City Council - Regular Meeting

Save time. Go to channel17.org.

Nat Ayer and Lauren Glendividian from Channel 17 and Channel 317. And we are live tonight. And so we're, no titles yet, so we're using the old style titles from the 1980s. So Lauren Glenn's going to talk more about the TV part, but I wanted to give a very short fence viewing report.

Tomorrow, my service as your governor will end. I'll return to private life, handing the reins to a new administration that will take up the responsibility of protecting and advancing the goals we share. On behalf of all Vermonters, Governor-elect Shumlin, I wish you and your team all the very best.

11-day walk that began in Brattleboro on January 2nd. More than 175 people participated, ranging from toddlers to people in their 80s. We do not have the backing of a multinational corporation, with our request to you, our elected representatives, to act on this historic and unprecedented opportunity to not allow continued operation of Vermont Yankee.

With clothing, with shoes, with lunch programs, every single thing that you could imagine happened to try to destroy the Panthers. And that's why I put up, again, on this wall over here, some of the counterintelligence. I put the drawings up mostly because they're visual. But I spent, as Sandy knows in her office, I read about 300,000 documents

All of us here have some basic information about referendum and how we got here. Just to educate an average Burmanta about what it is that we are celebrating today. We all know that Sudan was a British colony. It was ruled by Great Britain and Egypt under what was then called condominium rule. And when Sudan became independent in 1956, the British government just left. Southern Sudanese today decided to determine their own destiny.

Here is the result of the recount. Total number of votes cast, 1,085. Needed to win, 543. Tim Ash, 540. Merle Weinberger, 540. Spoiled, 5. So as a result of that vote, no candidate having received a majority in the recount, suspend the caucus and reconvene per our agreement with the campaigns within a month. And we will, at that point, have a nominee for mayor. So let me just say, first of all, thank you to each and every one of you for your understanding and your patience. We'll see you within a month. I want to thank the volunteers who are here still, some of them. Thank you. I want to thank our candidates, Senator Ash, Merle Weinberg.

At the time, they were forecasting anywhere from four to seven inches of rain. That's a big rainstorm for Vermont. Don't get me wrong. But it's not what we ended up with, obviously.

Thousands of people uprooted from their homes. have been kidnapped, even forced to kill and mutilate members of their own family. It is some of the most horrible things imaginable.

I am not running, and I never have run. I am a candidate. This is a job opportunity, application. When you vote for a capitalist party or the candidates in a capitalist party, you get what you've got. And they're all the same. And you keep blaming them, the Democrats, the Republicans, the Progressives, whatever, for taking you where you don't want to go or where you don't want to be, but you keep voting for the same people over and over again.

There is something profoundly wrong when in recent years we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages and we have shamefully the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country.

So, you know, I announced I was going to run. I couldn't stand watching it anymore. We used to have victories. We don't have victories. We're going to have so many victories that you're going to be bored of winning. You're going to get so tired of it.

Racist, fascist, anti-gay, Donald Trump, stay away! Racist, fascist, anti-gay, Donald Trump, stay away! Racist, fascist, anti-gay, Donald Trump, stay away! Racist, fascist, anti-gay, Donald Trump, stay away!

Racist, fascist, anti-gay, Donald Trump, stay away!

Have you voted yet? Have you voted yet? Have you voted yet? Just contact your local town clerk. Request a ballot. Complete your ballot. And mail your ballot. That way, when someone asks you, have you voted yet? You can say, yes, I voted.

The committee concluded that there simply would be no benefit to selling BT outright because both the community asset and the city funds already invested would be lost, while the committee did not believe that an outright sale of Burlington Telecom would in any way be beneficial to the city. They did feel that a partial sale or partnership can provide realistic opportunity to moving BT forward and protecting our community asset.

It's a little odd to comment in this form. I personally fundamentally believe it should not be sold. It should be maintained as a public utility. If we look at the history right here in the city of Burlington Electric Department, in its very early decades was off to a very rocky start financially. And yet the people of Burlington persevered, recognizing the value of owning our own utility. It's gone on to save us a lot of money to be a leader on efficiency and other measures.

Hello and welcome. This is What the Hell Happened on Monday night with me, your host, City Councilor Max Tracy from Ward 2 coming to you live from the Old North End here at Channel 17 Studios. It was a crazy meeting, probably the most crazy meeting that I've been through in six years on the City Council. A meeting that lasted eight and a half hours starting at 5.30 and not concluding until 1.45 a.m. and dealing really only with one topic, and that topic was the pending sale of Burlington Telecom.

More than any other reason, I believe I was elected in 2012 to resolve the Burlington Telecom crisis, which is perhaps the largest financial crisis in the city's more than 150 year history. Today, I share with our entire community the welcome news that the city has made good on our promise to resolve the Burlington Telecom crisis.

With the internet, we obviously have to make a commitment like we did in the Depression to get broadband out to rural America so that there's a chance to compete. And one of the most important things that has to be part of it too is public access television, which has as its mission informing people in the local community.

You know what they say, history is always written by the winners. Well, the corporate crowd a century ago kind of won over the populists and managed to crush and eliminate and bury that whole history of what the relationship was between people and corporations and how what's happening today is not inevitable, it's not irreversible.

And ever since I've been coming to the NPAs, I've just been so captivated by this awesome place for community members to connect and have open discussions, especially the fact that the very first item on the agenda is speak out. I think that's so cool.

If poems could march in the streets, overturn verdicts, bring corrupt police to justice, if they could bring a boy back his life and a mother back her son, a father back his boy, return bullets to a gun, unloose the lynch rope and unravel the knots from choked throats, we would not be choking on tears. When do our lives become valuable in the eyes of the law? When does hate cease to be exonerated behind a badge and lighter skin? And God forbid you wear a hoodie in the rain while having black skin with Skittles in your pocket. You can taste the rainbow, but you can't taste freedom. You can taste your own blood, but you can't.

Are you going to let me in? No.

Yeah, me too.

Technical difficulties.

Tell me when you guys, Logan's good. Tell me when you're ready. Yeah.

You're getting held up there for some reason, Raj, but.

Recording in progress. Sorry, I thought I was muted. It's okay, no worries.

All right, I'm gonna call the city council meeting to order for whatever day we are, July 8th. Any agenda additions or changes? Regina?

Council?

No need to approve the agenda. All right, public to be heard. Anyone who would like to be heard? Please raise your hand online or here in the room. Brian, just to check, can you hear us?

Can you hear us now?

No.

Is that better?

There it is. Awesome. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. All right, we'll have to ask. Okay, let me go back. We're on public to be heard. Is there anybody online? Risa, go ahead.

Thank you. I'm one of those people who lives in an area where we don't get mail all that often, unfortunately. So I still haven't received my utility bill. Yesterday, when I got mail at 4.30 and saw it was the mail I should have gotten on Monday, I thought, I'm never going to get this. So I sent an email through to the city requesting it. And at like the crock of dawn this morning, like she should have been home sleeping, Allison sent me the bill. I couldn't ask for better service at all. what would be great is if there's a way, if there could be a way that we could log on to the system and do that ourselves and not cause wonderful people like Alison to be up at 715 emailing me. Is that something that could be looked at or considered?

I'm looking at Regina. I don't know.

I don't have any sense of the level of task that would take, but it seems like certainly something reasonable to add to the list.

Thank you. And again, seriously, thank you to Allison. I sent her a thank you, but please thank her.

On that note, can I just ask, because I have not yet received mine, so I'm not thinking about it. What do they do?

I... You get fined. Yeah. That's funny because I got mine two days later.

Our letter carrier is on vacation.

Yeah. That's the flip side of it.

Sorry. I don't know. Okay. Anybody else online? All right. I'm not seeing any hands, so we'll go on to 5A, which is discussion on the rolling stock capital plan.

Amber, just technically Brian didn't hear agenda additions or deletions. Okay.

Brian, did you want to make any agenda additions or deletions or changes or any of that stuff?

Thank you, Regina. No, I did not.

Okay, thanks.

Good catch.

All right. Rolling stock.

