afraid that the Rye property residents would be disturbed by the barking at Happy Tales lo and behold the neighbor has complied so this does not surprise me at all but it's really good that I think you've done a good job trying to solve this from a regulation point of view I have a comment about noise related trash pick up and removal between the hours of 8 and 6am number 8 now this is just a personal pet peeve of mine to me in a residential community where you have single multi-family homes in a strictly residential street I don't think any trash truck should be allowed in there before 7am and I would love to propose that we change that to 7 o'clock and I really don't care if it affects the schedules of some of the trash pickup people but I consider it to be a violation of my peace and health in the summertime when our windows are open for nice sleeping during spring summer and fall weather I have to listen to a trash truck roaring down the street and then operating its compressor and banging and picking up stuff so I don't know if we have any I have residents friends on Barrett street that complain about this a lot in the summertime they say they come through at 6am and it drives them nuts it's really loud and I I have voiced my complaints to the drivers sometimes and also to a couple well at least one operator back this is back in the early 2000s when my children were small and I wanted them to sleep I also wanted to sleep too I would hope the city council could entertain possibly even a change to move that out an hour to 7am just because you have to have a starting time for commercial enterprises and services that have to happen within residential area but you want to strike that balance between people that want to sleep past 6 o'clock in the morning and we do have a large share of retirees that don't have to get up that early so that's just a consideration I'd like us to think about it might be time to change that and to formalize it and then give residents the ability to complain to their carriers about it and tell them to stay out until 7am or later that's my only feedback on that is that the consensus of the council as you want to see it next draft I felt that 6am was a little early myself and the dog barking too not just for the trash pickup I'd love to hear from the haulers on a variety of topics if they want to come in and if they want to speak to this 6am topic but I live in a neighborhood obviously as well and the trucks come through fairly early I've had a client that owns a business that does hauling and he has sold it now to the next generation down but I'd be curious as to how this affects where they are required to take their refuse when they're going through the coventry or wherever they have to take it and how that might affect their drop off as well so while we may all feel a certain way I think we have to be cognizant of how the businesses function as well and to find out maybe from them is there a reason that it would be grossly unfair to ask for 7am starting to I will remind you that the second reading is a public hearing some of these concerns could be addressed at that time but I think a lot of times what we've found on the council is that even when we have a public hearing scheduled some people are just totally unaware of it until we come to the final vote I would hope that we would have enough notice out that people that are involved in this would see that I'd really be interested to hear from residents in the city who have an opinion on this at that public hearing personally I've had a lot of interaction with people about noise both in the last neighborhood I lived in and in the current neighborhood I mean I've gotten up at 5 o'clock in the morning and driven my car over to Dorset Farms to find the house that was across from my house where the two dogs barking in the backyard were left alone in this yard in this house on Bower Street to find out where that noise was coming from so clearly straight across like a speaker and you know it didn't ever happen again I'm not sure why but I never spoke to the people but I was able to identify if it did happen again I could call the police and tell them exactly the address it was coming from I've also driven over to Sadie Lane to confront the Snyder construction crew at 7.30 a.m. to tell them the police started building at 6.15 which was definitely not allowed by the existing ordinance and by the time I got upstairs to address the foreman in a very nice fashion he threw his hands up and said the police were already here because somebody already complained so I gotta let you know noise is a real problem with me noise when it's being generated when it shouldn't be generated is a real problem and I think it's a problem for everybody because it disturbs your quality of life and that's the theme here before earlier in the year or the end of last year I'm really interested to know if there's feedback from the community about these times whether we should shift them a little bit but your amendment looks good to me and to your point contractors that start early are subject to funds yeah and sometimes it's just education that's all it is and it's about how you approach it over the person the first time and just elucidate them about what our ordinance is and some build it into their budget and they know that they're going to start early and be fined unfortunately yes that happens and it does unfortunately we'll be open to the change Tim I live behind you and I just adopted a new dog just let me know if he's barking no it's not your dog it does not bark well that's what they all say I'm honest she has on rare occasions I was curious the distance between happy tales and the property that is making a complaint here that's a very good question I'm assuming it's over a couple hundred feet I'm not entirely sure I haven't been out and taken a look at the properties themselves yet I know it's not a direct a butter but I think there's kind of a long narrow strip a property strip that's between the two so it's not a huge distance is the business located on the Rye commercial property yes I don't know who it's currently owned by but I believe it was developed by part of that see now I never envisioned that the commercial aspect would be affected I was always concerned about the residential because they didn't have the plans at that point for what commercial would be there but looking at the practice that's there I could see why there would be a conflict well I just I want to say that I went online just to poke around other town's ordinances and what I found and I didn't find a lot but what I did find was that outside property line from kennels and residences it was 25 feet and from the rear line it was 50 feet so that was in California which is pretty strict generally