I would like to call to order the South Burlington City Council meeting of Monday, May 20th, 2019, and we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. 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 it. The next item is instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency. Case of an emergency tonight, everybody please leave by one of these two doors here and gather in the parking lot to the south of City Hall. If these doors are blocked for some reason, go back out the main entrance and out the front where you came in in the lobby and also gather around here and back. Tom Hubbard and I will be responsible for making sure the building is cleared, so. Agenda review, are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of any agenda items tonight? Seeing none, item four is a possible executive session to receive legal advice relating to collective bargaining agreements and real estate transactions. So I'd like to move that the council make a specific finding that premature general public knowledge of labor relations agreements with employees of collective bargaining and confidential attorney-client communications made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the council would clearly place the council in the city at a substantial disadvantage. All in favor? Aye. Having so found, I now move that the council enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing the matters identified in the previous motion as well as for matters related to a negotiating or securing of real estate. We'd like to invite in Kevin, Doran, Tom Hubbard, Andrew Bullduck, Amanda Lafferty and Paul Connor. All in favor? Aye. Okay, so we will be back in approximately half an hour. No, thank you. Paul, back into order of the South Burlington City Council meeting of Monday, May 20th, 2019, and move on to agenda item five. Are there any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? Barb. Barb, service summer woods. I didn't plan to speak tonight, but when I went home this afternoon, I had my water bill. And so I come to remind you again, the usage is zero and the bill is $81.71. Of that, almost $30 is for water and I did not use a drop. So I just come again to remind you that I think there are any number of people in South Burlington who for different reasons are not here at different times of the year and are subsidizing the rest of the people in the town. I wasn't going to bring it up again, but when it came in the mail today, I figured that was a sign that I was supposed to remind you again that it's still on our maybe we could get it done list. Thank you. Thank you. I'm hardly the expert on that, but is there a is there a mandatory? Yes. Yes. We've talked about in the past about adjusting the pricing model so as to incentivize conservation and that would be either lowering the minimum or the amount. There's a new manager at CWD and he seemed to be open to exploring this now that the new software is in place. So maybe the next time he reports to us, we could ask for an update. I would appreciate it. And I think about people, particularly those who are on fixed incomes and who don't use as much water and also people who are using more water than necessary.  So we could encourage that. Thank you. Thank you. So, Tim, did you have another item not on the agenda? I'd just like to recognize Sue Elnick who had a birthday yesterday and I would just like to start by saying happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear Sue. Take over there. Would you guys have to finish? Oh. Did you see that merchant, Tim? There's a birthday cake over there? Yes, indeed. I was born at the Wheeler House. So when Sue turned 75 five years ago, Paul estimated, went back to the records and estimated that Sue had done minutes for over 3,000 South Burlington meetings. We're now five years later. We're probably pushing 3,500 or so. Anyway, and this goes back how many years? Wow. That is a lot. Well, thank you for your service. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Tim. Number six, item six, announcements and the city manager's report. So, Tom. I attended a planning commission, saw a report from the energy committee. They were presenting a few exciting things. The topic of pace financing came up and I suggested that we consider it again. It's something that the council would have to look at, but I think the energy committee is going to probably ponder that and probably come back to us. I also attended the school board meeting recently, and I also want to make an announcement. A week from this Thursday, all the counselors are invited. If you received an email, I just would encourage you to consider it. Next Thursday, 8 30 a.m. Pathways Vermont. It's a breakfast for a nonprofit organization. I went last year. It's a great event to know about all the good things that are being done and understand how that could plug into some of our city initiatives. So, if you're planning to be there, share it in. You should have received an email. Let me know if you didn't. Megan. I attended the school board meeting as well. And I also, and I'm sorry I couldn't be here live, but I was also a part of the steering committee. I'm thankful to the staff for setting that up. And we had also a very nice dinner and conversation at Wheeler House with the director of common roots and many volunteers who wish to talk to us about their current programming and also their finances and how they're financing a sustainable, really set of initiatives in the community. And they hope to go beyond South Burlington as well. So, one-on-one, I want to thank them publicly for that. David. Let's see. Well, we had a steering committee meeting and I think you said that and Tom did already. And I went to the school board meeting last week, whatever day that was. And hope we would make some progress, but we still seem to be challenged. And then we just... Okay. Tim. I went to the steering committee meeting like everybody else. The TDR meeting we had Friday of that week. The dog park meeting last week. The school board meeting the same night. I witnessed LED replacement lights going into the street lights inside our mill. Thank you very much. Probably the gentleman had to dig out all the dead bugs first, right? Every single one of those. And I'd just like to announce that my wife and daughter and sister-in-law have been visiting Northwest facade of the Farrell Street underpass to 189. So, if you go on Farrell Street, you'll notice that there is a mural that's developing. The background's painted. I think there's some figures going in. There's also a couple of utility boxes that have had paintings done to them recently. So, that project is in full swing. The peacock is beautiful over there on Patchin Road. Yes, that's in front of Fred Pizza. Oh, I haven't seen that. So, yeah, it's doing well. And we'd like to thank Jim Clancy from B-Trans for helping out with the permits on Farrell Street. And we've also submitted permits for the columns that are underneath 89 on the downhill of Dorset Street. So, we should be hearing about that pretty soon. Well, I have seen those. I haven't seen the peacocks. So, I'll have to drive down Patchin Road. But I've seen the others. And I love them. So, thank your wife. I attended the steering committee meeting, the school board, the dog park, and common roots with everyone this evening. And I just, like I said at the dinner, I just want to make sure that everyone knows that they do fundraising every so often and accept contributions from the public to keep their excellent work going. So, if you have, are looking for a good organization of 501-3C to share your wealth with, they would have a lot of good projects going on and would be very appreciative as would I. It's something that my husband and I do support. Kevin. Thanks, Helen. I was at a CCPSA meeting this morning, the board meeting this morning. The consultants are moving forward with the work on that and have gotten into things like scheduling and workforce numbers. Could you remind us what the acronyms are? Chittin County Public Safety Authority. This is the entity through which we will achieve regional consolidation of dispatch. I'm pleased to report that the community outreach program was approved for $100,000 grant from the University of Vermont Medical Center's Community Health Improvement Program for the next fiscal year, which is great. And we're expecting that the budget, once it's finally approved and signed by the governor, will have another $160,000 as last year had for community outreach. A reminder to council and the public, the new noise exposure maps will be available for the public to see on May 29th at a public meeting at the airport. And I think that starts at five o'clock. Five. Five to seven. At the mezzanine, in the mezzanine. And also the NCP, the final NCP scheduled to be reviewed and approved on June 28th. That's the noise compatibility program. So this is coming up pretty quickly. On the 30th, the SOBU Committee Leadership Spring Workshop will be held at 6.30 here. The committee leadership will be here to talk about their work plans for the year. And you're all welcome, of course, to come to that as well. They're your committee. What does that take again? That's the 30th. So next Thursday at... Can we cater that, right? Six. Six. There's food involved. But that's the meeting where all the committee leadership gets together and shares their work plans and we have an educational component of that. I know you've all seen Lou Brezee's updates from the Energy Committee work that he's doing, including the street lights out in Cider Mill. All the street lights are now in on Dorset Street, the new ones. And RFP is out for a contractor for the police department, change out of police department lights. And so Lou is being pretty busy. When you're coming back from Wheeler tonight, I hope you notice the posts along the bike path coming down the hill as you're heading toward the bridge. One of the priorities of the bike path committee was to get some kind of separation between the road and the bike path. And DPW went out and put those, I guess you call them, stanchions in. And then lastly, the South Burlington Memorial Day observance will be on the 24th this Friday at 11.30 up at Veterans Memorial Park. So we encourage all members of the public to come out for that. That's it. Thank you. Okay, moving on to item seven, the consent agenda. We have two, the sign disbursements, two items and consider and possibly award the FY20 paving contract and authorize the city manager to sign all the pertinent paperwork. And Adam is here if you need any input on that. Okay, does anyone have any questions about the paving contract? Yeah, so do you want Adam to come up? Sure. Thank you. Come on down. Come on down. Come on down. Just a short comment. Yes, that's okay. I appreciate that there are 14 separate projects here. So that's really good. We've had a little bit of hate mail about road conditions. I think this will please. The question I have is that the Spear Street Jug Handle to Query Hill Road. That's a really bad section and we understand it. And that's just going to be, is it going to be just a shim over there? Yes, that's a shim on that. And a shim is exactly what? Well, it's not a shim. A shim, it's a top coat. It's an inch and a half. The shim is when you actually go in and fill in the wheel ruts and then on top of that you put on your top coat. And we do have shim in a couple of different spots because of the wheel rutting.  There are some pretty bad spots at the near-easer. I mean, just go through them to take care of that. Not as a paving project, but maybe as a... Oh, we've been filling those in as, as weather's allowed. Right. And then they'll come in and do all that. So, but they, in those instances, they do fill those in just because they have to. And then they do the regular pavement over it. And some of the worst wheel rutting areas, we actually had to specify the shim because it adds to the total tonnage. Right. So, let's see. But just that, you know, when you go, when you hit the dip and then you come up towards Songbird going south, there are some pretty nasty areas in there. I just want to make sure that it's on your... Yeah, it is. To attack those separately as just delamination potholes, whatever you want to call them. Okay. Okay. Kim, what was your first question? Was I unaware of the jug handle? Yeah, so that, so one of the contracts is from Spear Street, from the jug handle at Query Hill Road. That's the worst piece of spear at this point in time, right?  Athletic and health complex. The plan is that all of that traffic to support that project is going to come out onto Spear Street. Instead of coming out onto Main Street, and if you think about that, it probably makes some sense from a logistic standpoint. But it does mean we're going to have quite a number of heavy trucks, vehicles, materials, and so on coming in onto Spear Street at exactly that place, those places. So, the road is likely to get worse before it gets better. Would you, would you, is our plan to pay it afterward? Justin and I had discussed that in the course of this, so we could control where they go first. And he'd even talked about hope that UVM might be possibly helped pay for that because we know that that heavy truck stuff is going to do some damage. So, would you wait till after they finished with all the heavy trucks? I think if, probably would be the wise thing to do, but certainly we'd have to do some. And then have them pay for it? Yeah, ideally. Would it be completed though, this new center? Yeah, yeah. It's going to be a rough stretch there for a while. I don't know, we'll have to let Adam and Justin figure out if putting a thin coat down now makes some sense. Yeah, I would say it's probably very reasonable. Even if we did the full measure this time and in two years it was degraded and certainly I would believe that they would be on the hook for that. So, the trucks are going to exit onto Spear Street and go north, like towards Main Street. Yeah. The worst part of Spear Street is south of the southernmost entrance to Godderson. Right? Yeah. I mean, I drive over it. I drive over it six times today. All right. So, I think that you can do what you want with. It's just from that southernmost entrance to Godderson to Main Street, it's going to take one heck of a beating. And the jug handle. And the jug handle, yeah. And then I echo what you say, Songbird, right opposite Songbird in the southbound lane on Spear Street is just brutal. Yeah, we will mill and fill that in-house. We'll ask Walt Mill. So, are you seeing that when they begin the surgery on Patrick, right, that they're going to then cut them?  Right. But they came to us reasonably early on and said, look, it doesn't make sense for us to go out past the dormitories to get to Main Street and at that busy intersection to have big trucks. It makes sense to come in there- For their stuff. For their stuff. Okay, of course. Yeah, for the construction. Well, then there- you and police should be there handing tickets out of those because every time you cut, you know, down from the upper parking lot to Spear Street, that's 126, 2.7. Thank you. They may get an exception. Okay. Yeah, and probably police will help control the traffic. And I would note that the paving will also include a thin coat on Market Street. That's liable to happen as part of the project, the Market Street project outside of this kind. But soon. I think it looked to me like they were getting ready to pave the part of it very soon. They were grading it today. Right. I'll know better tomorrow, actually. We have a meeting tomorrow. What's soon? A couple days? I would think less than two weeks, I think. I'll know again tomorrow. Okay. Okay. So I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. The two items I identified as presented. Second? Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay. That passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks, Anna. Item eight, council consideration and possible improvement of a collective bargaining agreement between the city of South Burlington and the South Burlington Police Officers Association. So, Andrew, does Anne want to come up to the? Dan. Dan, you want to come up? Thank you. Andrew Bullock, city attorney. Dan Boyer, president of the South Burlington Police Officers Association. So this is what's being brought before you has been ratified by the South Burlington Police Officers Association last week. This has been the part of ongoing negotiations since February of last year. So a little over, what is that, 16 months of bargaining. Key highlights of the agreement. All new employees after ratification will go into VMware's seat. Those employees currently enrolled in the city's pension plan will contribute an additional 5.5% of base pay in years two and three of the contract for a total contribution in year three of seven and a half percent. All employees will make a contribution to health care of 1.25% of base pay for March 1, 2019 retroactive throughout the term of the contract. For officers, 2% cost of living increase in year one, which will be paid retro back to July 1, 2018, followed by a new wage scale in years two and three that increases their overall wages, particularly sergeants, as well as patrol officer wages in attempt to improve recruiting. For civilian staff, that's dispatchers and records clerks. 2% cost of living increase in year one, which is retro and a 2.5% cost of living increase in each subsequent contract year. Moving from weekly to bi-weekly payroll. We've resolved a long-standing dispute over eligibility for special assignments. And we reached a side agreement with the association regarding dispatch or separation from the city in the event and when regional dispatch is operational. Those are key highlights. Dan, do you have any comments? Okay. Well, we're pleased that this is what we're talking about tonight. So I guess I would entertain a motion to approve the collective bargaining agreement. Second. Is there any, are there any questions or any discussion? Just thank you to both of you. If you keep hammering at it, you'll get there, right? And this is three years, is that right? Well, three years. But there's two years left. A little less than two years left. Okay. So you don't have to start negotiating again right away. Not right away. That's great. Okay. So if there's no further discussion, all in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. Item nine is a presentation from Common Roots, Carol McQuillan. Hello again. Hi there.  In terms of the Wheeler House, the purpose of our being there is to continue to bring five food education and food access programs to South Burlington and to deepen this work over time because we're not done yet with everything that we could certainly do to build a healthier city. The purpose of the Wheeler House for us now in our fourth year is much more than office space. It's a place to facilitate our programs. When we go into the schools and we prep food for 62 lessons a month, we cannot always get into the school kitchens and we cannot have our food educators preparing food in their own homes legally. And so the kitchen is now licensed as of February. It's a commercially licensed kitchen and thanks to a lot of community partnerships. We'll continue to be mindful to engage the community at the house. At the house we just had 32 friends of Jan DeSarno who's put in 30 years of coordinating the children's gardens up at the Wheeler House. And we had a celebrate Jan Day with her friends from the Friends of Burlington Gardens. The second point for tonight in addition to the Wheeler House is that we'd like to continue working in tandem with Kevin and Tom and Holly to have an ongoing lease at the house. And we are looking to also work in tandem with the city to have events on the land. These are, we're thinking of at this point our conversations has been a maximum of 80 people. These are not to be large events especially year one to understand the septic and the bathrooms and the flow of traffic and how everything works together. So we'd like to, the city would benefit from the land use at the Wheeler House. Common Roots would have the first right to do the food. We have now four contracted chefs who are very talented working with us. And so we would be working through park and rec to show the marketing of what we would be saying, how we would have a fee structure. Certainly residents who wanted to have events at the Wheeler House would pay less than people outside of the city. Non-profits would be less than people having company parties or whatever. Details of that are just in the very beginning stages. But you've done a lot of work through public works to make the site ready to receive more utilization. Any questions on that just in general before I go to the third point, but we're just in conversation. And the third point of just updating city council is around the Underwood property. So your city management has brought out a GIS mapping system. So when our farmers are out, we've already done one small level of plowing this year, but we will use the two or two plus acres. Andrew says it's like two and a quarter probably that are already tilled up. We will put in approved sheep fencing and I'm working with Delilah on the signage for that. So residents who are walking their dogs at the Underwood property would know that where there's agriculture, we need to have a deer fence because they will take over. And so the GIS will give us exact measurements because it's very specific in the Underwood plan that there will be four agricultural acres. So our farmers want to make sure that they're plowing where we're supposed to be and not plowing where we're not supposed to be. So this collaboration will help us. And then we will be working with the management of the city around the lease at the Underwood property. There's no formal lease right now. And so with the amount of time and tilling and management and cover cropping and we've added $2,000 worth of minerals to that soil, iron, copper, and manganese were the low-trace minerals. So not only are we using organic practices but we are watching the nutrient density of our soils, which is very important as was part of the task force of the Ag Committee that we were on for about two years. We'll be working with our pro bono lawyer Rich Cassidy to map out what that would look like and bring it to Tom and Kevin for the next level of understanding and we'll make an agreement so that there's a formal lease as we're on your land. Great. Okay. So thanks again for finally getting to your gem in the city and having dinner tonight. Right. That was good planning. Thank you. Any other questions? I just want to, if there aren't, you look, okay, I just want to thank you for all that you do. I think this, the mission and the work that you do with the schools is, and the families in our community is really fabulous. And I thank you for your stewardship of the land that you use and really making, I think, our open spaces or our conserved land or parks really address the additional issue of agriculture. And I think it adds to everything as well as certainly students' understanding of where food comes from and what's good food and their encouragement to eat it. And, you know, Megan's daughter loves kale. Thanks to coming with us here. So those are wonderful things. And I know a lot of this was only accomplished with your enthusiasm and drive and energy. So I thank you. Your additional comments, I'll share one other short piece. And that is with the bread and butter farm, with Fisher Brothers Farm, with Jim from Shelburne Farms buying the lease on the mill on Dorset and Common Roots. They actually formed an agri-hood. And you will hear about a farm hop on June 8th. So from Mr. Fisher, Bob is probably the only man in the farm hood. But Jim will continue to- Is it before your house or after? Before. It's north. Yes. Just north. It's just north. But we heard all the voice scouts this weekend. They're saying pick up the mow and pick up branches and stuff. And Temple Sinai will be joining us there too. So it's very cool. Do we have the information on the farm hop? I will get it to you. If we don't, we should post it on the city web because that sounds really cool. I appreciate that. That would be great. I'll get it to you. Who do I get it to, Corley? Corley. Absolutely. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Item 10. Consider and possibly approve participation in the Champlain Valley Conservation Partnership and authorize the city council chair to sign the Champlain Valley Conservation Partnership Agreement. Ashley Parker is our representative on that group. Welcome. Ashley Parker. I'm a project manager for the city of South Burlington. Thank you guys for having me. I am here to talk to you again about the agreement I first brought to you. I think about a month ago now that discusses a group of municipalities getting together to discuss land conservation and stewardship and management of land across the region. And we are getting really close to having, well, we have an agreement that we are hoping to finalize with all the municipalities, which I believe you guys have in front of you. Not much changed since the last time that I brought it. I think a couple of things I wanted to note is we have more of a formal name, at least we think. The Champlain Valley Conservation Partnership was tossed around in our last meeting. And so we felt that was a good name to allow us the potential for expansion in the future if that ever is something we want to do. And we are, I think, down to five municipalities. Charlotte will not be participating in this round. It will be, hopefully, South Burlington, Williston, Shelburne, Hinesburg, and St. George. And so right now everybody is taking it back to their boards and councils and trying to get signatures. And we will be trying to get a PR event together hopefully in July, which will pair really nicely with National Park Month, which is July. But yeah, we are gearing up for a lot of good things. And I think our first big project will be that map that everybody was excited about. And so that's something that we've been working really hard to finish. So that is the gist of it. So tonight I'm coming before you guys to get your support, authorization for a signature, hopefully Helen, on the actual agreement itself. That's, yeah. Could you tell us a little bit about what's included in that map that you just referred to? Yeah. So it's, I think it's going to have a lot of information. But ideally it will show all of the municipalities, so the region. And then right now we've been looking at parcels and in terms of conservation status. And then trying to determine how best to represent what is permanently conserved versus maybe what might be more restricted. That kind of conservation. So different conservation statuses. So that's kind of a debate that the group has been having. But then it also, I think we've noticed that there's different ways to even break that down further to show wildlife corridors or riparian corridors. Or are there anything else that might be worthy of noting like a natural resource feature? So I think you'll see a series of maps come out of this, hopefully. And how will that be incorporated into kind of what we do here in the city? Kevin or Ashley, maybe. I don't know who best can respond to that. I think it, if when you see the map, it'll become obvious the connectivity between those communities through conserved land or land that is restricted. And Ashley, we have viewed from the beginning of this the opportunity to work with other communities on common interests like elimination of invasive species that don't know boundaries between South Burlington and Williston and so on. Or wildlife corridors, erosion control, trail networks, common signage. All those things that make it a better experience for the public or the wildlife in that area can be enhanced if we work together on this. It is not intended to, there's no demand for additional money from any of the communities. It is very much a volunteer mechanism, a voluntary mechanism to bring people together to further the common objectives of the conserved land. So would it be accurate to say that there are point people in each of the communities and Ashley's our point person? Yes, and we will need to appoint her formally if this becomes an entity, correct? Yeah. And every other community will have a point person. Who's going to be responsible for attending the meetings? But I suspect over time there'll be a much bigger group that forms around specific projects. We would love to take the weed warrior project that was started here to the other communities and they're interested in it. But it's just one example of the things we can do together that benefit the combined acreage. I think another opportunity I see, you mentioned the trails and the networks, the networking of those trails so that all the communities together can have a great trail and not have it sort of end at their border and it goes nowhere. But also just the amenities like maybe some common parking places, that's important for access and not to have each community have to build their own parking lot so their people can access the trail and they're part of the property and wander around. So I think there's a lot of opportunity. I know those cost money, but those are things that communities discuss and fund and to do it cooperatively and collaboratively in a way that maybe it's pitching in a little money from all of the communities to build some central parking lot or two of them or whatever is a really a wonderful way to help support that. Tom, did you have a question? I just fully support this. It's a way to build inter municipal relationships and it gets the right people in the room to have the right conversation. So I move to adopt the resolution. Is there a resolution in the packet for this? Yes. Yes, there's some actual language. Yeah. Okay. So we have a motion to adopt the resolution that formalizes the council support of this partnership, authorizes the city manager to appoint a representative and authorize me to sign off on this Champlain Valley Conservation Partnership Agreement. I will second that and I do see a question in the audience. Yes. Do you want to come up to six? Quickly. All right. Speak up. The help that Ashley has given this group. I've attended the meetings as a chair of the natural resource committee, but she's been super at getting the group together and all that. The cities should be thanked as a board for allowing that time and leadership to come to this group. It's going to mean all the kinds of things that we just talked about. It's going to be very, very helpful to the members. It's a nice collaboration and it's really started to be a good feeling. We found things that are similar and things that are different and that's good. So thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Yeah. I just have a couple of questions. Right. We have a motion, but yes, if there's further discussion, ask away. You did second it. It was seconded. Yes. So I'm just curious. Has the CCRPC had any involvement in this at all? Yes. We do have a representative working with us actually on the mapping part of it specifically, but they have been at almost every meeting except for the first one, I think. Is the mapping able to achieve a granularity where, for example, we could actually see the tracks of the active 50 mitigation easements on the Wheeler property? Possibly. I can keep an eye on that. I'm not sure. We haven't gotten to that level. How about TDRs that have been executed or are going to be executed that