Rolling stock. Okay, so we have talked about this a few times, but we've got it as an official agenda item now. So the memo describes the particular issue that came to light over the last couple of months, which is a... $1.1 million fire truck that's slated for FY30 in the rolling stock plan. Because these trucks take two to three years to order and for production, the fire department was moving forward on their bid process to put that out. Because the rolling stock, when you look out to that date, goes negative, I ask them to pause on that process because if we get some bids back, we are not in a position today to be able to commit to that purchase. So, put in some information in here of... what this all looked like during our budget preparation process. We were aware of this. We had other competing pressures that we did address and sort through for the FY27 budget. And at the time, we were prepared that rolling stock is working fine for FY27. So we would look at it at the upcoming year. So then second part of the memo here just really talks about what the potential solutions are when we get into the next round of the budgeting process in terms of how to get the rolling stock working or out of the red in the future years. So really the amount that is needed to increase the inputs into the rolling stock are around 218,000 with an intentional increase of that number every single year. So starting at about 218,000 in addition. So let me just find this real quick. We already are planning to put $345,000 into rolling stock in FY28. This would be $218,000 more, plus you increase that over 7% each year, and that would actually get us out of the red moving forward. the other options that are just thought about here in the memo in terms of increasing the revenue side is essentially what i just said and there is the opportunity which we will not know yet and i don't know how Quickly, we will know this in our new FY28 budget process because we're starting the whole thing early. But it's if we successfully achieve over 15% of our unassigned fund balance at the end of FY26, we essentially can use that, whatever we're over, we can put that in as revenue and essentially buy down the tax rate for folks. That's a one-time influx. So if we are in that position, we can look at where we would want to put those dollars if we're there. We don't know if we'll be there yet. As a reminder, the first couple of years of being in the city, we were only at about 7% unassigned fund balance at the end of each fiscal year. Last year, we got up to 12% unassigned fund balance, and we're hopeful that we're going to get closer to that 15%. Grants, there are not many for these types of trucks and rolling stock, but that's always out there and we always have our eyes open. Then can ask for specific tax to help the rolling stock or in combination, whether it's public safety specifically. To some extent, that's... coming from the taxpayers regardless from one method or another. So other way of looking at this is cutting expenses and what can we figure out how to either push out into the future or do away with adding altogether. We've got some vehicles in there already that are beyond useful life. This also comes with a bit of a balance because we are likely to see in the operating budgets, the repair and maintenance budgets going up the longer we're trying to keep trucks on the road beyond their useful life. um we can remove vehicles from the fleet altogether we have over the last couple of years looked at different things to try and think through that like if we were to contract out sidewalk plowing as opposed to replacing sidewalk plows we have not been able to make that work doesn't mean we will stop looking or thinking through those things but we haven't been able to figure that out yet And then the option of not adding new vehicles. The only new vehicle that you've got in there, which was approved in the FY27 capital plan, is the command vehicle for the fire department. Which is on consent agenda tonight. If you so choose to make a decision that impacts that, we can pull it out of consent.

um okay I think I probably hit on everything here I just make one note in the FY 27 budget you would have noticed an increase to RNM and Public Works of $60,000 associated with the aging fleet in the increased maintenance You're saying we already increased by 6,000 in the budget that just passed down meeting day was an increase of $60,000 in the public works budget for increased maintenance costs for their paged fleet.

Yeah. Um, so Jess, anything you want to add?

No, I think that's it. We will have, like Regina mentioned, it's very early in the budget process. We'll have information. on that repairs and maintenance cost from Ricky, but it won't be for another probably month or so.

So this memo says no action needed because really this is a problem to solve in FY28, but again, we can do what you want.

Okay. Open it up for questions, comments.

So I still see spending for streets about 614, 640, 484, and FY29. We're still taking care of some of these replacements and other things. Is there a current list? It doesn't really matter to see the list, but we're still working on replacing vehicles while we're getting to this fire truck, or is everything on hold to accommodate the fire truck? I just want to make sure I'm understanding.

There are other... I think the question is, are there other vehicles that we are moving forward for purchasing? Right. Yes.

Okay.

Jess is shaking her head.

Yeah.

Yeah, and the only other thing I've ever brought up before, obviously, and we've all talked about it, is just this idea that this annual increase year over year is sustainable. The budget you'll be working on is 346, and it quickly gets $75,000 more in three years to 425, and it's just going to keep going. I don't know. Yeah, I'm just pointing that out. I don't know how we do that. I don't have any answers to that, obviously, except to wonder, are there other ways to acquire trucks are there other you know what's another approach not just fire trucks but generally um i don't again i just don't know just a lot of questions because the the way we're moving just feels like i said it feels unsustainable from a revenue point of view

Yeah, and I can just say, in the last budget process, that's why we looked at all the transfers. We really did a comprehensive look at the whole thing and just laid out a number of different scenarios of how to address that. We did keep the general capital transfer flat, essentially, because we have now enough years of the lot funding coming into the picture. So we were able to do that on the general project side. We knew rolling stock could not be kept flat by any stretch, and we had to increase the stormwater transfer, which we knew was phase two of a two-year plan. So yeah, it's a lot, and we continue to have a lot of needs.

What is the projected, so flat was one year for capital. What's the guess on, or what's the plan for annual increases for 28 and beyond for the capital fund? I know we're talking about rolling stock, but I'm just curious how they come together.

Yeah, I'm looking at Jess. She doesn't know I'm looking at her, but I am.

Me too. So we have right now in the capital plan that was approved for FY27, there's an annual increase of just 1% each year.

And that was 10% prior. Yes.

Because of law funds. Yeah. Yep.

And so the rolling stock that was presented to us for FY 26 had the engine, this fire truck replacement at $900,000 in FY 30. And then in FY 27, we have 1.1 million. So in the year that replacement went up $200,000, right? That's what we're saying. Yes.

Do you have any questions, comments, concerns?

Yeah. I mean, I share Raj's concern about a 7.2% increase in perpetuity and how sustainable that is. But I also don't have any answers, and I don't think anyone else does either.

There are, I'm assuming, other ways. I mean, I know that there are other ways. The town of Essex leased fire trucks for a number of years where they had a 10-year lease, and at the end of the term, there was a $1 buyout. Assuming we're looking at the same kind of channels and the same things, just maybe, I don't even know if it'll help. I'm just saying it's there. It was an option. I don't know if they're still doing it, but I know they did do it for a period of time, and I don't know what that would look like. you know, breaking the price of $100,000 a year as a lease with a dollar buyout at the end versus paying 1.1 out the door initially. If that makes any impact to anything, you know.

Tim, are you proposing leasing fire trucks? Are you proposing buying 10-year-old fire trucks from the town?

It would be a lease of a new—they lease new vehicles.

Okay, just so I understand.

Yeah, yeah, not looking to buy a used old something, but the town very recently has leased through the manufacturer or subsidiary of the manufacturer agent and broken that cost over a number of years. I mean...

I mean, I did want to understand what you're proposing, but it's not exactly an idle question.

I don't think I'm just saying I know that this is something that they've done. I assume we're looking into it too. I don't know if it will change the complexity or the math to what we need to do in order to shore this fund up, but it might be a different viable option in order to move progress forward while taking some relief off of other things at the same time.

Sure, but I do think that you have two good suggestions there, and I hope that we're looking at both. I don't know about fire trucks as much as you do, sir, but for automobiles, a three-year-old automobile is almost as good and a quarter of the price. So I don't know if that applies to fire trucks as well. I would define that as operational.

So, yeah, I know that there are other options out there as opposed to just coming up with 1.1 and FY30 to purchase this fire truck. And I'm hoping that we're exploring it. I think we're great.

Regina?

Yeah, so I think conceptually we certainly have looked, we have thought about other options. I don't know that we have investigated fully what the lease terms would be and what the price point would be. We certainly could do that in preparation for FY28. The generally... Whether we're going to bond or lease, those things are essentially the same. We're still having to come up with the same amount of money to pay back, no matter which way we're looking at it over a number of years. But when it comes down to it, it could potentially get us a better rate. So we certainly can look at that. And Brian, to your point, there are municipalities that also buy used vehicles. That for sure is a thing that some folks do. can be tricky for managing those trucks because we're just, what we're trying to do over the last couple of years is get to a place where we are keeping our vehicles while they're under warranty and then trying to get ahead of replacing them so that we don't have older vehicles that are more costly to repair. That's been the plan. So certainly we have thought about all those things. All those things are on the table. They're just trade-offs between costs up front versus costs down the road.

And would any of that mean that, I mean, it doesn't sound like doing any of that would mean that we wouldn't have to deal with this problem at some point.

If we buy used vehicles, they're probably a lot cheaper. It still means I think we have more costs in operation and maintenance over time. If we lease a vehicle, it essentially costs the same, really. At the end of the day, it's just split differently.

And so I do want to acknowledge that there are vehicles within our rolling stock that are operating well past their life. Public Works has several vehicles that should have been replaced a number of years ago that have not yet been replaced.

I think the trade-off there is the $60,000 that you mentioned earlier. Right. So that's the reality of the situation.