and pretty sensitive to noise regulations so that entered into my thinking as well I really I am sensitive though to what you said about how our land development regulations enter into conflict with our ordinances which that's very regrettable yeah I think it's a good product to people that come forward and submit applications and our DRB as well as to have something that's workable within the universe that they look at to have to bring in other considerations that are outside of that it just makes things a little bit more challenging right and so a more philosophical question is this quick fix going to serve as long term I would certainly hope so yeah I mean you understand the through the numerous updates that we've done that a an ordinance update can be a relatively quick thing it can be done within a month you know it's on after the second close of the second reading in the public hearing then that it can be changed so I would like to think that if there are issues that come up with any of the amendments that we've done, any of our ordinances that we can always come back and I'll be right back in front of you and say we're seeing this issue we're having this enforcement struggle consider a change or a tweak that might that might be beneficial but my thought here is when we sort of punt some of this to the LDRs you know that's that's the the planning commission spends a lot of time focusing on this particular issue and how developments and how those uses will impact each other so it seems like and there is specific standards about noise so it does seem like the appropriate place for this to generally be regulated and that was my question for my colleagues here is this worthy of the planning commission's attention to think about buffers between I believe what was going to go in potentially was a timber plant of some kind so if you know I agree with Councillor Barrett I think that and I sent some wording to the planning staff about ways to design neighborhoods when there are concerns about noise putting garages between the home structure and the source of noise putting bedrooms on one side as opposed to another side I mean there are things that you can do to create buffers in our design regulations I would think that there might be a separate conversation from addressing this issue but I'm not against asking the planning commission if they've discussed this before or if it's on the priority list it's a longer term solution that would hopefully think of the problem globally as opposed to what I see as kind of a stop-gap measure here but still do the stop-gap measure I think that we entered into grandfathering I mean I don't know how I understand the stop-gap but we have a current situation here that we are responsible for in a way I'm not against doing both I don't think we should stop the stop-gap based on the memo that our lawyers provided it seems to make sense to support this course of action but I'm not against what you also described which is to ask the planning commission to explore sound buffers or developer eggs because we have that industrial open space and there's still a lot of space open there so I don't know that it's too late it's not I might know they have a full plate but are there other thoughts about that idea Helen do you have any reaction to that idea well it I have to say it's been very difficult for me to understand what anyone has said but I'm not sure what you're proposing I am proposing that in addition to this amendment to our ordinance that we ask the planning commission to consider development, residential development and commercial development where they abut to consider some land development regulations that would take into account the need for buffers so how to design okay I think that sounds reasonable the other question and I read through the ordinance but I wasn't certain where to look in the second amendment it's suggesting that or saying that they are exempt provided they comply with the regulation regulations specific performance standards for that district are there particular performance standards in terms of noise for all the districts is that I don't believe so and that's not yet I spoke with Paul with Paul Connor Helen directly on this question and I included that language in there because it there may very well be in the future the planning commission has it as a priority to have some sort of different sound performance standards for the industrial open space where we allow commercial and industrial and residential development so I think that relates to what Megan just proposed and I think that makes a lot of sense I also I suppose we imagine that the businesses that will will come to the first floor of the buildings being built in city center would have within their building design the kinds of noise mitigation that might be appropriate I mean you don't know what the business is until you I guess you want the space but I mean some businesses I suppose are a little noisier than others like a bar or a restaurant there are trucks that are hauling things away yeah so I don't know if that's included in the form based code and those regulations but maybe that's another place to look for some guidance do you mean city wide form based codes or city center form based codes well just in the city center form based codes we don't have city wide yet yeah so it's really two things looking at the form based code as they apply to city center and the potential businesses that might be on the ground floor with housing above and then the LDR for for the rest of the city this has already occurred I remember on Dorset street where we had a hair cutting salon kind of spa that was abutting a bar with live music and the peaceful spa was not too peaceful after a certain time right yeah and I think they did some sound mitigation as I recall to alleviate that but I think it's gone now and that's unfortunate and I think if there is a way in the LDRs to ensure that there can be compatibility between two abutting properties I think that would be only to everyone's benefit okay so we have before us this I have another question and you can dismiss this but in number two you say the operation permitting the operation of any radio stereo or other sound applications equipment from a motor vehicle that is audible 25 feet from such vehicle that's you know like radio stereo CD whatever it is music what about those vehicles that have had modified exhaust systems that are even louder than that are there other provisions and other ordinances that deal with that are there state ordinances for noise so let's take a motorcycle where the person has taken off the stock exhaust system putting through pipes which are extremely loud which can be very disturbing to residents if it's in a residential neighborhood