have actually been surveyed? We have not talked about that yet, but I will keep an eye on that as well. Is that a bug in your ear? Yeah. We're the only community that has the TDRs and on the last there's a restriction there. And that might be counted as restricted. That might be some of the restricted parcels in our map section actually. So I can look into that. Okay. One of the interesting things is how all the different communities define things differently. And that's making the mapping an interesting challenge for the regional planning. But it's a good start. But we've got to figure out the terminology that's compatible with each community and what the differences are. So it's not going to be an easy project, but it's a very worthwhile one to find the differences. Can I just comment? Yes, you may. I really want to recognize Ashley's leadership on this. Ashley's pulled the meetings together, provided a lot of the drive in the background thoughts on where to go with this. Other communities that come forward with a really great group of people have been highly collaborative and engaged. And each of the communities is pretty excited about this, I think. We can do some pretty neat things here. But thank you for your leadership and determination to get this done. Thank you. Are you ready for the vote? Okay. All in favor? Hi. Thank you so much. So item 11, this is the council discussion on actions related to the fulfillment of the MOU between the city council and the school board related to the design of stormwater treatment and storage facilities. Supporting improvements to the markup central school parking lot in the easement area, supporting 180 market street and the community center project. And I have some comments I'd like to make and then we can open up for discussion and comment. And I apologize, they're a little lengthy, but I think there's a lot of issues that have been discussed publicly and we really feel as a council that we need to respond to them. Although we've not at all times been perfect, the council's intent has always been to be both pro school and pro city. It is with great sadness that there appears to be a breach in the long history of city board or excuse me, school board and city council collaboration and mutual efforts to sustain and enhance South Burlington's prosperity and success. We believe our residents expect us to work together diligently to get back on track. So much resident investment in the future of our city is at risk. What causes us to reach this conclusion? On Friday, the school board's legal council informed the city's council that the school board's position is that the city is not in compliance with the September 2018 definitive agreement regarding the land swap and lease purchase agreement on 575 Dorset. The city's legal council believes it is in compliance. There's too much at stake here not to make a good faith effort and come together to understand and resolve these different interpretations and perceptions. The agreement provides for mediation in situations like this. Mediation would provide an opportunity for everyone to sit down together and seek to arrive at a mutually agreeable outcome. We wholeheartedly invite the school board to meet with us to define the parameters of a constructive and timely way forward for all, for now and into the future. Residents have asked us for a summary of the facts and here is our understanding. On November 6, 2018, the voters of South Burlington overwhelmingly approved five ballot items, four of which involve the transfer of real estate between the school district and the city as well as funding for a new library, senior center, city hall, city clerk's office auditorium, our future community center with the individual votes being one bonding to support the project, 72% voter approval. Two, approval for the city to lease and potentially sell the current city hall to the school district for school district purposes for the amount of $10, 79% voter approval. Three, providing easements on the Rick Marcotte Central School for Students by the city to construct parking for the community center, 77% voter approval. And fourth, approval for the school to lease and potentially purchase the current city hall from the city for school district purposes for the amount of $10, 78% voter approval. Secondly, the city and school district also entered into a memorandum of understanding back in September that contains the following provisions. Both sides will cooperate in support of the project. Both sides will move expeditiously as time is an important factor in saving the taxpayers money and delivering a project. And three, the project will pay for an improved parking lot for the school and elements such as stormwater treatment and storage, a parking lot and design elements for the community center. Since the approval of the voters, the city and school district staff have met at least eight times to design the mutual elements of the project to include a much improved and safer parking lot for the Marcotte School and stormwater treatment and storage facilities as obligated under current stormwater requirements. City staff and the city council have consistently offered proposals to the school district compliant with the will of the voters and the obligations of the MOU to ease the impact of the project on the school and to address any and every concern raised by the school board. Although briefed continuously on this project, there has been no positive feedback from the school board on design elements for the parking lot project. The only comments from the board have been related to what the school board will not allow. Stormwater has been studied in this area since the early 2000s when the US Army Corps of Engineers determined this area to be appropriate for city center. The engineers working for the city and the school district began their work on stormwater solutions for Rick Marcotte Central School and the new municipal building starting in June 2018. They came into the public eye in January 2019 when the engineers had proposed a plan for review. The engineers for both the city and school district have met and determined there are multiple engineering solutions to the stormwater issues related with this project. The meetings between city and school district staff have also been attended by their own engineers or publicly warned meetings of the city council where the director of public work spoke about various approaches to stormwater design solutions. Regarding the straight piping of Rick Marcotte Central School's stormwater into Potash Brook, stormwater has been flowing off that property, the school property since it was built 60 years ago. Some of this stormwater has flowed into the old Market Street stormwater system and straight piped into the Potash Brook. Other stormwater has flowed downhill to the south toward Potash Brook combining with other stormwater and creating wetlands on property not owned by the school district. In order to clean up Potash Brook and Lake Champlain consistent with the state and local stormwater regulations and the stewardship of our natural resources, the school district's polluted stormwater must be stored and treated. The school board is directly responsible for maintaining the school district facilities including stormwater and runoff into Potash Brook and the lake. A stormwater design solution was not finalized at the time of the vote in November 2018 because design work is an iterative process and designs evolved to meet interests of the city and the school board. Minor technical changes in design are to be expected and should not cause delays in decision making. Prior to the last school meeting of May 15, 2019 the school board had informed the city that it would be reviewing the stormwater solution or solutions proposed by the engineers. Just prior to this executive session preceding this meeting, additional design information requested by the school engineer was sent. It was not a new design but rather additional specifications that had been requested. At the meeting we learned that the school board was not prepared to make a decision because as the acting chair stated, the school's engineer got a new plan from the city's engineer that she needs to review in depth. Bridget Burkhart stated that they would be hearing from the engineer either by Friday May 17 or this week. Consistent with the will of the voters and the MOU, the city has agreed to place the school district's parking lot stormwater treatment under the lot and storage for this treated stormwater underground at the south end of the playing fields having the dual benefit of also draining what is currently a wet area of the field and making it far more usable. Undergrounding this infrastructure is far more expensive to the taxpayer but will ensure 100% usage of the play field. This will be done at a cost to the project. The city has agreed to create storage and treatment for all other stormwater runoff from the school outside of the area of the project. This is not called for in the MOU but the city agrees to pay this cost as part of the project in order to clean up the school's stormwater runoff into Potash Brook and the lake as stewards of the environment. It is also easier and more cost effective to address all of the school's stormwater runoff issues as part of the project even though it adds cost to the city's project. The city will build a much improved and much safer entrance to the Marcot School parking lot that will include bike and pedestrian facilities separate from the roadway and turning radiuses in the parking lot that can better accommodate buses and larger vehicles. The city's intent has always been to complete the parking lot and entrance parts of the project in the summer so as to minimize the impact of students, parents, and staff at the school. Due to the delays resolving the parking lot and stormwater design issues that may no longer be possible. The city has met all of its obligations under the directive of the voters and the memorandum of understanding. The city is 100% consistent with all aspects of the MOU. On Thursday of last week the city council called upon the school board to meet together with the engineers for both the school and the city to be able to have the information and arrive at an agreement. That request has been rejected. My view, and I believe I speak for three of the other four councils, council members, is that for reasons not made clear to us or the public the school board is needlessly delaying this project despite the clear will of the voters. If that is not the case then I ask the school board to meet with the council and arrive at an agreement on the parking lot design and all other related matters by Friday, May 31st. If the school board fails to meet and reach an agreement then they will be ignoring the clear and overwhelming will of the voters. Based upon the overwhelming positive vote of the taxpayers approving this project the city has spent just over 1.5 million dollars in design, engineering, and pre-construction work to include staff time. Every day where there is delay makes this project more expensive as the cost of construction continue to rise. Further delays or efforts to force the redesign of this project will cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars of wasted construction investment done with the approval of the voters. I do not believe that the problem here is one of planning or engineering. It is one of willingness to comply with the clearly stated decisions of the voters. There's another issue on transparency of government that I would also like to address because it's related to, I think, this impasse. A number of weeks ago the school board commissioned a report from their engineers that would describe their obligations to deal with stormwater related issues when the city asked for a copy of this report paid for by the taxpayers, the city was denied. The city had to file a formal public records request with the school district and was able to get a redacted copy of the report. The means of redacting were highly unusual so it is impossible to tell how much of the report was redacted. To be clear the South Burlington taxpayers financed this report. Nothing should be withheld from the taxpayers including the redactions. What is in this report that the school board feels cannot be shared with the taxpayers and residents of South Burlington? We call on the school board to do the following. Release the redacted engineer the unredacted engineers report with regard to the stormwater issues in its entirety and do so immediately. To hold all and two, to hold all of their discussions and deliberations on this matter in warned open sessions so that the public can gauge how their will is being carried out by the board, a board that works for them. The voters who approve the exchange of properties have the right to know every bit of information about how the city and the school board are following through on the voters' decisions. The school board and city council work for the same voters, the same taxpayers, and the same residents. Discussing a project in executive session and behind closed doors is contrary to the interests of the community, contrary to transparency in government, and contrary to the fundamental opinion of open government and matters that can be considered in executive session. There are no school district interests, nor city council interests. There are only the interests of the voters, the taxpayers, and the residents of South Burlington. By holding discussions and making decisions behind closed doors, the school board makes it impossible for the public to know whether or not the board is carrying out their clearly stated instructions. This is not a typical real estate transaction where a public board can go into executive session so as not to reveal matters that would hurt their competitive position. The school board and the council are not competing. They're fulfilling the will of the voters. To discuss these matters in executive session under these circumstances may not be a violation of open meeting law, but it certainly undermines the intent of that statute. I also received questions from a resident, which I put together as a handout in the back of the room. Would you like me to read through those? The first question was, when we went to the voters, meaning the school board and the city council, what stormwater studies had been done for city center prior? And the answer to that question is stormwater mitigation has been part of the design process in South Burlington since the beginning of our stormwater utility and the requirements of the state over 10 years ago. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers designated this site for city center in the early 2000s. Another question was, how much of the current stormwater problem is caused by current city center development and how much was caused prior? And the answer, currently the only impervious surfaces prior to the beginning of the build out was Market Street and impervious surfaces generally south of Williston Road, including the Rick Marcotte Central School. The question, how much would a hypothetical redesign, including engineering and architectural expenses, cost us? And the answer, going back to a redesign would probably cost about one half to two thirds of the costs incurred to date on the existing design. And the incurred cost to date, not counting staff time, is over $1.25 million. And we add to that what has been tallied as $266,000 in staff time. That's over 4,500 hours worked by Alana Blanchard, Jennifer Murray, Justin Rabadou, legal staff, administrative staff, and city management. It would also require a revote and set us back considerably. I wish to point out that in this figure, TIF funds that would be lost with time lost are not included in that figure. Another question, why did this only come up in January, February for the public? The answer, the engineers working for the City and School District had developed a concept in early January that was put before the steering committee at their regular January 2019 meeting. It was part of a process that had come out of our engineering consulting work. And question, has the council discussed hiring lawyers to sue the school board over this dispute? And the answer is no, absolutely not. The question, final question I received, what was the school parking storm water subcommittee? And this was a committee that was composed of David Young, Gary Markrees, and I'm sorry, I don't know how to pronounce his name, and some additional school staff and Alana Blanchard, Justin Rabadou, and some additional City Hall staff along with the engineers being put before by the City and School. They worked on developing solutions to parking and storm water over months, and I'm told since October and November of next year. And David Young did admit at our April 22nd 2019 steering committee meeting that he takes responsibility for not asking enough questions. Comments or discussion by other council members? The document you read pretty much. We've been going back and we've been messing around with this with no and not got anywhere for a full month now, and we can't afford to go the residents of the community needed to know that if we're going to build this community center and have a true city center to South Burlington, which has been in the works for over three decades, we need to move forward with this project and we need to move forward right away. Because further delay is going to, as Helen noted, is going to escalate the cost and we're going to get to a certain point where it's going to become unaffordable because cost materials go up continuously. We're generally committed to building this project especially because it's been approved by such a huge number of voters and this situation with the school board needs to be resolved and needs to be resolved now and quite honestly I'm fed up with with the delays that seem to be continually tossed at us by the school board because evidently a solution is at hand and I for the life of me can't understand why we can't get it figured out and get it done within the next several, within the next week or so. It just makes no sense at all to me. I'm very frustrated by it. I know you didn't vote for it but Yeah, I didn't. Hindsight's not always 2020. I didn't anticipate this happening when I voted no but I did have reservations and concerns about the ability to fit that project on that small piece of property. But I think it would be in everybody's best interest long term for the city and for the school board to understand that all the storm water has to be dealt with. So if we could just get some storm water engineers into a meeting with us to hear what they have to say all together we can sit down and look at some plans and understand what they mean for the property that wasn't going to be touched before but now has to be touched and whether it means it will still be able to be used as a playing field. I really like to do that as I vehemently sit in our last meeting that why don't we have a storm water engineer here because we're not dealing with the right players in the right place at every time. As you know we did request that I thought we actually had set up a meeting and agreed to a leadership meeting on the Friday of this week the 24th. We expanded that invitation to the school board and the superintendent to include both our councils or membership as well as some engineers to really work out what are the differences what seems to be a continuing problem or issue. We had also suggested that well maybe it just needed to be two members from each of those legislative bodies and the engineers to work through that and then go back to our prospective councils with a plan. But that was actually now the meeting on the 24th is off that won't work for the school board apparently. I thought we had set it up and it had certainly been on the agenda and that was one of the other things items as you recall when we talked about so how can we communicate better was to have those regular meetings and that was the date for the regular meeting. So it's very difficult to read that because it suggests that all is not well in South Burlington. But I think there's some real issues that have got to be addressed and I think the public is being really ignored. Those are really strong votes. This wasn't a vote on any of these issues that were like 56 to 48 or something or just ten votes. It was a highly participatory voting day. Lots and lots of people came out and that's a very strong vote. So that is very concerning to me. Tom. Just a few things. I hear you. There was a strong vote of support and since the vote I have acknowledged the will of the people and twice I have voted to move this thing forward and February 4th I voted to approve the bonding. But I didn't vote to put this before the voters similar to Tim because I had concerns about trying to put too much on this lot and I still have concerns about the City Hall. I'm really concerned now not just on the money we've spent on it but I also heard you emphasize far more expensive to the taxpayer. So I want to get those storm water engineers in the room too and understand what that far more expensive is because I think it's both been expensive and it's getting more expensive. So I think we need to get our hands around what this is total cost package going to be and if it's a lie. We have a maximum. We only approved a maximum of 21 million dollars. It won't go up 21 million dollars. So that's what I just want to see on paper because if these costs keep going up where are we going to cut? So that's a pressing concern. I simultaneously really want to get to work with the school board because we need to make a decision on this but I just have to offer some defense for the school board because I don't think it's fair for us to treat them differently than other parties. There was a vote in 2005 for a new building on the middle school. The voters passed it. They said let's build this building. But then after we passed that vote it turned out to not be feasible. And then there was a vote for a biomass facility at Alteration which the neighbors there they said we don't want the smoke coming into our houses. The voters approved a two million dollar bond to build that facility but we found out it just wasn't feasible afterwards. I wouldn't want to be up here castigating those neighbors for stopping the will of the voters on those things because I just don't think that's right. I think the school board is acting in the interest of the school district similar to why they have different entities for the CSWD, the CWD and GMT. So I would just say in the defense of the school board they have been given advice and they have seen this project and what it can affect and what it can do to their school property and this is the opinion they've come to. So we need to find a working solution. What is the opinion they've come to? That's what I'm waiting to hear. Is it we're just not going to work with you? That's not what I've heard. I've heard that they are not supportive of everything that we've heard here. They are not supportive of using more land other than the 0.7 acres and I also think they have concerns but I've seen, I don't know about the school board, I'm not going to speak for the school board. I'll speak for parents that I talk to all the time because I'm a Rick Markott school parent. They're just concerned about the parking lot plans and how that wasn't exactly what they saw in some of the presentations and so they're just concerned this project is unwieldy and it's bigger than they thought it was going to be. Tom, the plan that's the most recent plan on the table does not take any more land. That's one of the misconceptions that people keep going back to and the 0.4 acres is off the table. So that's like a red herring and to me continuing to use that argument is a delay tactic. If I may, that's the only thing that has been presented to us. So I love this new idea but presented to us. Let's see this new plan. I think we're having the expectation last Wednesday that the school board was going to talk about that. We are waiting for them to take that first step because they needed first to review. So I see that as us really giving them the benefit of the first say because this is their land. But I also want to state something that it is not part of our MOU. The only part that the MOU, where the MOU discusses the school's stormwater needs is that we'll pay for it. That's the only thing it discusses. Let's also be clear when we talk about feasibility. We have engineers who have looked at that building, who have looked at the stormwater problems and who are saying these are feasible plans. You talked about transparency. I haven't heard from those engineers. Public opinion and a professional expertise are two things that we have to take into consideration. But when we talk about feasibility we have the public opinion and we have the professional expertise both going in the same way. So I really really take issue with the word feasibility. Let me say that first of all I totally agree with you. Tom that the school board does need to look after the best interest of the students. And that's always been the way it's been in south Lincoln having had kids in the school system since 40 years ago. I wholeheartedly understand and believe that the school board has to stand behind the students. So that's a given. As far as this situation is concerned Tim's mentioned engineers. You've mentioned engineers. Talk with Kevin about engineers. I think indeed there must be some misunderstanding or breakdown in the links of communication that if we can get all the engineers together and talk about the solutions they have come up with which Justin Rabadot told us last week they had figured this out in one way or another and not at an exorbitant cost but there will be savings by the schools not having to go back and redo some of what's going to be done that they thought he thought the engineers were expected and there's nothing firm on this that you're probably looking at about 100,000 bucks net extra cost to underground the stormwater which the engineers from what I've heard because this has not been presented formally will improve the use of the play fields by improving the drainage and there will be no additional land used. Why can't we get this squared away on board with the school board on board get the engineers together in a room with the appropriate other representatives and the attorneys you know often times when you can't figure something out you sit everybody down and you sit there until you get it done and I would suggest that we need to do that next week and get it done to wait any further is totally irresponsible and not at all what the voters of South Burlington expect of us. So let's get the job done. I just have to say that with this delay as I said I look back at my computer we've been having the same darn conversation for a full month now and gotten nowhere and that's inexcusable. I agree with you we have to act. I just want to state again that we have only been presented one plan. I agree I'm open I'm interested in this new solution but I need to see the details all I've heard was a 10-minute presentation verbal presentation by Justin. Let's get the engineers together. Let's get the engineers together. January 23rd we sat in the steering committee with the school board and that's when the plan an actual physical design was submitted to them and I think it was probably the first time they had seen it that showed the 0.4 acres. This is the first time we had seen it and heard that there was a need for 0.4 acres. Since then we have not been given any design that shows anything that's been proposed. To me there's talk of a new design. I haven't seen a document that shows the new design. If there is one please show us. That's what I want to see. Because then we can sit down with the school board and argue about the design and see how long is the ground going to be torn up? When is it going to be torn up? When is it going to be receded? How soon will it be usable again? Because obviously if you're going to have to dig you're not going to be able to play on it for a while right? So there's a lot of things that have to be looked at and the effect on that property before we can come to an agreement. But we need to start with a definitive proposal that's on a design that's on a map. Just to clarify another thing I heard you say Dave my understanding and I could be wrong because I haven't seen this presented is this new underground solution is not on the 0.7 acres. So that's why we're still having this conversation but maybe I'm misunderstanding. I'm not clear on it. It wouldn't ultimately use any of the acres because it would be under a portion of those acreage. There would be I think Justin said there would be access points but that ultimately it was going to improve the fields. So I'm you know I don't see any reason we can't get a group of people together and get this figured out fast and we need to do that if we're going to I mean we spent this much money whether you are for the project or you're for the project or anything else we're this far down the road we're going to get the job done and I think you have said that if we're going to do it let's you told me if we're going to do it let's get it done. Do it now. Let's do it or not do it. So can the school board go along with a meeting I mean you're the only one from the school board I see here does it? Will the school board go along with a meeting next week where we get all the stakeholders at a table and figure it out? Can we do that? I need to make at least one correction. There are a lot of corrections I would like to make about what I've heard tonight. There are a lot of corrections as I said that I'd like to make to the facts that were presented tonight. I won't go into those tonight. What I will say is that this was a new plan that we received Wednesday night. Our engineer received it 10 minutes before our executive session which usually precedes our meeting started and she had it on her phone. She wasn't even hooked into the school district's IT so we were trying to look at it on a screen in a fuzzy way and trying to understand what is in it and there were new things in it and we are digesting that and given the history that we've had on this project and how it's turned out we feel that we need to do our due diligence appropriately. I am not a stormwater engineer that's why we have a stormwater engineer who is looking at this new plan. We are in no way purposely trying to delay this project. We are trying to do the work that we are obligated to do for the community to protect the assets of the district and to protect the children that go to school there and to make sure that we have the assets and the land that we need to educate them. This is new. This is new. We are sharing stormwater facilities in this plan with the city on additional land that was outside of the scope of the original agreement and I would just ask that you be respectful and we are working as quickly as we can and we are doing the very best that we can. There is an engineering aspect of it. There is a legal aspect of it. We need to understand those two things and come to a position on it. So I appreciate you wanting us to get in a room and just hash everything out. We thought we had done that previously and it turned out not to be the way we understood it to be. So having learned from that we're not taking our time. We are working as quickly as we can but we're not going to be rushed into this. We have to understand that plan. We have to understand