The Street Sweeper those credits from the state for cleaning the roads and trying to think back the front end loader I believe is the other one that have were both due for replacement a number of years ago and if we recall back Well, it was probably the budget day two years ago. I asked Jess, because Elaine had added $100,000 to the fund balance. I had asked Jess, would it make a difference to the rolling stock if we added that $100,000 to that instead to move any of that equipment up?

Any other?

So, yeah, a couple. Brian, unless you have talked a couple times already, do you?

Do you have anything, Brian?

No. So the memo said... Sorry, so I guess in this budget year's dollars, the memo is referring to... This is more of a semantic, I guess, for me, but 218.5 equates to a 2% increase, but are we... Do we have a sense what the new grant list is at this point? Are we still trying to... Because it's not going to be that next for FY28. It's more like a 1.2 or 1.3, I'm assuming, but...

I do not know.

Okay. It doesn't really matter, I guess. The only other thing is I'm generally uncomfortable. I know part of the meeting is going to be to approve a vehicle that has been discussed, I think, for two years and gone through multiple approvals. With this conversation and the difficulty we're facing and finally kind of coming to terms with it, I just want to acknowledge I'm a little uncomfortable adding more vehicles to the fleet when we're looking at this one-time increase with the annual increases that we've already acknowledged, we're not sure how we're going to manage. So respecting the fact that past boards, one of which I was on, have approved this command vehicle and it's gone through multiple things through no fault of the fire department and the time it takes and the rebidding, I still think it's, for me, very difficult to have this conversation, look forward to what we're dealing with as a community, and add more vehicles to the fleet. But I just want to put that out there to say that, because I think it bears acknowledgment, because people are going to find out.

And we just had this conversation of that, yes, we also added the truck.

Then in 10 years, we'll need to come do. And at that point, we will have had, presumably, 10 years of 7% increases. Or who knows, based on what inflation does, what those increases will be. So acknowledging, I approved it, I think, the first go around. and that I don't necessarily think it's not necessary but You know, I just want to say out loud that we I see it we understand it The fire department has produced and we've agreed in the past that there's a need for it And that's kind of the situation we're in.

I just think it bears some saying I was just gonna say I'll revert back to my last statement from last meeting too is I think given where we're at and what we know now, our circumstances have changed. And it's the same exact reason that I voted against the multimodal Pearl Street project, not that it's a bad project, it's just not the right time. And so that's kind of how I'm feeling about this as well.

Yeah, I agree. I think we have to be a little more realistic about where we are financially and figure these issues out before we make major purchases when we know we have so many vehicles we already need to replace.

Does anybody else have any initial comments here? Otherwise, I'm going to open up the public discussion and then bring it back to us. Not seeing any. So public. Marcus.

All right, so I have a couple of questions, because first, and Raj, I appreciate you bringing this up, because one of the things that came to mind for me was the capital plan and the intersection potentially of lot funds, because we have seen as a community those lot funds increase over the last few years. Not that you can count on everything, but again, it's like part of the question that came to mind for me in reading this memo was would there be the potential for declaring a certain percentage much in the same way that you did for sidewalks to do that potentially for rolling stock or whatever? Or how do we approach that differently? But looking at the packet from the capital review, I see a line here for the lot fund, but I do not see any amounts in here. And it looks like the projects are covered by the general fund. It doesn't include any lot funds, if I'm reading this correctly. So it makes me wonder, where's the lot funds? Because I thought they were supposed to be applied to all these projects.

I thought they were an input line.

Why don't you ask your questions and then we'll come back.

So my question is, first off, you know, is this true? Am I reading this correctly from this packet? Because then there might be an excess of funds that could actually help this situation. The other is trying to understand... Cause we, we saw this coming when I was on the council, we talked about it, but, um, I'm trying to remember, and I don't, I don't know that we approach this. So this problem is happening as we can see over the next four years from what's in the packet here. Um, but it recovers in year three, four. And I assume that that trend going forward it recovers further and so I'm curious What the recovery is for I'm assuming it's because something's dropping off the list Some costs are dropping off the list in FY 30 FY 31 That that expenditure comes down significantly so are in the hole is only 64,000 in FY30 versus 213 and 323,000, respectively, in the two previous years. So I'm kind of curious where that recovery kind of happens in the fund, because if we have an understanding of that, maybe that's something else that we can leverage and maneuver around to kind of help ease this. The other thing I'll ask the council, and again, I brought this up at the last meeting, and I'll say this again. These expenses are hitting it away while some of these discussions happen with previous councils. This is happening differently right now. And I think some of this is happening in such a way that a pause would be great. But I think this was already brought up for this discussion tonight. I would ask the council to take the command vehicle out of the consent agenda and put it on pause. Because it doesn't sound like anybody has any answers. You're not going to be moving forward on a plan for this tonight. And I'd rather the council have every lever at its disposal to make a decision on how it wants to proceed. It's not about yay or nay on the command vehicle. making sure that you have it still as a lever. Because if you pass on the consent agenda, you've lost that leverage to use that, potentially, if you need to, as you come up with a solution for this problem.

Thanks. Thank you. We want Jess to address those two questions.

Yeah. Jess, can you take where the lot comes in?

Sure. So, Marcus, that line, the lot fund line that was added to the capital review committee's ranking file was just added for this last meeting. We are in the process of figuring out which capital projects that have already been ranked and added to the capital plan might be suitable for some of the sidewalk funds. other than that the lot fund as you might recall from the budget file is its own separate fund and spreadsheet and budget within the master budget file so that that sheet will give you all of the detail as to the the annual transfer that gets made to the capital reserve fund as well as the 25% that is earmarked for sidewalks so right now Basically what's happening with the lot funds is that the annual transfer is happening to the capital reserve. So you see that on the capital reserve fund balance that's in the packet. It's not in this packet, it's in the budget packet, sorry. You'll see that lot transfer in reflected there. And then as far as the sidewalks, funds goes those are all reflected within that lot fund specific budget within the the master file i'd walk because you were it sounded like you were taking some sidewalk funds and applying them to capital projects is that is that what i just understood because if that's the case that no we're not we're not doing that yet so the capital committee um with staff are in the process of right now of looking at the existing ranked capital projects to see if there are sidewalk components that we could use lot funds for.

Male Speaker 1 That clarifies that for me. Thank you. Male Speaker 2 Learn more about that later.

Female Speaker 1 So, and then the other question was, it looks like the rolling stock balance recovers. just off screen in year FY32, it goes back to... 143. Yeah. It goes negative again. FY33 goes negative to the million again.

Okay.

Plus then 1.3, then 1.5 in years out. The rolling stock is nothing but a world of replacement in the future. There continues to be trucks that come up for replacing. It looks pretty good because FY 31, we have very little planned replacements in that particular year, but then we get right back to it.

At this point? Yes. That doesn't mean that, yes, there might not be something that comes up.

Well, as you just started the conversation around the budget, and if you did start to think about services that you're going to change that will obviously impact them, which others, you know, what stock you need to still have to maintain those services. So anyway, just keep your options.

Anyone online would like to comment, please raise your hand. I'm not seeing any, so I'm gonna bring it back here. Um, so I guess we don't need to ultimately make a decision tonight. This is just a discussion about to kind of give staff the direction as they're as we're going into Item B, which is the budget discussion. As they're planning the budget, they kind of need to understand from us what our thought process is here.

I think the only question is whether or not we're comfortable leaving the command vehicle in consent. We're pulling it out at this point, right?

Well, I think that the ultimate question here is which direction we're going. It's not about the command vehicle. Well, yeah, we're rolling stock in general. I'm sorry. Yes.

Rolling stock in general, and that is the piece before us. So, I mean, I'll start off by saying I am super comfortable saying, stop, let's wait. I don't have enough information. see what it looks like at budget day and we can make an informed decision from there but um i think it and i really struggle with it but i think that's probably the right thing to do at this point is to just stop not add to anything see what this looks like going into when we have harder numbers of whether or not we have fund balance available or earned interest or any of this other stuff that we have talked about and what our true scenario looks like heading into next year?

Do you want to comment at all? No. Okay. Bethany?

I would... also be more comfortable pulling the command vehicle out of the consent agenda and pausing, recognizing as Raj did that it's already gone through a bunch of approvals before I joined the council. Yeah. I don't know what else to say about the rolling stuff. That's fine.

That's fine.

Brian? Yeah, I think getting more information before we make a final decision without, well, without committing to the command vehicle is a good plan, although we got to take it out of the consent agenda first if that's how we should go. Can I, should I make that motion?

Can you pause for two seconds? I'll come back to that. I just want to get everybody's initial comments on before. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, though.