when they ride in they ride out or they ride through to me that's just as disruptive as somebody driving through with a very loud stereo in their car there's no provision in here for that anywhere in terms of being a public nuisance and in fact those vehicles if they were inspected at that minute that they were stopped would probably fail because they didn't have the proper equipment on or they had modified equipment and this probably a state inspection statute for the noise of a muffler or what a muffler is supposed to do I don't know but I'm asking is this an opportunity to also have an ordinance about exhaust vehicles so that they could be stopped by the police if deemed to be too loud and they could be ticketed is that the motor vehicle ordinance perhaps? I don't know I don't know at the top of my head that's a good question I thought it could be ticketed but I don't know I thought I heard that too from Cheap Whipple but it's worth asking just a question that's all I think we're looking toward a second hearing or a first hearing second hearing first hearing with a second reading okay so just so I'm clear so as presented is that what you want or do you want to include the 7 a.m. I think we'd like to hear from people and potentially include the 7 a.m. you already have 7 a.m. and hear several times there's a 9 p.m., 7 a.m. and other spots I'd like to standardize and make everything at least 7 a.m. as an ending point so 8 and 7 for both trash pickup and for dogs and cats C7 and 8 oh now for you have 9 and 7 and then 8 and 6 wait what did I yeah I think standardizing everything to 9 and 7 is equitable yeah I think that's it would make more sense are you thinking we should have the consistent hour in the evening because we've got a 10 p.m. in number 3 and a 9 p.m. in number 4 9 p.m. in 5 8 p.m. in 7 8 p.m. in 8 9 p.m. I don't know I think we could leave the evening hour myself because Helen raises a good point I think each activity is treated differently but the early wake up time I see a difference between residential activity and commercial activity and so if we limit commercial activity to 9 and 7 and then the residential activity goes until 10 since they live there so they can I understood that 10 to 7 was the standard for a long time but dogs and cats are residential and I wouldn't it's not yeah I see it more as a party is not usually every night that's I mean knocking on doors again I just don't like the 6 a.m. for trash pick up it just seems too early but trash haulers want to convince me otherwise I'd like to hear from them I'd like to hear from residents and possibly trash haulers and if we're fine with different evening hours I don't care with that as well I like the consistency in the morning I like the consistency in the morning too but the different evening hours it sounds like 7 a.m. for everything and leaving the evening hours at 8 on these two where we clear as mud thanks so a little better than that I think I got it all right well very good so do we need to make any kind of motion or anything here yeah so I have recommended just a motion to warn a public hearing for a second reading of the nuisance ordinance as amended and discussed tonight thank you for a win for so the second council meeting in February so it's the 18th is that president's day no no it's the 19th 20th 19th president's day 20th Tuesday February so 7 715 715 730 730 in case we have an executive session all right is there a motion I move that we warrant a public meeting at the second city council meeting in February on the 19th 20th that's a really good day by the way it's a really good day I'm not gonna say for the purpose of for the public hearing to review this noise ordinance is that it speaking of which is that why you're laughing second and did you say 730 tim I didn't I didn't say 730 but it would be for 730 p.m. okay very good and I heard a second come from pat all in favor hi all right thank you thank you very much have a good evening you're still here you've been here since the beginning all right we are now moving on to item number 13 consider and possibly approve the draft fiscal year 2019 municipal budget and approve placing it on the ballot for the 2018 city of south brillington annual meeting item number 13 is listed as the lead on this one so I'm just passing around an email that I think you all received earlier today Helen was also copied on that just had some real good discussion following up on the presentations from department managers at the meeting on the 4th and an action item that Kevin and I had from that meeting a variety of scenarios together for you to consider based on some of the conversation from that night so that's what we've done and we have with the additional scenario that Helen proposed this week and we have five different scenarios for your consideration and open to your thoughts and comments on that information all right very good just to remind the public we were presented with the proposed budget that would have an increase of 3.44 percent and we were also presented with the estimated increase for the school budget which came in under 1% and I am curious I was not able to attend the school board meeting last week do we have an updated figure I believe it's 1.74 1.74 I haven't seen anything since that draft oh you have not heard now I think they meet tomorrow night that was last Wednesday but they've not approved a budget at this time yes but okay so the discussion based on the school board figure which is of course the bulk of our budget so the whole city led this council to consider some real gaps that we found in our proposed budget which were to continue and we certainly hope that our grand list will increase next year but it was not a whopping increase this year but that this current proposed budget was not sustainable long term and that caused concern among the councilors and that is why we wanted we asked Tom Hubbard to run through some figures we picked some of the projects that we would like to reconsider and see how those numbers played out which he has provided us here on this piece of paper and I can just read through very briefly we can get into the specifics of the discussion but we were looking at the paving line for our roads our striping line also for our roads looking at air pack maintenance for our fire and EMS the uniforms that was also for our fire they were winter jackets the undesignative reserve which would I believe be for the city center note this in general the city center reserve fund is at the bottom okay very good that's right increased IT hardware and again just like the jackets and the air pack this is a maintenance item so just every so often every five years to ensure that there there are no failures the other maintenance item was the police cruiser and that's