City Council - Regular Meeting

do Thank you. do do you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . . . . Thank you. you

Recording in progress.

Item number one on our agenda will be the Pledge of Allegiance. And we have the pleasure of asking our new deputy city manager, Nicholas, to lead us, please. to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Nicholas. Item 2, which is instructions on exiting this building in case of an emergency and the review of our technology options by our City Manager, Jesse Baker.

Great, thank you. So for those in the room, welcome. If there's an emergency during this meeting, you can go at the rear of the auditorium on the left or right side and then turn left or right to get outside. If you'd like to speak during any item on the agenda, you can raise your hand and the chair will call on you. For those joining remotely, thank you for joining us as well. If you would like to speak during an item on the agenda, please use the raise hand feature in the webinar and the chair will call on you or you can indicate that you would like to speak in the Q&A and we will have the chair call on you. Other than that, we are not monitoring the Q&A for content.

Thank you, Jesse. Item three, which is agenda review. Do we have any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of our agenda items tonight? Seeing as how we have none, we will move on to item four, which is comments and questions from the public that are not related to tonight's agenda. Are there any? Yes. Come up either to the table or the podium. And on the podium, there are directions on how to turn on the microphone. The light has to be bright green. Remember to identify yourself before you start.

Thank you. My name is Carrie McLaughlin. I am a South Burlington resident on East Terrace. I think you heard from my neighbors last week. I just wanted to kind of give a little bit more information about the challenges that we're having there. I witnessed the accident that happened a couple weeks ago. It was right in front of my house. My kids were luckily in the car with me because we were about to leave. But a car was going much, much too fast. hit my neighbor's car across the street, pushed my neighbor's car about eight feet, like, generously, and totaled his car. And we watched that car flip, you know, side over side just once. But, I mean, you have to be going pretty fast to flip on that road. So... We I just it was really scary for my kids and it was really scary for me as a parent to see that happen because our kids are just up and down that street all the time. I know you guys have already heard this, but I just really wanted to emphasize how important this is. You know, we have. like throughout the years, like come to the city and ask for help on our road. You know, we have parking issues. There's a lot going on. So I just I wanted to bring another voice to the table to make sure that you guys heard how serious it is. And we're really like scared parents right now.

So thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Come on up. Remember to identify yourself.

Yeah.

I'm Robin Pyle. I live at 61 East Terrace. I'm a stay-at-home mom, so I'm home a lot. And since our last meeting, I've seen a lot of police activity on our streets, so I really appreciate that. We've had cruisers setting at different spots at the beginning of the street to sort of see what's going on. The issue with that, though, is they're all coming between the hours of 2 and 4 p.m., which is never a time when anyone's home. on our street. So I've talked to the police, I've talked to three different police officers who've been on the street at different times. I said, I can be out front with my kids and have just noticed that they've come at the same sort of weird timeline. And he's, you know, at once the police officer said, yes, I've caught a couple of people speeding. I pulled them over. I asked them where they live. They've lived in the street. They were all, the police were surprised that people who lived in the street were the speeders. And then there was the last police officer I spoke to. He said that they were told to come midday, which, again, is not the issue that we have. So I don't know where the communication came from our meeting here with the police department or who talks to them or who gives them information. But the time of day of the problems is late afternoon to early evening when people are coming home from work. So that that that is the timeline period. He also the police officer also said that there was the problem was with the Tannis Club. And that's not a problem that the neighborhood has. We have problem with the park, the parking on swim meets, but not people speeding to get to the Tannis Club. So I just wanted to clarify that today, that it's only what, maybe 50 feet from the entrance of the street to the Tannis Club where the counter is. And that's, you can't get enough speed there. It's when you get past that and you go up the hill, you sort of crest up the hill and then you swoop down. And then people get up speed between about 20 and 40 east terrace. And then people who, there's a assisted living home at the end of our street, which houses people who don't drive, but all the employees come and go at work time. And these people are flying at bus time. Not right now, of course, because it's summer, but during the school year, they have to be at work at the home at eight o'clock and people are cooking down the road when the school bus comes down. And they go all the way down to the end street and then they leave at eight or five and then they drive away and they leave at five and back and forth. But it's not between two and four, which is where I've seen four police officers. So I just want to make sure if anybody needs to talk to residents that we're all available to talk to. So if people have questions of where the problems are, what the problems actually are, you know, the front porch form is something that could be used by the council to ask for information or feedback. I don't know if you use that or if that's appropriate, but it would be nice to get police there at the correct time, right? And not sitting at the very beginning of the street where people pull on and then they can obviously see them, right? If you're trying to catch people, they need to be up a little bit farther. but that's my two cents on that. And we're just going to keep showing up every two weeks until something changes. We did ask for like a temporary barrier of some sort. I know that the back to school, they use... hay bales and they put different things like that in the roads to slow people down. I've seen that around schools. And I've seen that in other neighborhoods where people have done that. I don't know if that's something communities do on their own because we're happy to go out and buy 12 bales of hay and narrow our street down so people can't get through fast. But we would like something done So sooner rather than later. And we don't want to wait for you to wait for students to come back to check their speed to then agree, yes, the speed is too fast. We live on the street. We've all lived on the street a long time. And we know there's a problem. So we trust you to know that we're not coming here making this up.