Raj? I mean, I've said what I think. Okay. I think what I don't want to do and I want to be very clear about this, is say no to it. Right, and I don't think... I don't want to put us in a position where we've, fire department, staff, everything's gone through this, presented a need, and we simply say no. That's what I want to avoid. So I do think a couple months or a month, whatever it is, might be useful if that's what people think. But I just want to make sure we're not blowing up without giving it more thought or more consideration, really seeing where we're at. I don't think that's worth it.

Yeah, just to be clear, I'm not advocating to kill it in any way, shape, or form. I'm just saying we really need to have a better picture of our overall financial health in order to make an informed decision that is going to affect, yet again, these enormous pressures that we're under already headed into 28, and it's eight days into 27.

So can I just add that there will be nothing different in a month or two than what we have in front of us today? There won't be anything different until the FY28 budget and what that shakes out to be next July.

Well, we'll have information at budget day.

You'll have the same information as what you've got in front of you.

Projections.

By budget day, we will certainly have a solid handle on what we think we can do for the FY28 budget and what it all includes as priorities and what we can't achieve and where the difficult questions are going to be. We will certainly know all that. Yep. And that's November.

Yep.

between now and then, there is no other information to bring forth, unless I'm missing anything. Any other information to bring forth from your perspective? Absolutely not. We brought everything forward.

I think for me, it's more having a picture of what I'm facing for the next tax bill in September. I have an idea of what I'm basing in the tax bill in September. 70,000, 218. 218 minus 70,000 is a different percentage increase on top of that at this point. So that's in very blunt terms. If I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing, I'm not happy. And I'm just one person. And so that's where I'm at. And so if that means this is super inconvenient and really an annoyance, then I think I'm starting to get to the place where that's kind of where I am. Because I have a really good idea of what I'm facing in September, or sorry, for the next tax year, and it's not good if I'm blunt. So yeah, I'd like to know what that is first, and I'd like to nitpick where I can to make that possible for me because it's going to be significant for me. Not to make it about me, but if I extrapolate that to everybody else, it's not just going to hit me.

I am going to...

If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong or just I'm happy to debate it a little bit.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm just going to put mine out there because everyone else has already had their bill twice around the table here. So I'm going to be the outlier in this conversation and say that I would have approved and will approve the command vehicle as we've had this conversation for several years and we have approved it. I fully recognize the financial situation we're in. I fully recognize the situation that we are in with our taxpayers and trying to ask more of them. It is a balance, unfortunately, in which we run a city. We run a city that needs vehicles. We run a city that needs vehicles that are operational. it's not removing the command vehicle does not get us two hundred thousand dollars it is not it we we need to look at this in my opinion only from speaking for myself we need to look at this as a future where we are we are solving a problem for the future when we're solving the problem today removing the command vehicle does nothing for solving the future problem $70,000 is nothing in regards to that, to 2015 and going on into infinity and beyond. So I come from the position that if a department head sits in front of me and asks for something, they're doing it because they feel the need for it, and they're fully recognizing that they're asking the taxpayers to take on that. So that's where I'm coming from. I think unless anybody else has anything, I will certainly take your motion if that is the direction you guys want to go.

Well, just to clarify because it was put out there, this isn't about trusting the department heads. This isn't about trusting the process. Like I said at the beginning, I initially approved this when it came up the first time. I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea. I want to see what the impact is, and I'm not sure unless there's a reason a couple months of finding out what August brings. Really, next month, we'll know. Three weeks, we'll know. So if you want to bring it back, great. The budget day is not going to change the fact that we need to find $219,000. Whittling that percentage down a little bit, though, would help me. And it probably helps some people.

It helps the first year.

I mean, if we get it.

I mean, if we take the command vehicle out the first year.

If we get it, period, right? If it's bad for folks, then maybe we don't get it for a while, and it helps them for longer. And I just think waiting a month, two months to see how it plays out. This isn't like a three-year lead time purchase. I don't mean to argue against it. There's all kinds of reasons to do it. They're excellent reasons. I mean, we've all seen them. We've heard them. They've been repeated. I'll go with, you know, I'm open to this. I just want folks to hear us, not for show, but I want folks to hear us actually thinking about this and acknowledging the fact that this is not nothing. In the grand scheme, you both made excellent points, 70 across 1.1 million. It's pretty, you know, especially if it's just going to get done in the end. I get it. But I hear people are nervous, and I'm trying to respect that.

And I would also just like to add that, you know, for me, this is, again, I am not saying that we should not get the command vehicle, but I do think I would like to better understand the fiscal 28-year budget as a whole before... And, you know, like Raj said, that's in a couple weeks, at least for the early conversations.

Yeah, so just to be clear, I think that Raj's point, and it is a good one, and we prepared the FY27 budget knowing that the reappraisal year was a big unknown for everybody, and it remains a big unknown until you get your tax bills, really. So that's the known in a month or so. So I appreciate clarification of that.

Yeah, I don't mean budget day. Yeah. No, I know.

Because that's... Then, yeah, you'll have a sense of FY28 budget in November when we get to budget day.

And it'll end up nowhere near what we started with. So understanding that.

Okay. Brian?

I move to pull the command vehicle discussion out of the consent agenda.

All in favor? Aye. I'm going to put that on as I'll put it on as E and then shift the executive session to F. I'll try to remember to do that. All right. Any last comments? Regina, do you have what you need from us in some capacity? Okay. I do. All right. Anything before we move on to the next difficult topic?

No. No, thank you.

Okay. All right. So we'll go to 5B, which is discussion of the FY28 budget direction.

Okay. So... Super fun annual conversation to get us going. I'm setting some direction for development of the FY28 budget. So we get ourselves prepared for the FY28 budget with two different discussions. One is the retreat. So we had that at the beginning of June, which was very helpful. We don't really talk about the sort of dollar or level of comfort on percentage increase at that meeting. So this meeting is to give us a bit of direction on that as as best as you all can. And then tomorrow we will be hitting send on the directions to the department heads to start building their budgets. so uh i put the last couple of uh last three years of fiscal year information on here so you've kind of got what the budgets have looked like over the last three years there is a note here that we will be entering association contracts with again within about a month or so We will be working towards a contract for the FY28 year. This is always a little bit tricky when we're in a contract negotiation year because we don't necessarily have that finalized. I mean, fingers crossed it would be amazing. Hope we can get it all across the board. Love your optimism. By the time we are handing over the budget to you folks, but it is not likely. I will note that part of what we saw in FY27, which we won't likely see again, but we had our budget in a pretty good place, and then the police budget was about, don't quote me on this, but it was about a $250,000 increase. It was. Yep. So that won't be happening again this year. Okay. I think... Oh, the other thing to kind of point out here for folks is just the timing. Because again, this is different. And as a reminder to myself as well, we have not officially had the discussion about when your annual meeting will be. You will have to make that choice at some point. But I'm pretty sure we're all on board with moving to town meeting day. And so that's how we are moving forward. And so that means your budget day itself will likely be within the week of November 16th. So Jess, anything you want to add?

The only other thing I did today just for my own information to see where it was at is you'll see the memo item D references the inflation rate as a helpful point of information. So what I looked at today was just to see where we're at so far for calendar year 2026. The average right now through May is running at 3.2%. The last couple years have been 2.6 and 2.9 respectively.

I feel like this is always, like, the shot and the, like... Well, yeah, and I think...

I'll start you at two. Well, I feel like this is even a little bit more difficult this year because, you know, the tax rate is unknown, right? So, back to Raj's point, it's like we're... It's just a crapshoot. Yeah. You know? And then everything else that comes into it... Yeah, I mean, so...