of course for the police one thing I did note in the minutes from December 18 was that both Tom and Kevin said that the undesignative reserve ideally would be whole so I did make that mental note to of course ideally we would love to have all of these items but that would bring the city budget to over five percent increase and we're trying to be very mindful of our taxpayers so this is where the hard part comes and you're all here for alright here we go so bread and butter well I have a couple of comments I hate seeing taxes rise above what we had anticipated or had hoped to keep it at three percent and but the reality and the hard reality of it is that is not enough to run our city to the things that we want the taxpayers need to be aware that the cost to run the city even if we just take into consideration the three contracts for our employees for the year and along with the health insurance costs are rising dramatically we are also very strongly committed as a council and to the citizens for Market Street and to see the reserve fund not funded for city center to me is just we're asking for a potential future problem that and maybe not that far into the future one of the scenarios that we had asked for here and I believe Helen you had had asked for it is to see if we had under scenario five if we funded the undesignated reserve to the 21,000 and added back 110,000 for the city center reserve fund while that would bring us up about a percent more than what we are being proposed right now at the 3.44 bring us up to 4.33 we are staying within what I think is a I don't want to say a modest increase but we are staying with the the design that we want to have for city center and the commitment we've made to that some of the other areas the increased striping but some of the other areas are clearly ones that our department heads came in knowing when they made their presentation to us that that was probably not going to happen that there were going to be cuts in their budget area and unfortunately that's some of the things we have to look at the cruiser as chief Whipple said we can get away without it we are not going to be able to forever but we can and meanwhile it might turn around and give us a little more opportunity to have more economic development once we have our second building announced and ground broken on that for city center when you start to build it builds momentum so from my perspective if I was to look at this and say if we were to increase our budget I really am leaning towards scenario five I know it's high but I'm looking and saying that the cost or what we have committed to for city center have you got that one so it's just the two reserve funds that would be getting the undesignated reserve to where we had committed to and also for the city center reserve and then I would hope that we would be able to be able to take a stronger look at our grand list and to literally work on bringing in revenue that is not going to be all given to the state that would stay in our pockets so that we could do this but I think we're short-sighted if we don't fund the city center reserve fund because I think that is the commitment we have made to our downtown and to me that is so critically important there's nothing on here that we couldn't fund if we had the money I mean all of them are worthy of what we can do some of them are safety issues for the striping and so on but it's practical so as I go down this listing right here the total increase for one is fifty one five when you get to scenario two it's fifty four thousand so it's fifty five five and so on and so forth when you get to scenario four you're at one oh one five because you've added thirty five to scenario three but to get to the total increase for scenario five scenario five doesn't include the previous four so unlike the others it's not incremental it's a separate, total separate scenario thank you I'm sure Tom brought to us at the last meeting because I understand new information about what we're looking at I mean we were talking about a rec center for some time but now we've scaled back our plans a bit and we're looking at a library city hall and we also have other information now that we know that I wasn't convinced that the eight sixty was still a realistic target amount based on the new information that we have of where we are today I'm not opposed I too am fully committed to city center I just see that we're now looking at a library and a city hall and the rec center as much as it would be great and fabulous I think that's been pushed off some and I'm just not sure that eight sixty is still needed and that's why I'm more inclined to support scenario one or two but that's right I would like to do scenario one scenario one only adds ten thousand facts to the unregistered reserve right that's to a very large reserve well it brings it up to the twenty one it makes it whole it does because it was brought down to eleven thousand so bringing it up by ten would bring it up to the... am I right Tom? is that right Tom? number three brings it all the way back to if you went down to number three that would add the full amount into the designated reserve it was completely wiped out it was zeroed scenario one puts ten thousand into it going down to scenario three it adds the the whole twenty one back in thank you alright thank you Helen for making that clarification because it builds on did you want to to speak now Helen did you want to no no I put out this scenario five because I wanted to see what that looks like when I still I guess I'm not as certain that we scale back the development of city center to the extent that we can cut a hundred and ten thousand dollars from the reserve fund I guess I would have to be more clear about that but in fact what Tom has indicated that we're cutting back on all these things and so we aren't putting city center at risk by underfunding or funding at a lesser degree the reserve fund then I could at least support the twenty one thousand to the undesignated to me that's an absolute got to do that my mind Tom can I ask you a question on this the my understanding on our reserve fund is that we know that there will be times as city center gets built out that we don't have the tiff funds up front in other words we may have to front some of the funds and then see them coming back in the form of the tiff I don't want to say reimbursement but whatever and the reserve funds are designated to use for that purpose correct the city the city center reserve fund city center reserve exactly and and while I hear what you're saying Tom that you know the civic center at this time is not on the drawing board per se for various reasons it doesn't mean that we are still not going to need funds to front for certain projects before we physically