what its impact will be on the schools. We have to understand what it will be on the impact that would be on that property. If that property 10, 20, 30 years down the road needs to be transferred out of the district's hands for some reason. If it needs to be sold, if for some reason things change, we need to understand what the impact of our decisions today are going to be on that property in the future. We want the library to happen. We wouldn't have done all the work to do the original MOU and the definitive agreement and we wouldn't have gone to the voters with you. We went to the voters with you to ask their permission for all those different things to make the library and the new city hall happen and we are doing our part. We're doing the very best we can. I just simply don't have a date from the engineer by when she's going to get it back to us. I can tell you she has been very quick to analyze things and get back to us, but I don't have a date for you and it doesn't make sense for us to just sit down and have another one of these conversations without information, without a position, without the school district understanding what is actually in that plan and what it would mean for the district. Can I just ask you what is the problem with having all of us, since we haven't seen the plan either, to sit down at the same time and review with the engineers and have them explain to us the pluses and minuses for both the new city center and the school. I mean, we are in this together. We all represent all the people sitting in the audience and watching on TV and everyone else. So the final solution has to be good for everyone. We need to know what are the pluses and minuses. And I just, it does seem delay, Bridget, when you have to one, you wouldn't even give us the first report they gave you. I can't imagine what would be in that that would tip your hand or something or make this information that the city council shouldn't also understand in terms of an engineering plan. We wanted to work too. Why in the world would we want to spend all of that money building something that wouldn't work? So having the five engineers that are working on this now talk with us and talk it through with us, I just see that as sort of a positive way forward. And I don't think anyone on the school board nor anyone on the city council has to become a stormwater expert and understand every single aspect of a design. You need to have a big picture, you need to have expertise that say and their best judgment, this would work better than that. And why? And the advantages and disadvantages. And then you talk about it as a group and come to a decision. This sort of like let's get our plan and make sure it dots all our eyes and crosses all our T's and we're not going to show it to you until we have it all set and then you show it to us and something else comes up. I mean the whole 25 year issue that was something new last time, I mean I was looking back on Alana's report and she talks about the 25 year flow. So it had been addressed and it was part of the information that was shared. Now maybe you and I didn't know what that meant and I still don't quite know. If I can jump in. But the engineers do. I just want to thank you again for coming to the City Hall. I would just say as a parent of Rick Marcott as I saw these plans, there was never that point four acres into the field. So I putting myself in the school board's position, that was a blind side. They didn't know they were going to lose that lacrosse field. If I was on the school board I would be on the defensive seeing now but now we need to come to a different place. But once you're on a defensive then you say but I am responsible for this because that is property that belongs to the school district and so we knew that we were polluting the potash brook and the lake. If I was on the school board and wasn't expecting this I would then want to pause and dive into the details and understand all of the cost implications of this problem. However, Justin came before us, I think a week ago I'm not sure at this point two weeks ago and said correct me if I'm wrong folks but he said the engineers have discussed the challenge and we think we've got it figured out and then he went on to explain it. Were you here for that meeting? I was but it was just verbal and I didn't see any diagrams well that's the point it was just verbal but he did say we think we've got it figured out so for God's sake let's sit together in a room and see what the engineers have figured out and then talk among us and say good if that's what the engineers have figured out let's do it. It was described. Because as you just said I think Megan and one of us are going to be stormwater engineers but if you've got five smart engineers in the room and they've figured it out let's hear what they've figured out and be done with it and get moving. I've totally lost patience on this. Let's get everybody together and get going. What's wrong with, is there anything wrong with that? Yes, the needs of the district have consistently been trampled in these discussions. We're not trampling anything Bridget, get the engineers together you can't make an engineering decision the only way we're going to hear what the engineers have to say is to sit down and listen to them. Why can't we do that? I mean it's irresponsible not to do that. Thank you for that feedback. I think I've said all I can say on behalf of the board. I think that's unfortunate because I want to poke for it. That's a great idea. Let's do it and hear what the engineers have to say so we can get this figured out and I'm really disappointed I'm not hearing. And I am disappointed in the tone of this meeting and I'm disappointed in painting the district as polluters as being against the will of the voters when we have devoted an enormous amount of resources and time and effort to try to make this happen. Painting you as polluters? You didn't get on purpose. I haven't said the word pollution once. All I've said is the engineers have said they've got a solution to this stormwater problem. Let's get together and hear it. I haven't said the word pollution that's something that's been going on for years and I didn't know about it until it came out. I haven't said that word once. All I've said is if we want to solve this let's get together and figure it out and the school board doesn't seem to want to do that and I find that really disappointing. That's all I've said. Yes, I would really recommend would share the corrections or the public's benefit the things that you really weren't correct that was stated.  I was taking notes as fast as I could. I would be happy to at a different meeting but I'm not going to sit here and continue that note. That's not appropriate and that's not something that I'm authorized to do. I came to this meeting in a spirit of collaboration because we said that it would improve communication if when there's an item on the agenda that relates to the other party the other party would send a representative to listen and to be there. That's why I came tonight. I didn't come to address a list of accusations against the school district. They were listing facts and you said there were several that you disagreed with. There are several. There are several and at a different time I would be happy to think that I am not going to go line by line. I'm not going to share lots of all because that was quite a speech that I was not prepared to hear. Frankly, I wouldn't answer a comment. I guess if remarks can be directed to the chair, I believe that's standard protocol. Remarks should be directed to the chair. That's standard protocol. That was a request. I'm disappointed. My only other thought is that it may not have been the most amicable exchange but it was an exchange. Thank you for coming. I do wish to just say and I'm sorry. You can call. Yes. Mom. Thank you. I have incredible respect. You guys don't know that. You also know I just say it like I mean it. Helen. When you read the numbers that voters voted on, it was very noticeable to me in the 79% support for the city being able to use the school land that you left out an incredibly important part of that ballot measure which said the point whatever acres. It was in the ballot. I'm for the library completely. The school boards for the library. Councillor Chittenden, I beg you to please separate any comments you make about parents versus school board. I think it is really confusing things. I just witnessed it. Community members, parents are upset saying they want to reconfigure the library. Reconfigure this. Let's meet. Let's do that. It's not the school board asking that. It's parents. And I saw chatter about that today and so I dove in and I said tell me parents, what's the upset? Is it the loss of land? Is it the harm to the children's education? Is it the traffic? All the chatter was about the traffic. They're pissed about the traffic. They're mad about the traffic. They're not. I can't even comment on what else the parents are upset about but I know they're upset about the traffic and they feel disrespected. If there was a sign like there was by the Klingers Bakery saying street is for school traffic only, that would really help. And there would be happy public people and happy parents. And now I understand that even this morning, first of all, I believe Bridges is the only person in this room that has seen this new engineering map apparently. You're all giving her the they're waiting and waiting and you either haven't read the MOU or you guys haven't even seen this engineering plan yet. You've had it for a month and you're saying you haven't even seen it? Why are you jumping down her throat? They had a meeting this morning with their engineer to go through it. And you guys haven't even seen it yet. How do you know that a kid is going to fall through that field when they're playing soccer and die? We want to talk about it. Exactly. Well, she did. Would their engineers have you? Okay. I'm sorry but the point is I really think there's a massive miscommunication going on here. Please don't throw your biased summary because you are so respected.  There are so many people here that work with the city groups. The school boards for the library. They want the building. They don't want the additional acreage. The good news is there's a new plan. The city and I don't know. I'm trying to understand it. Engineers like it. They're trying to get together to discuss it. You guys haven't even seen it yet. So don't get all upset with her. And maybe you can by Friday have the engineers coming together. But I'll tell you, you saw me. I couldn't hold myself back when I heard your tone Helen. Come on. I'm asking you as a voter be collaborative separate the parents from the school board please be collaborative and respectful. I'm calling people and asking questions and trying to keep perspective here. I'm asking you please be respectful. You guys are much closer than you realize. Especially with this new plan. I believe that soccer fields can be on a mitigated field. I have one in my backyard and we run on it all the time. I believe this new plan is going to be excellent. It's going to work. Sure it's a little bit more but so was moving the library to the mall. You could have used kept the school cut the library at the school and use that money to get the best engineering plan. So let's just not talk about this money and that money. Let's get to this plan. We're so close. We're so close. These two engineers are going to figure it out. We're not going to have to use more central school land. We're going to get this building done and this freaking traffic especially if you can get something to make it better for the parents that are just trying to get their kids to school. Maybe use the school bus more often. You guys are really close. I hope you're right. We don't know that. We've got no feedback that we're really close. How do you know that? Because I call and ask people nicely without accusing them. I look at what people are saying in social media and I ask them I wasn't liked today when I told the central parents to put their kids on a bus instead of falling in a pothole. But the reality is there's just a lot of anger out there like there is across our entire country. And we just have to breathe and be respectful and listen. The school board wants the library. I still can't even talk. I need a cup of water. Okay you're really close. You are close. You're speaking for the library. Have you spoken to the school board? You know me. I pick up the phone and I call whoever. I probably talk to people on every committee in this town. I'm just a busy body and I might be wrong. My concern Monica first is my understanding of letting the school board view it first was to avoid what happened on January 23. I don't want to talk about the past. I'm not going to sit here and talk about the past. Just like Bridget said they're attempting to learn from the past. I'm not going to talk about the past. I'm not going to talk about the past. Right now there's an engineering plan that engineers can agree on that will not take school property. So it will be consistent with what 79% of the voters voted on which is .7 acres left out of your memo. So you will be in compliance with what voters voted on with this simple plan. We aren't planning to take any more land. So the .7 remains consistent. I'm sorry I didn't put it in there. But this is what I'm saying because it's not. Because a lot of people out there are saying shame on the school board. I heard it just a moment ago. Someone right behind the school board director is about.  