I'll be curious if Jess has a reaction to that as well. So I think what's unknown, just to be clear, is if there's a shift off of commercial, industrial, and more onto residential. That's the unknown that I think is going to be kind of a big piece. The tax rate will definitely be significantly lower. Lower, yeah. But at the end of the day, we're talking about, when we ask you like what percentage, we're talking about the expense side of the equation. What level of increase? I mean, I'll say flat, too, but that means we're cutting things, and I don't know what that is. But a level of budget increase is really in comparison to where we're at now, which is close to 12 point something. 12.9. 12.9 on the general fund. That's what we're talking about. How it kind of shakes out from the tax rate side is... not necessarily relevant um we are not talking about an increase that will raise people's taxes in and of itself in a very big way if people's taxes raise in a big way that's for other sort of outstanding factors that are associated with a potential shift that we will have a little bit of a better handle on in the coming and so

If I may I will go back because I really appreciated your comment last year It's kind of tongue-in-cheek. You said I don't know if you've noticed but I tend to lean a little fiscally conservative and so You know I Really appreciated that comment because I think it's it's an important one to say and to acknowledge because the Budgets that I've been a part of, you and your team have done an amazing job of getting them to the point where we can kind of nod and shake and go, nice job, okay, thanks for doing the hard work. And I watch budget processes from other municipalities, and they drag them on for weeks at a time, and they go department by department and line by line, and it kind of comes to us in this final form that's really easy to understand, and a lot of that legwork is done. You know, I struggle with is there one answer for every department, right? Like does, you know, did we say 4%? Is that, you know, is 4% across the board to every department? Or can the library go up 3% and the fire department can go up 4%? And, you know, it's just all of these different entities that go into it. And so they struggle with, if we say, okay, we're looking at a 4% budget increases that equate to 4% per, you know, for every department when it's not necessarily, you know, they may not need it or they may not, you know, and so I, I, I, um, I am leaning, and I think that's historically, but I do want to acknowledge that 3% of last year's budget was the police contract. Just 2.9% of our increase last year was the new police contract. And so we don't have that pressure this year. But we do acknowledge that there are already all of these other pressures circling around us. And it is, as I said, again, eight days into the fiscal year. So happy times. You too can run for city council. So, yeah, I mean, I would love to see somewhere around four as myself, I think, personally, where I'm at. And I think that kind of can accomplish some of what we need to do and be respectful of the people that we represent in that. And I think that's my piece.

Bethany? I don't love this question that I'm about to ask, but have there been conversations in the past about if we cut services, which services?

I think we've tried to avoid having that conversation, generally speaking, because we're hearing, I mean, I think we're hearing from the community they don't want us to cut services. Yeah. And that's the balance, right? In one hand, you're saying don't cut services, but you're also saying don't raise our taxes. And so that's the trade-off.

And so, like, we looked at outsourcing our services road painting and our sidewalk plowing last year. And those numbers came back huge. Right?

Yeah. So cutting services wouldn't save us money, probably.

You know? Well, you could do away with the sidewalk plowing, but I'm going to give them your phone number.

Oh, no, no, no. I wouldn't dream of getting rid of someone.

Yeah, no, but it's like, where do you cut? What do you do?

People have a really hard time identifying things sometimes for themselves, but certainly for the neighbors to do without. I usually like to ask both questions, you know, and I think when you look at the budget and I appreciate Tim's comment, I appreciate the effort the city puts in. I don't think people realize how incredibly tight municipal budget is and how little room there is and how efficiently the city and the employees provide those services. I know it sounds, you know, put on if I'm saying it like this, but it really is, like when people say cut, it's just sort of a head scratcher as to where. I think people need to realize that if you're taking a unit's budget, you'd have to get rid of multiple people to make an actual impact, like multiple people in each department to make a, to impact people who really notice in text time. I think that sounds silly, just having the rolling stock conversation we had, but some of these expenses do compound every year, right? It's nitpicking to the level where it's dangerous almost to drag it out over 15 meetings and nitpicking every line. We've kind of fallen into that pattern in the past a little bit. And someone's always pulled this out, either it's Regina or somebody else. But I have just a super quick question though. So we identified $219,000 that is a one-time input into the rolling stock. for that year, right? So where does that fit into this ask right now?

So just to be clear, for FY28, we would have to raise $220,000 more into rolling stock. And then that is the level at which we need to sustain money in the rolling stock year over year with a 7% increase on top of that. So you will see that LEAP OF AN INCREASE FROM WHERE WE ARE TODAY TO THAT NUMBER IN FY28 OR WHICHEVER YEAR YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT THAT IS COLLECTIVELY WITHIN THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION AND IF THAT'S TWO PERCENT AND OF THAT WELL TAX RATES DIFFERENT THAN THE BUDGET SO IT'S STILL A BIG NUMBER IN THE OVERALL TIGHT BUDGET YEAH YEAH AND OKAY

That's where you cross your fingers for earned interest and fund balance.

Well, I think the other thing that's on the table that we've had many conversations about as we're going into budget season is the revenue component and trying to do a little bit more balance on, you know, can we find something in the revenue column? you know interest etc that will help us offset some of this and and there is no white there is no there is no magic bullet out there there is very possible that staff is going to come back to us and say sorry there's nothing there we've cracked no there is nothing there is nothing and so but the one thing i want to say about this tax rate in in you know the budget discussion is that we're asking a lot of staff We are. We sat around this table next door talking about CommDev, economic development, all those things. And at some point, if we want to see those things happen, we have to add the money to the budget in order to do that. A person is $110,000 randomly pulling numbers out of you know what. So it's probably more than that, honestly. And so that's a percentage. That is 1%. So I think we internally need to figure out what we want out of this budget, too. If we really want to see things done, then we need to give the staff more flexibility on the budget side. So that's where I'm coming. My number is 5. That's where I'm going. Because I am also what cognizant of all of those things but also the fact that we're in union negotiations and there is gonna be a lot that's That is required of us for that as well, so I'm coming to you I see you know you're fine so I Will get off my soapbox. Go ahead.

I figured rather than just blurt it out. I just want to say This is July at some point. We always add money into this budget and So two years ago it was money for the fund balance and last year. It was $30,000 for economic development I think those are in my mind two separate Asks right like we're asking for essentially a budget from staff here to operate the city and what they need to operate and then we can move the needle further and if we're comfortable collectively or in a majority, to address some of the other things that have been brought. And I just want to put that out there because that's very much the way I'm looking at it tonight.

Yeah, I can appreciate that. I mean, I guess I look at it a little differently because those are pretty small moves that we did at the 11th hour after we were pretty... Yeah, $100,000 is 1%, right?

So it's not unheard of to add $100,000 at the 11th hour.

But I think that $100,000, so just using my example of, again, we've sat around the table talking about adding either a community development person for some enforcement or an economic development to deal with economic development, whatever that happens to be, that doesn't just come with a person. That comes with all sorts of other things that go behind it. So adding just this $100,000 to the budget at the 11th hour to add a person isn't necessarily going to help us. Those two things, I think, were... 100,000 adding to the budget just to add. Yeah, no, I understand what you're saying. And adding the 30,000 was an RFP.

But I think, yeah, and I think what I'm trying to say is there's still time between what we say tonight and where we end up to move that needle. I think this to me is a form baseline conversation of where, you know, where we're at. And again, it's a complicated conversation tonight. Uh, and just because of all of the externals that as Rogers pointed out, you know, uh, and so that's, again, I had this conversation with you earlier today. You look at it one way and I, my brain sees it completely the other. Uh, so I appreciate what you're saying. I, um, I think there's plenty of time to move that needle. I would love to see some iteration because I know we go through two or three iterations through the whole process. Well, yeah, but I don't want to misspeak, and it's late for me. Yeah. No.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, just in terms of throwing out a number, I think I'm leaning closer to five myself, just because I agree with Amber. Not only do we constantly talk about what we would like to do. The staff has things, you know, that have been on their lists for years, and we hear from the community that they want to see more, as much as they also want us to reduce taxes. You know, there's a balance, but I would, you know, 5% seems like... Brian, anything you want to add?

Yeah, I was just going to, I remember being where Bethany was last year and not having an idea really what this question was. And I said, well, what do you guys typically do? And Elaine said, we typically have for the last X number of years asked for approximately three. Three being, you know, just over inflation for most of those things, for most of those years. And meaning that we've had a flat budget for a decade. um so my so i was then i looked at jess's uh inflation numbers and uh well i mean they're the cpi numbers but thank you for including them in the packet um i um uh tangent for a second i would i would have liked to see i couldn't find these handy the the healthcare inflation numbers it does seem to be about on par with the regular inflation although I'm skeptical of my own research. So if someone could find that out, that would be lovely, because that is the biggest driver of our costs. Yeah, I was going to say, given the environment and the things that we're asking, I was thinking that four would be the target that I would suggest for.

I'll say four, and then I'll say I asked for a lot at the retreat, and I'm counting on the excellent narratives and manager's notes that we get when receiving the first budget that usually get into things like, this is what you asked for. Here's what we could do if. I don't want to overwork you on, like, here's 16. I don't expect scenarios, like, big time, but, like. if we get four or five back and you say, and look, we missed out maybe on some of the priorities that were set early at the retreat. If this is important, this is what it would take. And I think we've seen something like that in the past. So I think four feels like a decent starting place, understanding that it's a pretty fluid time.

Okay, I'm going to open it up for public comments, and I'll bring it back to us to kind of conclude. Risa, I see you have your hands up. Go ahead.

Thank you. Please help me remember. I think I remember correctly, but so let's say the number is 5%. That is then in addition to whatever we're paying for our various bonds, right? It doesn't include those various bonds. So those of us at home are looking at perhaps a 5% increase plus the bonds, plus the school tax, correct?