have the reimbursement back in hand correct that's correct and I think to I think if I hear what Tom saying is that you still want to support the city center reserve fund you're just not sure that the 860 is the right number and I'm comfortable saying that if we didn't fund it at 860 for a year and we funded it at 750,000 for a year that I think we would be fine Kevin you can weigh in on this if you want as well I think there's a number of items in the general fund that I feel strongly about them being supported and I think that for one year having less money and really until we determine what that right amount is in the city center reserve fund it was based on a full build out of city center with all the public amenities that we envisioned and I think as we're into one year now of the TIF that I think we need to look at refining what that number is and I'm not sure that it's 750 and I'm not sure that it's 860 but I think it's something we need to look at and I think that we've got a year that we can possibly be a little bit flexible with that number Hearing that and since you are our finance guy I agree with Tom though I think the 860 was built off of a model that was developed several years ago when our expectations at that time were that TIF revenues were going to flow at a more rapid pace than we're experiencing right now that we wouldn't have run into so many problems and other issues I think it's really time and Tom and I have talked about this it's time to come back to the council and revalidate what the expectations are for city center by way of public projects we are as Alana alluded to earlier going through a very robust visioning process for the library and I think I've heard universal support among members of the council about the library I think there are other potential public projects that we really have to test with you and validate and refine the model so I think Tom's right whether or not 860 is the right 1000 is the right number today or 750 or 650 we don't actually know for sure unless we update the expectations of the council and the community in the model well that being the case I would revise then where I would stand and I would look at scenario 3 because I think scenario 3 will give us what we are looking for with the other cases that I think are important to the city but it would reserve bring up the undesignated reserve to the 21,000 that I think that I would hope that we would all be committed to seeing that piece in there and it is a little higher than what we anticipated earlier but I think it is it's reality to show that we we don't want these things cut if we don't have to and hearing from you Tom about the other piece makes me much more comfortable with saying that we could look at that the cruiser I heard from Trevor we could wait a year I don't know if that is that detrimental but I think in looking at taxpayer pieces I would like to cast towards the scenario 3 Helen I heard you concur did you want to add? I think I would agree with that I would support scenario 3 I think that's a small enough increase but hefty enough to really deal with some of the issues that they can raise that I think are really important and it brings up this designated undesignated reserve in 21,000 which still isn't a whole lot but it's better than zero and for the benefit of the public that scenario 3 would include increase in paving increase in striping we would cover the air pack maintenance we would cover the uniform replacement we would fully fund the undesignated reserve and we would also maintain the IT hardware Tim I support elements of scenario 1 I don't want the tax rate to go over 3-5 if possible so I would say let's keep the striping let's keep the 10,000 to the undesignated reserve line 788 and let's take the paving at 10,000 for a $30,000 total in scenario 1 just those three items and nothing else paving to 10 paving to 10 paving to 10 let's keep striping at 10 and keep the reserve at 10,000 so that's 30,000 that's probably 3.55 or something like that I'm not against the direction you're going since you want to keep it at that number and I think that's considered to the taxpayer the one thing I would interject and I only do this because I just heard Kevin say he doesn't know where the city center reserve fund should be should it be at 860, 750 or 650 I might encourage us to commit it to city center but since we don't know what that number is and we're going to have a big important vote this November and I'd also say the markets are making our pension funding looking better for next year I'd support taking a little bit more from the city center reserve fund in order to fund the items in scenario 1 and 2 and 3 but keep the tax increase at 3.49 does that make sense what I just said so we would cut from 750 down to 30,000 brings it to 3.64 30 brings it to 3.64 and that's keeping the city center at 750 right yes 3. what did you say 3.64 I already forgot what you said 3.64 included what 10,000 increase in paving 10,000 increase in striping and bringing the undesignated reserve fund to $10,000 balance but what you're saying Tom is that we could pull some more from the city center reserve fund to add some items back in here or replenish some of those to get the tax rate increased below 3.5 I really hesitate I know that we're all really trying to be responsive to the taxpayer but if we need to as I'll use the word that Pat used we need to keep the momentum that's why taking you all as a possible temporary placement for the library I saw that as an investment in city center as well anything that shows that we're trying to move into city center and to develop I think is a positive and so taking going below that amount I think we just have to be very careful if I could just say one more thing and then I'll stop talking our paving has been set at 575 for six years and I would just strongly advocate for this $25,000 increase because the roads need it people are just complaining to me about Spear Street I think Justin could do more we could have less I get a lot of complaints about the condition of our roads so I think we should advocate for $25,000 for paving but that begs the question that if if the budgets at 575 already what's an extra 10 or 25 going to do on top of that was an extra like quarter mile or 10th of a mile he seemed to say that it would get us even more for our buck more bang for our buck because more projects would lower the overall cost per mile or cost however it's costed out just so you all know where I stand for me was scenario 2 or 3 2 and 3 or 2 or 3 2 or 3 I've said that 3.8 was about my area at the last time 3.89 gosh I'm sounding like the Grocers Association everything's 299 but it's but I I mean I know all about the IT replacement I hang on to my computer for a good long time