No not shame on the school board. They're talking to their attorneys to make sure a kid doesn't fall through and die. Okay and that's important. Okay so let me just clarify a couple things. One, at the school board meeting last week I believe you folks said we haven't seen the plans from the engineer yet that showed that the engineers had come to an agreement. I believe that's what the school board said. We haven't seen those plans yet either. And so that's part of the idea getting everybody together so that we can collectively. Then they're not the ones that are sitting around waiting. They got a plan 10 minutes before some meeting. The engineers had worked out what they think is going to work. That was well before their meeting. Whether there was anything right before the meeting or not I have no idea. So hang on. She just said it here unless you're saying she's lying. Hang on. You're 100% correct that a solution is hopefully at hand. In order to get to that point we need to get together. Secondly I don't think there have been problems. That's what Monica said. But you don't need to get together. They're looking at it. They're about to maybe say hey great. Kids aren't going to fall through and you didn't take the land. Hang on. I haven't heard any accusations. I've heard misconceptions, no accusations and I don't think there's animosity. I think there's frustration. Well it's coming across to me as someone sitting in the back row that there is animosity. And I did hear about pollution and the school board had to deal with that until 2023 so that's not fair. Have you ever watched baseball players screaming at each other? That's frustration. Then they go out and have dinner together. This is frustration. I feel this is an abuse of the floor. I'm sorry that's disrespectful. I'm begging you to please keep a more respectful and hopeful town because I think we're really close. Well I hope you're right that we're close. If we're not then you guys are all well. I will come back here and you can grill me. I think you're close. Please be respectful and just keep that in mind. We all hope you're right. Thank you. I think I've been misrepresented. I'm sitting in the back row. I find the previous conversation a little bit disrespectful. And I want you to know that there are people out here who believe that both sides are doing things a little bit differently but I did not hear your tone as disrespectful. I believe the city council has differences of opinion among you but I believe that you are being rational. I hope that the school board will respond to what you had to say. I think it would have been helpful if the chair of the school board had given us some examples of the facts that she believes are incorrect. But I want you to know that not everyone in the audience and I'm sure out there there are people on all sides of the issue but that some of us believe that your tone was not disrespectful but that there are serious issues here that you are trying to get to the bottom of. And we are grateful if you will expedite that because my greatest fear is that this is going to continue and suddenly we're not going to have a library at all because the lease will run out in the mall and we're going to put all the books in a storage container somewhere while we're still trying to resolve the issue. So I would support the encouragement from both sides to come to the table and figure it out. I heard Justin's presentation at the last city council meeting made really good sense to me. But I'm not an engineer I'm just an interested citizen who has spent 35 years of her life in education and cares about the kids and what happens with them at the school. I also support the fact that maybe we can get more parents to use the bus. I think that's a great idea. It's good for the environment and it might lessen the traffic. But I just want to say that there are differences of opinion in the audience about the tone and so I think that it will maybe open another dialogue that maybe we can get those doors open and get everybody to sit in a room. As a citizen who serves and watches you whether it's on TV or sitting in this room, if you need to declare an executive session to do that I think you ought to. And just close the doors and figure it out and come out of executive session and tell us what it is that you resolve behind closed doors. Because we will all celebrate if in fact you come out of those doors and say we have reached resolution. So I for one would say there needs to be executive session. Just do that. With the school board is what you're saying. Absolutely. And the engineers. Just call it in. There's somewhere in the legal language that you can make an executive session. And I think my point was that we really don't need to because our final decision needs to reflect what's best for the community and I think you can do that in open session. From all my experience in the legislature and on this council and serving on different boards, some conversations are very hard to have in public. I will acknowledge that and I often wished can't we just decide this all by yourself without people listening. But you can't. And so I think there's potentially a cultural difference between the city council and the school board. But I think at this point all the information is out in the public. What we need to know is what the plan looks like and it's not real estate in the traditional sense. The public owns this real estate. They're the ones that need to know what we're talking about. Just real quick. Real estate often is a justifiable reason to step into executive session because it is a real asset that has a marketable value. And that's why we would go into executive session when acquiring real estate. In this case I don't know what the school board might or might not be thinking about that asset. And that is something that they wouldn't necessarily to maintain a lot of their negotiating position. So I'm not saying to do everything in executive session chair really. All I'm saying is an executive session is just to be able to speak freely and to get a better idea of where the school board is. I see a great deal of value in that. So I would encourage us to consider that not for all of the negotiations but for part of it. I wonder if you can't have the presentation with the engineers and all of that and have that be very public. But then be able to have a conversation where you can clearly iron out some significant differences. I'm with you. I'd like that to happen in public but it does not appear that that's working very well. So if that's what it takes. Anyway I appreciate what you're trying to do. I just apologize. I did not intend to be accusatory. I was trying to address a number of issues that I have heard from people that really are erroneous as opposed to go on social media and correct the comment. So I chose not to and I chose to do it publicly. Now clearly some of the statements were probably nothing that Bridget wanted to hear but from our perspective hopefully she will has a potentially better understanding of how we came to our decisions and some of the issues that are important to the city council. And they may be different than the school boards. I just wanted to say you were responding to residents' demands that you speak, that you answer their questions. That this was something that served the public interest and that was requested by members of the public. And I want that to be crystal clear. Because we are also receiving emails and phone calls just like the school board. And I agree with Helen's process here fully. I fully support it that we come out publicly and we respond to those requests for information. I see that as our job. You hired us to do that and in members of the public and you deserve to hear from us. Correct the record. Yes, you may. The school or the city council has not seen the 60% plans for the stormwater system. But the city council is fully aware, conceptually of where the flows go, what land is involved who's responsible for paying and so on. So the notion that the city council hasn't seen the plans is a non-issue. The city council knows how this is going to get put together consistent with the MOU. They don't need at this point to see the engineering drawings that would have cost us many thousands of dollars to put together short of having a conceptual agreement with the school district. So the council is fully aware of where the stormwater is planned to go under the MOU. And so to say that the council hasn't seen the plans is really a non-issue. Once we have a conceptual agreement, we will spend the taxpayer's dollars to create the plans that everybody can see. We should stop talking so much about the conceptual plans and the specific details because we need to get that conceptual agreement to then flesh them out. And that's where we bring tens of thousands of dollars down the toilet for design. And that is what we ask for and I never know. I appreciate that comment, Kevin. I really do. But, I would not want to try, I would not want to vote on something that did not have some engineering detail on a piece of damn paper so we can all see it at the same time with the school board. I don't care whether it's conceptual or not. It's going to take up some space. I want to see if we had a diagram that we had on January 24th with the 0.4 acres with a gravel stormwater pond, why can't we have an equivalent diagram for this? How much did that cost, the January? We paid for the 0.4 acre diagram. Was that thousands of dollars or was that just a quick? This isn't a whole lot different than that. Well, I know, but it's underground. I understand that, but it would be nice to see that thing. Well, maybe you want to see it on where underground on this. If you think you have a conceptual design, you've got to present it to the people that want to know whether they've got a vote on it because it's got to have some technical detail to it. I'm hoping we can unveil that with the school board. The school board needs to say we're open to this conceptual drawing before we take that vote and have that discussion prior to the vote. To try to bring this to a good place, I think I heard from Monica that they're close to that point. Let's just... hearing that from a member of the public and not from the school board. I heard her speak for the school board and so let's give it this week and see what the school board says. I have to say this is a very odd way to receive information. I agree. It's Monica's opinion looking at these meetings to say that you guys are very close. We've heard a couple of times in meetings the engineers have sat down and they figured something out. Monica's extrapolating from that that she believes that we were very close and she wants very badly for me to have it. I'm putting more to thank you but Monica's not providing you any information. I'm very confused because we do have a drawing that came 10 minutes before our Wednesday meeting. Are you saying that you don't have that drawing? There are engineers that produce it. Right, that's why I'm confused about what you're saying. You shouldn't be confused. The council is fully aware of the conceptual concepts of what MOU requires. The engineers have got a dozen drawings from one version after another that they put forth in an iterative process with your engineers. We've got a dozen drawings. We have to get to the point where we get to conceptual agreement between the two boards so that all the engineers can then put that into an architectural drawing, an engineering drawing, and present it to the two boards. But we can't go out and spend thousands of dollars in engineering time not having a clue what this school board will accept. That is why after the January meeting, we've been pushing to have a common meeting where all the information can come out with the engineers with the two boards.  And you can say I like that. I don't like that. Can we make that deeper? Can we make that wider? I think that's all the city council is asking for. We have to get a conceptual agreement. You can't take a detailed engineering plan in front of two boards that have no engineers on them and dig into the detail about the granularity of the gravel that lays below the submerged wetland. You can't do that. You have to have a concept first that you agree with and then say to the engineers, design it. The designs are there. I think we're talking about two different things. No, we're talking about the same thing. We're talking about two different things because the map I have is what you're calling a conceptual map that shows where stormwater flows and to which part of the property stormwater flows. That's where we're differing. That's all I'm saying is that when you were saying a drawing, we have a drawing. We do not have an architectural design. That's not what we're asking. He's not saying that Bridget, you misunderstood. He was saying until we get to the architectural design we need to have you agree with the concept which is not the architectural design. You have not seen it either. That's what I'm saying. We don't have an architectural design nor are we asking our engineer to develop an architectural design before we sit down with you. What I misunderstood is that we have a drawing and it was unclear earlier in the verbiage whether that was an architectural drawing or a conceptual drawing. Kevin's talking about, I'm talking about a conceptual drawing. We have a conceptual drawing. That is what we are looking at. That is what we are asking our engineer and our lawyer to look at to understand where conceptually the stormwater is going. How much of the city stormwater ends up on school land. How much of the school stormwater ends up on city land and understand that. And that's all I'm saying. That's where we are. We have that. We got that ten minutes before our meeting on Wednesday. We're working on it. I am not an engineer but I did read Alana's memo of February 4th, 2019 and she gave to the lay person some kind of straws to hang on to in order to understand what she was saying. For each, for the square area, the surface area, of impervious surface area, they need so much stormwater mitigation. And all of those figures were detailed for the building, for the parking, for everything. In each individual column, there was an individual number. And those numbers are what we need to work with. Not, can we see where the water flows? We need to... The volume of water flows. We are not engineers. That is why we are having help to look at this. It's not where the water flows. It's what water is flowing from this surface area. Could I see the conceptual diagram? Is that freely shareable? Could I get what they see? I'd love to see what they see. Can we all get it? Absolutely. It's not a lot different than the 23rd in January. It's a different concept. It's underground. It's not a gravel wetland. If the community can use the land that's on top of it, then we're in a good place. That's why I think... You know, I agree with you. Absolutely. When we came up with the gravel design and shared it, they said absolutely no. So we went back to the drawing board. On every issue that the school board had a problem with, we tried to resolve that. So the plan they're looking at now, it's underneath the field, right? And it improves the soccer field. It would make it a little drier. So you could use it. Let's have a meeting. We have underground storage and treatment underneath the back parking lot. During the day, there are 30 cars parked on top of it. You would never know that there's a storm water treatment in storage facility there. It's the same thing. And it was all about the point 4 acres. That never came up. It was all about adding, you know, having the pond. So it is relatively not necessarily old information. There was a gravel wetland which is far less expensive and better treatment than the underground storage. That's why that concept came up first. Save the taxpayer money, do better treatment. That was unacceptable. That's right. So we took that off the table. So that is off the table. So any comments that go forward about well this point 4 acres and that's not what we voted for. That's not in the MOU. Well it's not in a plan that we're talking about right now. That's right. And that's the concept. It's underground underneath the playing field. The school board at this point has not accepted that yet. They've been reviewing it for a month. No. They've been reviewing it for a month, Monica. And we heard about it. 10 minutes before a meeting. Are you sure she's lying? That's not serving. We need to have a separate meeting with the school board if we're going to continue this conversation. Well I hope you will bring back our invitation and hope that we can sit down whether it's an executive session or not with our engineers, all five of them, to walk us through what is a possibility and find out what your concerns might continue to be about that plan. Is that too much to ask? I know you can't answer that but can you take that message back? I can take that message back. Because I did offer that and it was rejected but maybe after this meeting the school board will feel differently. I don't know. But thank you. Yes. One last comment. 