Jess, so you're going to see the debt repayments, depending on where they land, which fund they're in. So the general fund debt, you will see that in the 5%. The debt that's associated with wastewater, sanitation, water, you see that debt in your utility bills. So this target that I'm asking for right now from the council is really i'm talking about the general fund side but it's helpful to understand um the overall goal we will work to present a budget that hits five percent with the bond payments worked into that jess can correct me if i'm wrong nope you're on the only thing that we will be adding potentially this year is the public works facility so

But again, that bond payment, when we start making it, will be included in the debt service budget as part of the general fund budget.

Thank you both so much.

Questions online? In the room?

Thank you for the clarity, too, on that. on the bonds, I appreciate that very much. I asked for this, I brought this up last year, it wasn't, when I asked it wasn't appropriate to do it at that time, but I'm gonna ask for it now, is if the city can provide in some form or fashion a list of services that the city provides, you know, the non-statutory, the things that could potentially be discussed, And I say that because I think even the discussions I have with people around the budget and what we do, because I get all of your reasonings, The conversation also a lot of times is they also don't know all the things that we do for them necessarily. That's why often it's the easiest thing to do is to pull out and say sidewalk plows because it's the one thing that they do know that we do. But we could look at potentially reducing sidewalk plowing in order to save cost. But in order for the community to have that discussion and participate in this to bring back feedback to the council, think it would be really great if this if the residents could have a better understanding of what that means in some form or fashion whether it's the list of those services and a potential impact amount I don't know but some way so that the community can have a conversation because obviously we need to have that conversation now not in December the other thing that I I want to acknowledge, and I appreciate, again, all the comments that were made around this, is to the same point we're looking at, while we don't have a police association to worry about, we do have an association contract that we don't know what that end result will look like. But we can imagine it's going to be on an increase. So that being said, if the council or if anyone on this council or even residents, I'll say this generally, if people have ideas around the things that they wanna trim, I think we should put those on the table as quickly as possible and that's to help the team that's negotiating that contract be able to walk into that room knowing the services that they're gonna have to be able to provide. It'll make that negotiation a little bit easier, I think. So I would ask that if if anybody has any ideas, please share those because I think it will will help the process and last but not least again, I Understand where you're coming to these numbers My struggle is that thinking about where this is going from a tax rate standpoint and where the burden is going to end up, having things like the utility properties be devalued in this last assessment over the last year, that's going to have an impact on this. The signs seem to line up that the residents are going to have to carry more of this burden. I have that firmly in the back of my head until the final number is presented. And I look forward to seeing that because a 5% increase on top of the fact of having another $2 million bond discussion coming up, these are just things that we need to be mindful of. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do those things. It's just a matter of how we get there. i and i agree with you amber we definitely need more revenue i would like to see the um the council take on a comprehensive review of the fees and rates that we currently have it's in our land development code and potentially other fee schedules just to make sure that we again are covering the bases and we're not undervaluing our services because those things will benefit us in the long run. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, so everyone?

I just want to suggest that the service catalog you're talking about, in a lot of ways, are the work plans. It's not quite the list you're talking about, but if people want a really detailed look at what the city does, I don't think I've ever seen a more detailed look than sort of, because it's pretty much spelled out, at least the top ten things that every department does.

I would just ask as a resident, it could be more easily digestible if it was put in a list.

We're good at lists.

Okay, so bringing you back to us, generally heard we're the outliers on this with the 5%, so three have four, so we're gonna give that number across the table here and understanding that, before we even say it, this is just a preliminary conversation. I get this, but she needs something to work with Unless you want to change your number to five.

I'm good. I will bite my tongue. Let the record reflect.

The record reflects this is the only time Tim Miller has ever gotten his tongue checked. What do you want to say?

Nope.

Okay. Stop. All right. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. All right. Topic conversation fun number three. five c which is discussion and consideration on the west street force main project including a bond vote etc etc on there so okay we got so much fun yeah hi lots of fun

Okay, so our West Street Pump Station, some of you might recall, others might not be aware, but West Street Pump Station, River Street Pump Station, and Maple Street Pump Station are all currently under designed for full replacement. They're all 40 plus years old, which is way too long for a pump station. Typical lifespan should be 25 years. So that bond passed, I think it was two years ago now. But however, as the design has progressed, it was realized that West Street Pump Station, it currently struggles. It is operating over capacity. Multiple times in a day when Susie Wilson Pump Station kicks on, it surges the station so that two pumps have to come on in order to pump down the level, which is not sustainable. So we already saw that. Well, actually, it's gotten worse over the past year, but we knew that the station was nearing its end of life. So when the engineers started looking at it, they realized replacing the equipment would only help it pump what it's currently receiving, but there's no capacity for future growth due to the size of the force main. And so the force main is the pipe that takes the wastewater from the pump station and moves it closer to the wastewater facility where then we can use gravity to get it to the facility. And so West Street's case, that is about a mile long. pipe that goes from the station to about the intersection or right on South Street Lane in a person's backyard. And then from there, it goes via gravity through the Southview Greenwood neighborhood to the facility. So right now, that's an eight-inch pipe. And it needs to be bigger in order to allow for future growth. And force mains are not the cheapest to replace. It's anticipated to be a $2 million project. The timing of this project is pretty important because if we were to proceed with the station replacement, and keep the eight inch force main, it would work for a period of time, but it put extra stress on the force main. Also, it would require us installing pumps that have like two or three times more horsepower than what is actually needed. And that's, they're about $150,000. And then once we upgrade the force main, those pumps have to be removed to be right sized. And those are way too big. Those pumps are not any size that we would use in any other application in the city. So they would go to waste. So really what the discussion is about is the timing of a bond vote, whether it take place in this November or the following March. River and Maple Street pump stations are going to be constructed first, bid out at the end of this year and constructed in the winter, early spring. And then West Street was looking to follow that the following year in FY28. The other important thing to note is that this force main project is going to be shared with the town of Essex, likely to start with a 70-30 split that we've negotiated with the town, and then we may adjust that in the future based on flow. because we will be having that whole entire system will have flow meters in it. So we'll know exactly how much flow is coming from the town of Essex versus the city, which we don't have currently right now. Our station does not have an actual flow meter. We can calculate flow based on pump run hours, but there is a difference in that. And if when this project proceeds, we do have to make some other amendments to include it in the engineering service agreement, which I did receive word that that amount that is actually in this memo, it was cut in half the state of Vermont. because this is looking to be a clean water state revolving fund project is not going to have our engineers go through the full reassessment. So we will not have to spend as much engineering to look at the force main project. Um, so that has already been revised and that will be updated in the memo for July 22nd. Um, but we will have to add it to the clean water state revolving fund application. And this all comes out of the sanitation capital reserve fund. Um, And I think that's about all I have. So I guess I'll open up to questions.

So the only thing I wanted to clarify was that we're not making a decision tonight. I think kind of hit that at the tail end here is that one of the other things that I've been asking to see is our debt load from the bond and how much, given the fact that we just voted for a bond, et cetera. And so that information is not available. So we're going to have some conversation tonight, and then we're going to have some more conversation probably on the 22nd, and we'll vote on it on the 22nd. And I think the only question I think that's out there that I've heard a couple of different times is that is this solely being done because it's driven by future development or is this something that needs to be done regardless of whether we developed or not?

It will, it would not do any service. The station will not last 25 years if you don't proceed with this. Yeah.

I think more about, I think the question is for me more around the force main, like at what point in development, well, I think it needs to be done. And I would go for the sooner bond vote because I think that's a question. So I'll just say that now. I'd prefer November and get it rolling. The only other thing I'll say about this, so it does sound like Maple and River Street. Thank you. Are just us covering that, right? Yes. And the West Street is being split, which is why the numbers are a little weird in here, and that's totally fine. I get that now. I guess going back to the revenue thing, this is one of those places where at some point development happened over the last five or eight years that tipped the scale for the forest main itself, I'm assuming. And the only thing not the only thing. Pressures to increase the size are also coming from that same wave, that same impetus for development. So from a revenue point of view, we had this discussion three or four years ago when we did modify the service, the LDC fee schedule or whatever the fee schedule was. This is where it would be great to try to figure out, how do we capture more money without also making bedrooms overly expensive to build? Where does that balance come in? I'm just going to say, I don't know this super well, so these are a lot of questions I have. But I would love any resources to try to figure out. I don't think Grand List is going to cover this growth, these expenses long term. when, how, what's appropriate to kind of look at placing these expenses kind of a little bit more at the feet of where they're being brought to us from, if that makes any sense. So as that corridor, as the town, as all of that develops up, and it will, can we capture some of this back without, while trying to balance the price of development? And how do you do that? So I'm just putting that out there.