I think if we can eke it out one more year I think taking money from the reserve fund to bolster up this year is not reality for our residents say that again I think it's not reality for taking the money from the reserve more than 110 if we were to we would reduce it down and there's several reasons behind it but certainly one of the ones is that that is prior that is where we're at it seems like it's low hanging fruit it's always easy to turn around and do that just as Trevor said it's always easy to turn around and do that and that's the position we held on that we didn't want to do that I desperately hope that we would not look to reduce that below that 750 I tend to agree with you so I'll again just put it out there spilling off of what I said earlier if we were to take scenario 3 minus the IT that would be 62.5 that's 9% I don't know the exact percent of that 4,000 3.86 that's 62.5 3.86 so I'm sorry what was that that's 3.86 percent without the IT that's without the IT that's eliminate the IT but keeps the end designated reserve whole and it would go ahead is that more important than the uniform I was going to say that than the IT Tim convinced me last time that if you have a problem with the IT the city could potentially call to preach to a stop and it's expensive to repair that's not the server here for 4,000 no this is the security stuff this is the security stuff it's laptops and desktops new computers and desktops oh ok I thought it was the security so it's a hardware one alright well then I could be convinced to get rid of that or just postpone I mean they have winter coats this is a replacement it doesn't mean that the winter coats they use now are worn out and unusable so they're worn without or it's just they don't get a new one recalling Doug's comment I think he was saying that one half the coats were being replaced this year and a half the coats would be replaced next fiscal year so he needed 19,000 in each year to make that work I don't know the year of the current coats I'm not sure I know they have winter coats these are replacements I think the expenses do that they have to be heat flame retardant but it also has the built in for the speakers so that they can talk right from their shoulders so would we need to see out of compliance I'm sure not if they were my understanding is this is different from the turnout gear this is not turnout gear turnout gear is what they wear at the fire this is somewhere over turnout gear and in the ambulance I think but this is we've already replaced the turnout gear which is the real thick heavy fire retardant this is a coat on top of that if the 4000 for the IT only reduced that 3.89 to 3.86 is that it then this would only take it down to 3.83 we took the coats off I think we're splitting hairs on this thing right now too soon to ask if the public have any comments 3.84 3.84 if you took the 4000 out 3.84 with another 4 off yes thank you you're reading my mind Tom so I think this is a good we are fortunate to have members of the public here I know that there are 4 members from the bike and ped committee perhaps you also think about these other items too and please feel free to expand yes please yeah could you come up to the table identify yourself and then nice and loud yes for the public record please Kathy Frank democracy in action what one thought I have about the IT with all the concerns we have about privacy and hacking and security in our elections I think that that goes on to the computers you use routinely for city business and I don't know to what extent not upgrading risk violating some of the security you want I don't know the answer to it but I know it should be a concern that you can at least know what you're going to give up I'll answer as non IT specialist but someone who works on a system that it's separate from the hardware that once you are connected to the system the securities are there and will protect your hardware I mean someone who is an IT wants to disabuse me of my all would have to illusions specifically it is if it's just desktop upgrades because they're on a special that's what it is that's what the specific like every 4 years we're going to replace this regardless you know I mean it's not the software that's softwares somewhere else and the firewalls and all of that good stuff a new computer it's faster until it slows down and you get another one it's faster until it slows down please come up again well I would propose that we keep the paving at 25 10 eliminate the uniform I guess keep the airpack maintenance increase the designated the undesignated reserve the 21,000 and I think that gets us to 3.84 okay what did I miss why a motion I'll make that that is a motion we're still listening to members of she can't hear you yeah Helen we have a member of the public here Donna Laban's here so we're going to we're just going to hear from some members of the public and then I'm happy to hear a motion Donna Laban and actually I was kind of going along with what Helen was just saying in terms of you know what you're currently looking at I actually just had a question it's not one of the items on the list but it's a question that's occurred to me after reading the other paper and there was an item about sort of a and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not I may not be recalling this correctly but there was like $125,000 deficit in the funds in the amount of money that was expected to come in from electrical inspections and fire inspections and that was a position I really questioned when that position was hired about whether or not the city could number one afford to have a full-time position electrical inspector and second that you know then it becomes you know a retirement issue and everything that why couldn't those why couldn't that position be contracted instead of being made a full-time position I think there's I mean it goes to the budget issues entirely in that you know why do we have this position in the city it doesn't seem to make sense to me when most cities don't have a position like that and having inspectors with so much power sometimes leads to increase costs for a lot of different things I'm not saying that this particular position has but you know inspectors can increase costs because they say well you should do it because I said so as opposed to this is what the code requires so that was just a question I had Kevin and Tom are probably better placed with the numbers there is a deficit in that line item the revenues depending on the amount of construction and sales and all go up and down every year we get far better service in this community from our in-house inspectors than we would if we waited on the state they apply the code as it's written they don't make it up we are providing far better customer