9.30. Sandy Doola and the money's terrace. And I want to thank everyone and I've said this to others that I think the way the council operates and I've gone to lots of school board meetings and the way the school board operates sort of seems like two different cultures to me. So the fact that this may not have seemed respectful and others have thought it was respectful I can understand that. But my real point is that I just want to emphasize the concept of interdependence because I feel very strongly that the interest there are so many overlapping interests between working toward the success of the city and working toward the success of the school and the children that seem to be getting lost here. And maybe I'm a Pollyanna but I happen to think that having the city center succeed is very much in the best interests of the school district because it generates tax revenues because we have higher property tax values. If we have commerce we have sales taxes, rooms and meals taxes and we have local options taxes and these all help. If we have a successful city center maybe better jobs and the children that are in the school now will not have to leave and it will be a very vibrant place that they want to stay in even more than they might now and that I'm working very very hard as are others in the room on trying to address the affordable housing problem which I know is a reason why kids don't necessarily stay here. And schools being successful are so so important to the city success and so I think we have to remember that I don't see, frankly I need to have a conversation with Bridget later, I don't understand how we could possibly, you could possibly be sure that you would have, you could assure yourself that you never have to get rid of this property in the future or something, I don't it doesn't come into play for me but aside for that I think that everybody really wants the same thing but the fact that there is so much common ground seems, I'm not hearing it and I hope to hear more of it in the future, that's all. Thank you. For poor Sue's case, before we move on to item 12 and we will shortly, we'll take a five minute break so she can wiggle her hands and thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. No need to say anything else. There was none for you. Always. You showed that petition. Some one saw your name on it? That's comforting. Well, that's comforting, Tom, because we Can we call the meeting back to order, please? So this is the list of everybody. Yeah, but don't we have to do this first? Yep. OK. And what are we doing? OK, I would like to call back to order the South Wellington City Council meeting of Monday, May 20, 2019. We'll take up item 12, which is a continued public hearing on interim zoning application IZ 19-01. Welcome again. Very good. I'm Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. And Mr. Dolan Kerwin is here to reappear back before the City Council to review the interim zoning application that's pending before you. The last time we met, we talked about what we originally thought had been addressed as far as perhaps four out of the five areas of concern that interim zoning was based upon. But one of the outstanding items was the planned unit development, proposed changes, and how this project might fall under those particular components of what the Planning Commission was working on, currently is working on, I should say. That being the background, Councilor Emery also wanted to take the opportunity to perhaps apply Mr. and Mrs. Kerwin's two-acre lot to a test of what the Planning Commission is working on with regard to open space and other issues that are subject to components of the interim zoning. That being the background, the Planning Commission did, courtesy, schedule Mr. Kerwin to come and speak with them one more time. If you recall, Paul Conner summarized the fact that there wasn't a formal request to change the report that had been submitted to the City Council. We had simply gone to ask to discuss with them what their concerns or status points of the interim zoning work specifically about planned unit developments was. So to clarify that, we asked for a continuance so that we could at least go back and talk with the Planning Commission, and at the same time, perhaps allow Councilor Emery to come forward with any additional information that would help the City Council come to a determination with regard to whether or not the Kerwin's proposed subdivision application could move forward with the understanding that it wasn't going to be adverse or inconsistent with the issues that have been brought forward as part of interim zoning. So that being the background, Mr. Kerwin did go to the Planning Commission meeting, and I'll let him discuss a little bit on regards to what happened at the meeting. There wasn't an awful lot happened. It was a short meeting. People just generally expressed an opinion, positive or negative, mostly positive. And as a result, they approved the application and said that they believed they had answered all of your questions. I assume there is some communication between them and you, so that's it. It was OK. I can report back from the Open Space IZ Committee. The Open Space IZ Committee is not working with the Planning Commission's PUD regulations, but we are looking at parcels to rank them or rate them with regard to the value of their natural resources in order to present a finite list of top parcels that the city and the Planning Commission might look at for conservation purposes and various ways to conserve land. So I'll just read to you, the public, as well as Mr. Kerwin and Mr. Marshall and the counselors, what has been approved from that meeting, which took place on May 7th, 2019, so directly after the last city council meeting. It was a new agenda item called Review of a Parcel, whose owner wishes to subdivide the property currently under consideration in the council. Megan asked the committee to review a parcel, which could potentially be subdivided and which the council is currently reviewing according to the IZ bylaws. Megan indicated that given her dual roles as a counselor, she would not participate in the discussion and the committee's evaluation of the parcel, but rather relay their evaluation to the council on which she is already a voting member. After reviewing the parcel using established criteria, members agree that it makes sense to build on the parcel in question. The parcel did not satisfy tier one criteria, which is for parcels over four acres, four or more acres, and for tier two, they noted no water, wildlife, or forest features. Regarding aesthetics, this parcel appears consistent with increased density levels. Finally, for the last category of agriculture, it was noted that there is a tiny sliver of prime ag in the southwest corner. Sophie Mazawida suggested that areas that are not top priorities for natural resources should be used for development as opposed to areas where natural resources are more critical. Alan Strong, who is the committee chair, acknowledged consensus among the members that the parcel does not score in tier one or in tier two, but raised the question of whether it sets precedent for the council during interim zoning. Duncan Murdock noted that the trees deserve attention as well. OK. That's from the open space. Yes, so they. Draft minutes from the Planning Commission meeting? We don't. But I did have a conversation with Paul Conner, and he indicated that they had felt that this was appropriate. The only caveat that they know they have to face is that the TDRs that you need, that final determination of whether you'll be able to use them or how, is still in court. But if you still want to proceed, I mean, that might be a stumbling block, but at this point, the Planning Commission felt that there was a subdivision that was very similar to this one, just up the street or down the street, so it really wasn't changing the environment too much. Do we want it? So they were OK with granting, giving us the. Two committees. We have two green lights. Yes, we do. So do we want to talk about the TDR elephant in the room? Could I just say that I do have the minutes here, and there was a vote taken. Yeah, Ms. Luizos explained that this has returned to the commission from the city council because no specific action had been taken. The council was confused by this and needed a clear recommendation. She noted that the commission's fear of responding should deal with whether the application goes against what the commission is working at. Mr. Bailey said he saw no reason to delay the application. Ms. Ostby felt there could be all kinds of recommendations from the IZ committees. Mr. Klugeau said the development pattern has been established on this side of the road, and the commission's PUD project is for areas of four acres or more, and this is only two acres. He was OK supporting the application. Mr. Mittag moved to allow the application to proceed. Mr. Klugeau seconded. The motion passed six to one with Ms. Ostby voting against. As you say, we have two green lights, so do you want some additional comment about the TDRs or is that just? I mean, we could close this application and move forward with that. We should have voted to vote. And then that could leave the applicant solely at the mercy of whatever happens with the TDRs, which could be the applicant's own risk, right? Can I just interrupt? We need to vote to go into a public hearing. I forgot to do that. Continue the public hearing. To continue the public hearing, I apologize. All in favor? Aye. OK. So wind that back, Sue. We did that first. Yeah, please. Everybody back up. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. OK. So continue with your TDR thing. Right, so like I said, we could vote to close, but I think I'd like to hear from the applicant about what they fear are the risks for purchasing and using TDRs, with or without some neighbor litigating, so. Oh, that's a fair question. Currently, the application seeks to create three additional lots. And by right, in this Southeast Quadrant District, you're allowed 1.2 units per acre. So at this point in time, without the use of TDRs, you could do a two-lot subdivision that would achieve the first goal of Kerwin's, which is to break off the house from the other potentially developable area. So right now, they're looking to sell the house and not the extra area. So at this point in time, even if TDRs were to get hung up for some period of time, the option of the ability for the Kerwin's to achieve goal number one, which is to separate the house from the remaining future or potential development area of the parcel, can still be achieved without bringing TDRs into the mix. So that's very good in regard to that. We all understand that TDRs are in kind of in the process of basically going through whatever it's going to take in order to put them together. So in the meantime, the Kerwin's are very appreciative of all the work that's been done by the various committees and individual members. And at this point, they're just looking forward to try to move forward with their ultimate retirement plans, which are to allow the house to be sold so that they can downsize and then work on what other opportunities there are for the remaining portion of the property. But that makes sense because they can't build the nth house until they had the TDR. So they could build that first house and whatever else they could build. Well, and more importantly, they can sell their house and move to where they would like to move to. I move to close this application if that's the will of the ward. Second that. Second that. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Very good. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your patience. 45 days. Very much. OK. So now we move on to item 13, considering applications for appointments to city boards, committees, and commissions. I thought we were not going to interview incumbents. Did we say that last year? Just curious. No, I mean, personally, the incumbents, but other incumbents here? Yes. The first three, well, no. We've got Wynne Spencer Baker. Wynne Baker. Let's see here. Where's Wynne? No? OK. Is that some people that? Yeah, I know, and I apologize. Well, he's an incumbent. And I believe he is the pension committee, correct? And there is one opening, and I think there is one person who has applied. So we have his statement. Do you want to? Do we need to interview? Is Spencer Baker? Yeah. Yeah, I don't think I need to. OK, you serve with him on the pension committee. OK, so we can potentially, are we going to vote on all of these one by one, or should we just do it at the end? OK, but he seems to be a go. All right, let's move on to Joy Grossman. And she is interested in the Housing Trust Fund. We have two openings. And we also put on her application, the bike and pet, if needed. OK, and we have three people who have applied for the two slots. So let's interview Joy here. No, OK. That's who is here. Yeah, well, let's see. If the people, Kyle Albee was here. Is he still here? Kyle? Well, he's spread a whole bunch of bark mulch today. I know, so he's probably tired. Probably had to leave. Jean-Sebastian? OK, would you? Yes, so why don't you come forward? Let's see. You are interested in the Natural Resources Committee, as well as public art? Yeah, I'm in command for the public art. OK. So maybe we should focus. Well, why don't you want to do the art one first? And then you'd like to continue, I take it. Yes, I would like to continue the public art committee. It's a great committee with a variety of angle and background. And we collaborate together very well, enjoyed working. And we get some fruit to a labor. We were city center park this morning, putting in place the geese, five of them, close to Gosling's. And it was great. They're going to be in a good spot, I think. So I don't know where the questions. If he's an incumbent, wants to apply again, I think I won't leverage his experience as much as possible. We have one other person, Kyle Albee has who's a newbie, but he was here earlier, but he didn't. Thank you for doing this. How many years have you been on it? Two years. Two years or two terms? Well, I changed name. So in fact, it's two terms, but originally was the design review committee that migrated into. Well, I personally think it's always good to have Councilor Spouse is busy on other committees. No way, it provides a certain amount of understanding and appreciation for night meetings. Oh, yeah, I should say that. Peace at home. We just have them paint things around the city, too. That works, too. Right. Are there any other questions for Jean Seb? Megan, do you want to grill them now? You got it right on TV here. What kind of art do you like? Who's your favorite painter? A French impressionist. Probably. It could be. Could be. Starts with an M. Ends with a T. Joneses. Yeah. I'm just joking. Well, so now why don't you talk about natural resources? We've got four openings there and five people. But yeah, so this is I'm applying to the position. I am by interest drawn to natural resources. I'm about to graduate from the South Burlington Master Naturalist Program on May 28. So that really opened my understanding of the city and also being interested in participating in it. We have great resources. And I like them to be part of the decision making when it comes to improvement to the city. At an earlier time, I guess I would say. And with David last week, I don't remember. And he presented the committee. I went and attended once. That's it. I was also supported by one of the members of the committee saying you should apply. OK, so you were encouraged to apply. Right. Great. OK. Other questions or comments? Dave, did you want to say something? I was going to answer. Oh. Yes. Oh. OK. I'm just so the board is aware of it. I adopted the practice as chair to talk with all candidates. Well, I was back in the time when you only had one candidate for three positions. We're lucky right now, in natural resources review, four vacancies and five applicants. And we have one Duncan, who is currently a member. And I think he's left. Yes, he had to leave. So at any rate, that's for a long time. So we'll invite him back another time. OK. So you've got four candidates. Four new people. Yeah. Four candidates for three, if you were to point at Duncan, a factor in inclination. OK. And Jean-Claude, are you interested in the one year?  