I think we have made significant balance because I think we've added that connection fee. I'm going to probably not get the right name for it, but like that we weren't doing. And so we did that. But I think the question is more like we're constantly looking every single year. We're looking at our fees and stuff, but there is that balance of at some point where somebody says Essex Junction is just basically feed us out of being here.

But then you've got the taxpayers on the other side saying, I'm general funded out of being here. So that's kind of a curiosity for me. It's a curiosity. I don't know if I'm correct in admitting that. The only other question I had, I was going to tip my tongue. Oh, any other situations like this that you've thought of around town that may be looking at future development where have we kind of I know pipeline pipes and everything. There's been a lot of work underground over the last 10 years. Do we know of any places that we're also going to be looking at this in the next?

Well, actually, the sanitation lines have not been fully investigated since 2011. So that is, Hamlin has been doing sections of our collection system the past three years. So he's done West Street. He started with West Street, which his report supports that the stations... running over capacity. And he has just finished up, they've just finished up a high school pump station service area because we think we have a lot of infiltration inflow because there's a high groundwater table in that area. But based on what we, talked about at the retreat, I was going to put in the FY20 capital plan an actual capacity study for the rest of the collection system, if we can, rather than doing it piecemeal. So we have a starting point where all at the same point and we can identify those areas rather than it being over five years and then going back and development's already changed or whatnot. So a starting point and then working from there.

like doing that and then looking at, for instance, a fee schedule, an expense, like a capital plan then from there, and we can have more info. Thanks.

Bethany? Is there a reason this was not able to be, this need was not able to be identified in the initial project design? And maybe that's a stupid question, I don't know.

It just wasn't engineered far enough in the engineering process for that part to be identified. It's easier to come up with costs to get a bond vote than... Also, the station has been showing more signs of struggling in the past year. So it's just started to kind of snowball.

Okay, well, until you said that, I was going to lean towards pushing a vote until March, just so that, you know, we have conversations about the budget in November, and, you know, it would be nice to understand a picture of the budget before voting on a bond, but if there's signs of struggle, then it's more important that we make sure that... Everything works. Especially when it comes to pump stations. November.

Chels, can I just ask you what size we're upsizing the pipe to?

10-inch.

So from 8 to 10? Yeah. They've deemed that adequate. The engineers have deemed that adequate.

Yeah, that will get us quite a bit of capacity. I think it's like at peak flows, which peak flows is the engineering term of if everyone were to turn their faucets on at once. So that rarely happens. It's more like if there was a storm or something. But it's like over a million gallons a minute through that station. I mean, this is one of our largest stations. with no, and actually is the only station that is most likely to fill a basement because of the elevation of the station in relation to the house on West street extension and the dentist office.

Yeah.

Right.

Meaning if we can't successfully move the water through the pipe all the way down to the plant, it could potentially back up. Yes.

Yeah, that is true. Yes. A hundred percent.

And what is the, do we know what the town of Essex, what their financial, uh, contribution is going to be here.

At the start, it should be around 70%. And then we have discussions looking at based on flow through the facility or through the station in future years.

$2 million initial bond. We're on the hook for 600,000 essentially.

Yeah, that was mine.

Right.

Because right now we're pretty sure their flow is around 70%. But like I said, we they just got their flow meter in place on Susie Wilson's line and they're going to be putting one more in. for the, I think it's gravity fed through the Warner neighborhood. And then we're going to be putting a flow meter on our station. So we'll be able to tell right now exactly what's coming from the town of Essex versus us because other than that right now, they've been using water estimates, water use estimates, which isn't, it works, but it's not as good as an actual meter in a pipe telling you the flow.

And that was my question.

Yeah, we had this conversation when we put the bond out for all three stations because that was the big one and they were going to pick up most of that cost. So again, you know, like I know we're not having this discussion would behoove us to get that information out to voters. Yeah. Look to this bond. But, yeah, I'm good.

We are having a discussion. We're just not.

Well, yeah, okay. But I think anything we can do to push the narrative that it's a 70-30 split, much like we did the last time, only stands to benefit. I have no problem with any of the rest of it.

I think we're getting that dollar amount that it's a $2 million project. We're not spending. We did the same thing. Our financial burden is not.

We did the same thing with the bond last year for, was it lead testing, water line testing, right? So there's so much of that loan forgiveness that comes in that it doesn't end up costing us much in the end. So.

Yeah, we just, to be clear, I think Chelsea has been clear, but we cannot guarantee that 70-30.

Yeah, even if it just is generically cost to be associated, cost to be shared with Essex Town through flow rates. Yeah. I don't have any comments. I think I would, from a high level, I would prefer to have a bond vote in March and not November.

But other than that, it sounds like a good catch.

of the problem and before we kind of wasted that new money on that public station. Chels, nice job.

Thank you. All right.

I'm going to open it. Yes, sir. What's the process for the town? When are they voting on? When are they, the select board, taking this up? And what happens? Because we still need to do this and they don't approve the bond in town.

So for that reason alone, they don't approve a bond. We take out the debt.

Oh.

We approve a bond.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, I should have realized that.

Yes, well, it's been learning curves through the prior ones and this one.

Yes, because of Naturally Right, okay.

Yes, and then through our agreements through the track town, but this is only a two-party agreement, just us and the town on the sanitation lines. That's how we clarify who pays what and their commitment to us. That agreement is pretty old, and Chelsea's been working with the town quite a bit over the last year or so to try to get that updated. That's why a part of that discussion has also been it'd be great if we all have better data, hence the flow meters. And so it's all a work in progress, but...

Well, sorry, I never should have asked a dumb question.

Okay, I'm going to open it up for public comment. Anyone online? Okay, Mark.

So last time, it's three.

I know, I know. I think in FIFA this would be, what, a hat trick? Yeah. So I totally support. Good call, my friend. I support this project. The question that I have is around a couple of things. But first off, I do want to acknowledge that I had a recent conversation with a developer who seemed to acknowledge that they were being asked to put their project on hold on Pearl Street until this could be resolved. And so it feels like we've got stuff that's just sitting in the wings waiting for this to be done. So it would be great to get this moving as fast as possible. The other is thinking around the capacity. Tim, you asked the question about the pipe. So I'm going to ask the question about why is it just two inches of capacity? How much development are we going to be able to cover over the next 25 years with two additional inches on this pipe, while I don't see all of a sudden 600 new homes popping up or 600 new apartments popping up along Pearl Street, I think over the next 25 years we could definitely see a significant increase. We just saw the Contos property go on the market and I know it was and talking with the owner there, their hope was that that property and the adjoining properties might turn into another, into an expansion of housing within our community. So we are gonna need additional capacity. I'm just wondering how much capacity we're actually gonna get out of this for how long. So I wonder if we shouldn't go bigger.

Chelsea?

We're all looking at you. I think they did have one more option above that, but it actually really comes down to... Both the town and myself working with Chris and Michael in community development did a 15-year broadcast out to what we thought development was going to be, and we used those numbers. It mimicked what we've done the past 10-15 years to get where we thought we needed flow and then have a then-sum amount. But also, the size of the pipe does come down to, it's a lot, I don't know how to, it's not an easy way for me to explain it, unless you know science.

Volume and how to calculate that.

Yeah, but it's also just like the, how to keep a longevity of a pipe. The eight inch, if you stayed with that, It's all about pump. It's physics, honestly. It's pump dynamics and it's a pump's ability to send something down the pipe. Also, the site, the size of the space we have, we only lease that land from the railroad and we're constrained by the railroad. If we had it our way, we would have... I wanted to put a building like a high school pump station, but there's not enough room. But we definitely can reassess the numbers from a 10-inch to 12-inch. That's just where that seems the most logical for the cost and that would meet our needs.

We just on Pearl Street approved nine stories.

We did, but that is on eventually. We have to wait for the station to go in for that to go in place, but yes.

we think would fit, would fulfill those needs.

Just to be clear, the council approved a vision for higher heights.

I know that there's no plans.

The land development code is getting drafted right now by the Planning Commission, and they are pausing on higher, increasing the height in this section of town. We're instead focusing on increasing heights in the locations of town that are gravity fed and not constrained by this plan. pump station problem and force main problem. So we are not changing the zoning down there until we've got this sorted out.

No, I understand that, but my question is, is the 10-inch going to be enough to, you know, say our dreams come true?

Yeah, like in three years if we change the zoning, will the 10-inch be enough?

Yeah, exactly.