service with the inspectors in house and if you look over time at what between the two inspectors over the course of a number of years the return on that investment is very positive so we can have down years and we will have down years but we also have very high up years too and the revenue trend line there exceeds the expense by a significant amount over time over time but when we are facing having to cut other things in order to keep that position in a full time city position and to go to your contracting out question that becomes a direct conflict with our contracts our union contracts so our ability to simply contract out for a service is limited when it's bargained work let's just put it that way my understanding is that we don't have a full time electrical inspection we have this person who does other things in addition to electrical inspections he only does electrical inspections he is booked I thought it was also administrative duties that he was doing well administrative duties associated with electrical inspections but he is busy with electrical inspections but the contracting out issue is not it sounds appealing and there may be a way to do it but it's a challenge in the public sector to contract out for a service that is bargaining unit work in other words qualifies for bargaining just a world we live in just as a member of the public 125,000 deficit seems like something that should go away that's a lot of money for a service that's benefitting the overall building public and it may even benefit the city but the public doesn't see it that's just a comment thanks for answering the question there was a question that I had asked if there was an opportunity that another community might avail themselves of our electrical inspector services and I think that's something that is not out of the realm of a possibility but that would be up to our administration to turn around and look into for us I think that would be great I mean we're looking at shared services in a lot of different avenues and yes it's always disappointing to have that to have a year where it isn't but I have to I have to agree since we've had our inspectors we have really had a tremendous amount of money that we have been able to allocate into budgets as a result of having the inspections done locally and so while I hear what you're saying and I would love to make up that 25 I think we've had years and certainly when we look at our other inspector and the money that has come in it's been far more than I ever dreamed that we would have coming into the coffers thanks for your explanation it's appreciated to follow up on Pat's comments I believe 85 of that 125 is in fire inspection and that was just we hit 475 a couple years in a row $475,000 which is huge in fire inspection for one person which is amazing and the idea was at the time when we brought the electrical inspector on we were hopeful that that person could also assist Terry with the fire inspection but what we found out is that that person is 100% busy with just electrical inspection and not bringing in the revenue that fire inspection brings in but that was part of the idea as well behind bringing an electrical inspector that we had hoped at the time would be a rough strain but the bulk of that is fire inspection revenue we're just trying to bring in line with what the development growth is within the city so that we don't have a false revenue figure that we have to balance out at the end of the year so we reduce both to a more realistic number and I think it's important to say that a budget deficit is different than an enterprise deficit because as an enterprise they more than pay for for themselves the enterprise is self perpetuating it doesn't come from tax dollars it comes from the revenues generated by it's not even a department necessarily activity it's an enterprise within a department so it's like an entrepreneurship kind of project within a department that self sustains itself so it's not your dollar that's paying for it is that that's an important part for example just like we heard at the beginning of a meeting with sewer the sewer rate fund is going to be funding this new connection on our Hadley Road neighborhood disconnecting with the Burlington wastewater treatment facility and bringing it into connecting it to our wastewater treatment facility that won't cost you a dime that comes from this enterprise fund with its own fees its own rate structure it's separate from the taxpayer dollars it's separate from that general fund that's funded by taxpayer dollars it's your dollars but it's paid to your water bill storm water assessments right not your property taxes if Helen's motion is still on the floor to accept so yeah, do you want me to just go over it again sure it increases pricing increases air pass maintenance increases and designated reserve to the tune of 21,000 I will second that I believe that gets it to the total increase $52,500 I think that's $58,000 $58,000 $58,500 but the percentage is correct $62,000 minus the four for the uniforms so that's minus the four for the IT and the IT as well but maybe I added it wrong $35,000 so it's scenario 3 minus the uniforms and minus the IT right Helen yes I will second that motion alright any discussion I don't support it I'm sorry what did you say I said I don't support that I don't support that in tax increase I'm just telling you now okay I will just say ideally it would not be 3.84% I think that given the forecasted school budget and given that we've had a lean year in our grand list revenues I think that we have to face our responsibilities the basic necessities to make sure that we are not too too far into the muscle and I think to Donna Laban's point that we don't see it I think that the paving and the striping is something that residents do see I hear it when it's not done to people's satisfaction and I think that we we need to pay heed to that need of the taxpayer their taxpayer dollars are going and to not have our undesignated reserve means that come a rainy day and the leaky roof happens we have no cushion and that is a real concern to me as well the air pack maintenance is a safety issue the understanding that we got from the initial presentation was that we'll find the money somewhere if we need it well I think that we need to pay heed to the taxpayers why we're asking them for $2,500 more that we are maintaining the firefighters air packs which is I think a worthwhile expense so I too will support this any other discussion I agree with everything council armory just said so all in favor aye all opposed thank you it's a hard discussion it's been a cold winter tell Tom about this it is time for a sue break I think we're all going to enjoy it so thank you for coming out we'll have some lines on the road hopefully