So is there just one year? Did someone resign and had Betty, Melitia? OK. So are you interested in that or the three-year? You want to go long term, short term? The figure would be good if possible. OK. All right, we'll put that down. I think we'll need to interview everyone. But I appreciate your interest. If there's no more questions, I think you can. I'll just ask a question. Did you intend to apply to serve on two committees, or is this an either or for you? I would like to, ideally. I think it's, yeah, those are strong interests of mine. Say, Kuber, I think try to choose, I would be. I'm very interested with the natural resources coming in, but I'm really interested. So maybe short hair would put the natural resources coming in. OK, so that's number one. OK. Which is number one? Natural resources. And the art committee is second. All right, thank you. Well, thank you. Is Timmy Hess here? Oh. Please come forward. Great. So Tim, you're interested in the Natural Resources Committee as well. So why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself? Well, I've spent my entire career in the outdoors, 20 years for Georgia Game and Fish Division as a fisheries biologist and as assistant chief of fisheries. And then I came to Vermont, and I was fisheries chief for six years here for the Game and Fish Agency, and then worked for the US Fish and Wildlife Service for six years after that. So I've always been outdoors or involved with grant programs or something like that when I got pushed up into a level of incompetence with more paperwork and less field time. But I've been in Vermont for 12 years since my retirement from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and I fish, I water sample with the Winooski Valley Conservation District team, Potash Brook, is where I dabble most of the time when they ask me to pick up water samples. But I don't know. I spent a lot of time in the outdoors. And I've lived in several communities over the years in Metro Atlanta for 15 years. And so I sort of become accustomed to development and growth and what happens and what you can do that's good and what you can do to protect and what you can do to mitigate in some circumstances. So anyway, just an attempt to give back a little bit more to my community. I lived right down the street from City Hall here at the Pines. And I find myself walking past here to church on Sunday morning and lots of things over at the high school. So in my spare time, my umpire girl's softball in high school and got out of a game this evening so I could come here. Oh, dear. It was OK. It was a pleasant evening. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, my apologies. No, no problem. But anyway, I'd be happy to answer any questions that anybody has. I've worked on wetland issues over the years and a number of different places. And I think that really most of my background was not really in like fish hatcheries or fish stocking or things like that, but were more fish ecology and ecosystem type of work. Have you attended any of the National Resources meetings? No, I have not. But you were. I've spoken with David. But you've spoken with David. OK. All right. I have a question. What does your email address mean? Dr. D. Fentz. I had a couple of stepchildren. And when I played senior basketball or whatever, they decided that I was a better defensive player than an offensive player. So they named me Dr. D. Fentz or whatever. So that's where that came from. Oh, that's great. Any other questions? Oh, OK. He's not asking his usual question. Have you? I did. Yeah, I asked that if you've been to any of them. She got me. And that OK, you can attend if you have time. Sorry, I missed that. You're immediately qualified. So thank you for expressing interest. Well, at least that part, I can be helpful to the committee in terms of. Cool. Have you ever served on any other boards or commissions that are committees like this? No, not in the area where I've lived. I've moved several times during my career and so forth. But this would be the first time I would be working for a natural resource committee in the community where I lived. What do you think is the biggest issue for South Burlington in terms of natural resources? Well, I think it's really trying to maintain the quality of life that we have here in the best manner that we possibly can. So in terms of the water or the soil or the trees and the wildlife, it's trying to figure out what we can do. But at the same time, understand that this is a community of people where some people want to dog park and some people want to playground for their children to play in. And some people are going to want to make the water a little bit cleaner that before it goes into Lake Champlain. So we have all those. Any other questions? OK, thank you very much. And I apologize. It's so late. So it's water, stormwater issues that keep us up at night. Dan Albrecht, and you're interested in recs and park and natural resources in that order? Yeah, at this point I think I just only interested in natural resources committee. OK, you don't want to be considered for recreation and parks? Correct. OK. All right. So let's see. So it sounds like you really want to be part of the new rec center planning. Is that your motivation? Oh, you don't want to be John? Sorry, excuse me, natural resources. Natural resources, I guess, is to put things in context. So some of the council members are familiar with me. I've been to a few meetings. Just for background and natural resources, I'm another fish person. I spent 11 years in Alaska running a Fisherman's Association, helping to manage salmon marketing projects, research projects, things like that, and moved here. And I've got a master's in natural resource planning from UVM, and I've been with Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission since 2003. My portfolio these days is all about water quality pretty much. So the stormwater program, helping with the public education and outreach indirectly with Mr. Hess, because I manage a contract with the Winooski Natural Resources Conservation District for the stream team. And they get volunteers to help do sampling. The River Corridor work was just at a planning commission meeting a couple of weeks ago with other RPC staff on helping the city develop these new standards to address river corridor and erosion concerns and improve the city's reimbursement rate and the potential FEMA disaster issue. And then lately working a lot with your city stormwater staff on managing what are called clean water block grants. The state's been pushing out capital fund money to do stormwater projects. I've been working with Dave Wheeler and its bureaucracy of grant agreements and bid docs and all that kind of stuff. So yeah, so I work with all your staff quite regularly. I guess in terms of the broader issue of natural resources here, I think the key thing here is we've obviously got a conservation ethos. And then we're also trying to work. Community is trying to do it all, which I'm very proud of, which is why I like South Burlington. It's not afraid to change and embrace the future. There are other parts of Vermont that want to just lock up every parcel there is or protect everything under, keep people out under the other. Don't want change. Change is bad. But I think South Burlington is like, OK, here we are. We've got jobs. We've got people. We've got natural resources. Let's do it right and stuff. And so that's why I really like this town. So I think the key thing on natural resources is having a multifaceted approach to it. And I think you've asked prior applicant about the most pressing issue to me. It's really water, especially because of the ag issues there, but there may be other communities that are more appropriate for large-scale agriculture to feed people. But the biggest 800-pound gorilla in the room is stormwater. We have several flow restoration plans for our tributaries here. So to me, both from the urgency standpoint and then the money standpoint, it's all about the bills the city has for the flow restoration plans. So you don't want any new impaired waters. And then you've got to repair the existing ones you have. So all we can do for water, the backer and stuff. So I feel I could help bring at least the grant issues or working with other agencies or indirectly through my work already. That's the perspective I can bring to things. Have you attended a meeting? Not natural resources. I've talked to Mr. Crawford on the phone. So it's OK to work all day on water issues and then come in once a week at night? Sure. I can't get out of the office anyway. OK. Could you elaborate what you meant by a multifaceted approach to natural resources? Well, I think that the challenge here in South Burlington is that all natural resources are not created equal.  And I've attended some of the IZ Open Space Committee meetings and dog park committee and even the parks planning and the issue of where to put the dog parkers, for example. So at first glance, people might say, oh, wait, that's Miller Natura. You can't put the dog park there. Well, let's dive into the details and see what's doable. So it's the same thing, I think, with the open space debate that that was going to be in the details of what the parcels being conserved are. So on the one hand, it's good to see conservation broadly speaking. There's a gut level reaction when we say, well, at least that whole parcel's not going to be developed. But on the other hand, it's like, was that the best use of our money? Like if we had had a chance to rank parcels on their relative ecological value, you might say, well, it is a nice big open piece of land. But ecologically, other than there's no houses on it, it's really just not as important as another piece of land. For example, when I think of parcels, there's other parcels by the lake. I don't know if it's on the IZ Committee ranking sheet of parcels they looked at, but I believe there was a large parcel that was owned by a prominent property owner that's along the lake. I can't remember if that one was in the matrix or not. So yeah, if you were to do conservation right before you spent from the conservation fund, you'd rank the relative ecological value of the parcel. So that's what I'm getting at with the nuance and stuff. And also, I'm also, as a somebody who lives on a small lot in a highly developed area over near rice, I also believe in the preservation of existing small parcels, only it's nice. Big parcels are nice, but those are expensive.  They're like, whoa, what the heck is that doing here? And then occasionally deer wandering around, it's ironically suburban development sometimes promotes deer populations because they go, oh look, no predators and gardens to eat. Like just ask Pennsylvania, because they're over fun with deer. So anyways, that's what I mean. I did it, at least that's my perspective I bring. And they're different than talking to Mr. Strong on the committee. There's different concepts of, oh yes, large single parcels are nice, but you can also do several small at the same time. So maybe I'm getting into the weeds a little bit, but I think that's part of the conversation of natural resource planning, is to dive in those details. Because you've got UVM here, you've got people who are mentally heavily involved and volunteers, yeah, in my perspective, there's a lot of people who can bring a nuanced discussion to any conservation decision, so. You know the question, Tim? Do you have any interest in the DRB at all? Yeah, seriously. Because we've got three of them there. Having sat through your DRB meetings, and the commitment, the dedication, I'm not quite. Two meetings a month. I know, I know, and I'm not quite there yet. I think you'd be great. And we saw that there was an opening and it's an important post, so. You have three people, even, yeah. Yeah. I don't know. You've got expertise in the rules, and not, I mean. Yeah, and I've, yeah, obviously, yeah. I know it's just like, it ends up being homework from work, you know? One year relating, see. He's been solicited by everybody, just so you know. And that is where the multifaceted approach really pays off. Well, yes and no.  It's someone who has to be enacted into a regulation, and then you can say, yes. It's someone of a family commitment. I still have one daughter in high school, and so how much, you know, time, and, you know, things like that, so. It can't be much more time than the other than natural resources. I don't think Mr. Crawford's gonna have three, four hour meetings once a month, you know? Twice a month? Twice a month, yeah. They start at seven. They're usually done by. All the work, all the fun, and they're on there. Sometimes there can be contention, but most of the time there isn't, yeah. There's a lot of great people in that. I have a serious question. So, you are employed by Chinning County Regional Planning Commission, and my understanding is that they have, as an organization, I think in the ECOS plan, maybe, have I really identified South Burlington as a prime place for housing development. Yep. And in order to, quote, save the outskirting communities. And tell me how that jives with natural resources and conservation in your mind.  You know, how does that work? Well, I think, you know, you'd have to, I think, and it kind of gets into the DRB role, but you have to, you know, all the parcels are owned by how many property owners we got in the city. So it's, there is no master plan to how you do it if you were starting from scratch. Yeah, from a regional standpoint, that's one of the challenges with town planning in Vermont is everybody writes a town plan and says, look, everybody's walking from there outside the town to the village center. And it's like, no, no, this is like, there's a handful of jobs where people walked of a town village, you know, but practically speaking, you know where all the jobs are. So I think, I think the key thing, you know, again, to my comment earlier about really looking at the true value of an individual parcel or how the role of it as the Natural Resource Committee comments on a development proposal or weighs in on other items, I think it's gonna be, like I say, it does require getting down into the weeds. And so it's the same thing with open space because sometimes people think, oh, why isn't that open? Not all undeveloped land is open space. It is in a basic sense, but it's not that open space means certain things and each of those has relative values of things, you know, that's the challenge with the ag one, you know, so it's, so I guess, you know, for that standpoint, I mean, if I was looking at a development, I would try to encourage any property owner to, you know, preserve as much of the landscape within, but that gets back to what's in the zoning bylaws, you know, so it's, you know, each case is gonna be unique, really. So for me, I always look at, if I was to answer, you know, diving deep on a proposed project or an aspect of the city plan, I would be one to dive into those details and ground truth them if necessary. So the example of wildlife quarters an interesting concept, but if there's no data behind assumed migration patterns or movement patterns of animals without tracking data, it's often can be somewhat fuzzy to assume there's a corridor between this parcel and that parcel in a riparian zone. Yes, that's very common and well-known, but, you know, so you'd have to try to get into larger detail around that. But if you want, if you want, if you will get what you plan for, you will get what your zoning bylaws say. So if you specify a maximum lot coverage of impervious, that's what you'll get. If you don't, then the landowner's gonna build what they want within the realm. So you'd have to set the traffic lanes, but if somebody builds within the traffic lanes, then hypothetically they go to the DRB and the DRB should say, well, you're building within the prescribes of what we wrote. You have the right to develop your property within the rules we set. And if you don't, then don't, and if you don't write the TDRs, sorry, here, Land Use Development Regulations with Specificity, and then something gets built and p