That was my understanding. I will double check the numbers though.

I think if the answer is no, then I think we need to understand the ramifications of moving to the 12th.

Let's put it this way.

It's where our assessment landed, so 10-inch was what's going to work in the future.

I totally trust you and science. I just want to say that because saying it these days is so good. I feel like science should have a chance. But I guess one way I'd look at this is we have housing targets. We have a TOD. We have the, you know, we have all this. So I kind of trust that when you sat with everybody, Chris and Michael and everybody, and kind of talked about those housing targets and what the plans are and what's likely to come, we can only fit so much. So I'm feeling pretty good. If you, you know, the facility can only fit.

Like we actually, our facility can't handle them out of housing targets. The state wants for our area. It's just so it's yeah.

Yeah, and I'll just add that this is so the housing targets are in place for a real purpose. We are behind. We've been woefully behind in building in the state of Vermont, and we need to catch up. That said, the targets are. Big the reality of us going from where we are today. To those targets is pretty significant leap. And zoning is 1 of many. Limiting factors towards actually seeing those. Those number of housing units come online.

So, yeah, Brian.

Yeah, Chelsea, I wanted to ask you a physics question. Because I think it will clarify what some of the concerns you guys have. The amount of flow going through a pipe is a function of its diameter, not its radius. Right. So by my math, this pipe is 56% bigger. Yeah.

It's quite a bit more. I wish I didn't remote into my files so I can't pull up the flow. But for the July 22 meeting, I could put the chart that the engineer gave us so you can see how much more flow we are getting with a 10-inch pipe.

Yeah, certainly not my kind of engineering, but it seems to me if the pipe is getting 50% bigger, it's going to have 50% flow to an approximation, more flow. So it seems like this is a big improvement. Two inches sounds small, but 50% does not to me. Do you agree? I agree, yes. Thank you.

Can I ask a clarifying question?

Yes, and then I'm done. The physics conversation is over.

No, I totally understand. I think it would be easier for the council, as well as for the public, in order to understand. And I appreciate the math, because believe me, I can do the math. It's a matter of like, how many people is this going to serve? How many people could it serve? And again, that's thinking about how many people, if we house more people along Pearl Street, how many can we get to? That way we can understand how much development we're actually going to be allowed to do with a 10-inch pipe versus a 12-inch pipe or whatever direction the council wants to direct this project into. I think if we can find some sort of a common way to talk about this that relates to the work that the council is doing and the direction the council is pointing versus trying to assess this capacity, I think that would help bridge the conversation.

I think Chelsea hears you. Regina hears you. Thank you. Jess, everyone heard that. Stay tuned for the July 22nd meeting for more conversation.

So it would be helpful to understand generally if we are talking about November or March because I need to bring very specific documents forward on July 22nd if we're talking about November.

True. November.

Okay. So I got one vote for November. Brian, March or November? I think you said March earlier. You're on mute.

I prefer March. Could be persuaded. Okay. Tim?

I was leaning November based on the recommendation just to be able to continue to keep the schedule on track for this entire project.

Stephanie? I lean toward March, but I can go with November, especially considering the concerns about issues recently.

I was going to go November, so I think it sounds like the consensus is November. okay thank you guys all right discussion and consideration of setting a special meeting to set the fy 27 tax rate 5d

Okay. So we are still sort of sorting this out. There is a potential that we can set the rate tax rate at your July 22nd meeting, but it is more than likely that we could benefit from and need to set the tax rate after that meeting. So we are hopeful that we can do a special meeting on Monday, August 3rd at 5.30 to do this one business item, the VCA, which you are all apart. We'll be meeting at 6 p.m. that night.

All right. Seems pretty straightforward. Motion?

I move that the city count.

Is there any conversation? I thought it was pretty straightforward. Do you want to do it?

I just want to leave it out there. Go ahead. I move that the City Council set a special council meeting on August 3rd, 2026 at 5.30 p.m. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, that's unanimous.

You've had your choice.

You've got your three and you're done. Okay. Item E is the approve the command vehicle bid award. I don't think we need any more conversation on it, but we do need to vote on it because we removed it from the consent agenda. So... I guess it's going to be the opposite. I guess I could do a motion to approve the command vehicle bid award. And somebody can just, I mean, you're looking like you're lost.

Well, I'm trying to find it. I'm just wondering if we pull it and table it.

Okay. You can do that. That's fine.

Because then we're not... You're not approving it.

That's fine.

And it's still alive.

So then I'll take a motion to table the approval of the command vehicle bid award.

Does that make sense then?

That's fine. Yes.

Because then it's not dead. It's just...

I'll make that motion.

Okay. Second.

Okay. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

I'm going to vote no on that one, so we'll do a roll call. Bethany? Aye. Tim?

Aye.

Raj? Aye. Ryan? Aye. Nay. Okay, that passes. All right, so then I'm going to get back onto my agenda. So the last item is an executive session to discuss attorney-client communication and litigation. We are going to come back with a... resolution, motion, however you want to call it. So let's do the consent. Yes, I do want you to do it, but can you approve the consent first?

I move we approve the consent agenda. I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. All right. Councilmember comments and city manager report. Regina?

I don't have anything. Note, we did put out a message today that our rules in the city of Essex Junction are still that you can only put campaign signs out in the public right-of-way two weeks before an election. The primary is on August 11th, so that means two weeks before that. So we're asking folks to take signs out of the right-of-way, and the city will be removing them.

And I just want to, just for the record, that means that July 28th.

Yes.

Is the date that they can come out.

Thank you. Any city councilor comments? Oh, sorry. One other. No, we've gone past here.

Go ahead. I would like to remind folks that next Friday, Brownell Library will be having their 100th birthday party right here behind the two Lincoln Brownell location. That starts at 4 p.m., 4 to 7 p.m. on Friday, July 17th.

Excited for that. Yeah. I just want to make a quick note that Public Works seems to be out painting crosswalks and stop bars in the day, which is inconvenient to some people. And they seem to be rather understanding that they can't get to the intersection they need to get to while the paint is wet. So I just want to acknowledge that that's happening. I appreciate the patience of everyone as they encounter those crosswalks. There hasn't been any night painting by the looks of it at this point, but I assume that'll be coming soon. So that's all.

I move that the City Council make the specific finding that premature disclosure of the confidential attorney-client communications regarding a probable litigation would place the City at a substantial disadvantage. And I move that the City Council enter an executive session to discuss confidential attorney-client communications regarding probable litigation pursuant to 1 VSA 313 and 1 VSA 313 to include the City Council and City Manager.

Second all in favor. All right Thank you, we will be back hopefully shortly

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

So you could go up to two hours, or actually up to six hours. On one film? On one film.

Six hours on one film?

Yeah.

How can you go six hours on one film?

I don't know. The tape moves really slowly.

The movie thing is like, the ones like this are only for a half hour. The great big reels, the great big reels like this are only about 45 minutes, a half hour. You know the ones that they play in the movies, in the theaters?

Yeah. Okay, that's film, though, and this is video.

Here at the Fletcher Free Library and also at Contois Auditorium and also at the Church Street Center and some other places around town, the Vermont Storytelling Festival. And we're going to show you what kinds of places it's going to be taking place inside. Come on.

Hello, my name is Peter Burns, and I'll be your suave and sophisticated host for the storytelling here at 7.30 on Friday evening. There'll be a variety of different kinds of storytellers and different styles of stories. I'll know you enjoy it, so please come join me for this evening of stories. Thank you.

Hi! We're zucchini princesses. Nothing in the hot sun. I don't think he has a name right.

I saw on TV...

real things pardon me ma'am may i ask your name my name is mrs dick righteous mrs righteous could you look into the camera and say hello to our viewers hi now when you say nip womanhood in the bud what do you mean mrs mrs righteous Well, I mean that we are here.

I have a statement. Do you mind if I read my statement? We are here to prevent the feminist blight of blue jeans, flat shoes, and female facial nudity. We expect to see an American dress code as the law of the land. We also support a new congressional group, HULA, the House Committee on Unladylike Activities.

What I've done is made beauty. You say, what is it? It's beauty.

And I wrote this script in Vermont last year, as a matter of fact, during Chris's vacation at Stowe. And we got involved in a story.

Okay. So we are back in session. Can we just do a test real quick? Sorry. Brian, can you hear us? It is. 826. Brian, can you hear us? Okay. All right. So I'm going to make a motion to ratify the settlement agreement with Rebecca Santillo on behalf of her daughter, Alexa Santillo. Seconded.

All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

All right. That's unanimous.

I move to be adjourned. Second.

Seconded. Okay. All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Aye. All right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Have a good night.

Thank you.