so now it's time to advocate speaking of which has anybody noticed how the lines are holding up on Wilson Road it's hard to tell although the snow that's on there they are recessed but I swear today as I was driving along it looked like they were being chipped I can't believe how they could be between Earl's and Taff Corner right the new stuff it's recessed I'm going to stretch my back too I swear that I saw some chipping on the edges of the white lines there's the sanity sleep again there my goodness one wanted to know how do you understand what anyone saying because I had the phone down with me and everyone was talking about one this is no a recess it's okay who voted on the budget there a minute ago alright are you ready Charlie alright very good so I am calling the January 16, 2018 South Burlington City Council meeting back into order after a five minute plus break and we are now looking at item 14 which is consider approval of warning for 2018 annual city meeting and that is our city attorney is no longer here but we do have it in our packets we have just approved a proposed budget for fiscal year 2019 and so let us take a look at the language is our city attorney there we go okay yeah okay so here he comes thank you thank you thank you oh that's very thank you because I was already looking at this and wondering if we're going to have to start I'm ending thank you this is hot off the press it is thank you very much hot off the mini-graph that's relatively straightforward you've approved I think already all these items to go on the budget but this is just the official warning for the annual town meet or annual city that will be coming up March 6 and so there's also a note for the public informational hearing on March 6 as well which is which is standard so the four items are the election of city officers and city councillors approval of the city budget for which you just approved the final numbers here Article 3 as Justin talked about earlier incurring bonded debt for the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility system improvements and Article 4 which is the Chittenden County Public Safety Authority the new regional dispatch center this language was previously approved by council about a month ago okay did the figure in between the parentheses there not get I'm not making sense of the article 2 the 15 million spelled out 202,174 dollars is that okay yeah what is the number again so it's 15 million 202,174 dollars we'll repeat the 12 I'm sorry 15 million 202,174 dollars so it's 15 15202 the number should be 15202 174 274 I'm sorry 272 is the number it is 272 15,272,174 my apologies on that please say it again I'm sorry 15 million 272,174 dollars my sixth grade math teacher said you shouldn't have any ands in numbers if you don't have those ands when you spell it out yeah that was my high school personal finance teacher how to write a check I learned that Mr. Radimer I will be sure to you should get and for the sense just to say that teachers leave a lasting impression I also had Mr. Radimer but I must have missed that thank you very good are there other things on this thank you for so quickly going up I have to say I just kind of looked at that and I went I think that's supposed to be it you need a motion to we don't have to put in the number of which it is estimated whatever will be raised by local property taxes I that's in there it says 15,272,174 dollars will be raised by local property taxes okay so the other step of which it is estimated thank you do you need a motion to approve this warning yes second alright all in favor hi very good Andrew will go quickly and work is magic go forth thank you Andrew alright we're going to now move on to item number 15 consider approval of application to Vermont downtown board and we have our director of planning and zoning Paul Conner here to lead that discussion yes hello I would like to make a request for the council to approve our submittal for an amendment to our neighborhood development designation neighborhood yeah designated neighborhood very briefly there are two tiers of designations at the state level both intended to support existing villages downtown centers that kind of thing tier one are the base line designations we have what's called a new town center it is to support development in communities that don't have a historic downtown such as ourselves the second level designations include this neighborhood development area and some other ones the intent of the neighborhood development area is to once you've demonstrated that you have certain level of regulations in your community that you've demonstrated that you're taking care of all the walkable communities and smart growth and all that kind of thing that certain types of projects can be exempted from Act 250 as a benefit and as a requirement on those projects they're called priority housing projects they have to meet a affordability standard at the state level so we have in the purple cross hatch behind you here the blue is our new town center the purple cross hatch which covers all the blue and a little bit more than the blue is our current neighborhood development area and what is being proposed is to add this parcel here the neighborhood development areas can extend up to one quarter mile from the distance of your new town center if you so choose as long as you can demonstrate that it's connected or planned to be connected and that is has all the regulations in place this is a parcel that is currently undeveloped it is immediately adjacent to Dumont Park which is right here and under our regulations is here this yellow property here so the orange here is our T4 that's our four-story building district yellow here and here is our transitional district we call it T3 the type of development that's allowed in an area similar to what you've seen built in the last five years over on the east end of Market Street the sort of row housing type things or single family homes transition between the single family home neighborhood and the rest so this is again as I said the planned Dumont Park under construction now there's a recreation path that is being built right through here and we are working with the property owners over in this area to get a full connection up to Garden Street of the recreation path over the Potash Brook they've recently just received a wetland approval to do that crossing there's also a planned path connection right in here that is on a different map that would create eventually a walking path between neighborhood and San Remo Drive so that folks can get over to healthy living and Trader Joe's and the whole city center area as I said this is really this designation creates a win-win for both the property owner and the city if the win for the property owner is that they g