Great.

Okay.

All right. Thank you, Robin. Anybody else?

Can I ask a couple questions at this moment about this particular issue? So, I mean, this is only the second time that I've heard you guys come out and talk about this, and I have a couple of procedural questions because I'm the newest person on the council, so I have no idea what the process is for determining where we put traffic calming infrastructure and what, is there a way to get these things on an expedited timeline or do we have to wait till budget season for that? And I have one more comment and I know this from my personal experience that You know, the state, I think, has a minimum speed limit of 25 miles per hour, I think. And I don't know if this is I mean, I know this is not something that we can legislate locally, but that doesn't necessarily mean that 25 miles an hour is safe on every street. It's just that's the minimum that we have to we have to that we're held to. So those are my questions. And I don't know if you can answer those for me tonight.

Um, so I'm going to speak generally. Um, so public comment is really a time for the public to come and talk to the council and elevate issues. And then we follow up after the meeting. So, um, that's to help us give accurate information and make sure we're doing, we're providing kind of comprehensive feedback to the community and to the council. So generally speaking. There is a traffic request, traffic improvement request form that sits on our Public Works website. There's a whole, criteria specifications that we put together a few years ago to rate those requests as they come in across multitude of factors and then those requests are built into the city's work plan over the year whether there are things that can be done within operations budgets or whether there are things that need to become cip projects and that's on the city's website okay thanks So this is part of why we don't get into back and forth. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, I guess because we're all new to this process and we don't know, right? And there's nowhere to go to ask, right? You can comb through the web.

I am always here. I'm the city manager. I'm accountable for all municipal operations. You can come and talk to me anytime.

So I can call you tomorrow and make an appointment to come in? Absolutely. Okay, I'll do that.

That sounds good. And as far as speed limits, for example, in Burlington, it said if not posted, the maximum speed is 25. That's the default, right? And I see there's one hand online, Megan Emery.

Oh, sorry. Hold on. There you go. Oh, wait, that was Chris Corbin. Wrong person.

Okay. Hey, Megan, can you hear us?

Hello. Yes, I can. I don't know if you can hear me.

We can.

All right. Very good. So I just wanted to follow up on my email of last week. I was very saddened to read in seven days about a business, a member of our business community who was the victim of an anti-Semitic attack. And that follows on the heels of other instances of anti-Semitism in our city. And I just, as a concerned citizen, I wanted to share with you what I have heard from some of your constituents. I am a UVM professor. I am an affiliate with Jewish Studies as well as with Holocaust Studies at the University of Vermont. And I am therefore in touch with members of our Jewish community. And there is a high level of concern in that community, including people who are expressing not only concerns about their their own. you know, children feeling safe in the community, but also about potentially future people who would like to run for office being dissuaded from doing so, particularly because of the anti-Semitic attack that began on July 9th in that very auditorium where you are sitting and that has continued online unabated. on various forums. My understanding is that it's harassment and that is a criminal act. It's not my place. I have no standing to pursue that legally. But what I would like to say is as an educator and as a member of this community, someone who cares very much about South Burlington.

Hey, Megan. Megan, I'm sorry. Can you hold on a minute? We have some joyful children in the hallway and it's a little hard to hear you. Just want to close the door. Thanks, Travis.

Joyful is one word for it.

Yeah.

Maybe just turn up the sound a little bit. Hold on, Megan. We're going to get some more volume in the auditorium.

Thank you, Travis.

All right. Okay, go ahead.

Yeah. Well, I just think it's you are in very privileged seats where you can set the tone of the city. You're not alone. There are other leaders of the city that can do that. But I do call upon you to make a very clear statement that all people are welcome in the city and that we condemn as a city any acts of hate and that people be open to listening to constituents who are expressing real, real level of concern right now. And it's coming through in our local paper. And we see it also online. I'm sure you've seen it all over your front porch forum. So I just wanted to express that concern to you because you are elected officials and you know that it takes a lot of confidence. And I would say you stick your neck out there and you are not granted the same rights that private citizens are. You lose some of that right to privacy as candidates and as elected officials. And there should be a level of not only decorum, but of kind of this esprit de corps, as I like to, I'm a French professor. So a sense of community where we protect our own and we stand up and speak out against hate and we support those who have been victimized by it. That's my statement. And I do ask you to set the tone of our city. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Megan. Any other public comment tonight about things not on our agenda? Okay, then we're going to move on to Item 5, which is Counselor's Announcements and Reports and the Committee Assignments and the City Manager's Report. Who would like to start tonight? Elizabeth, do you want to start?

I did attend, along with all of you, the opening of the bike-ped bridge, which was very exciting. I'm sure if There'll be some additional comments about it, but really remarkable opportunity for connectivity and for both Burlington and South Burlington and all the communities that this will kind of connect with. I also attended the Planning Commission meeting. I'll hold off. Tim, I'm sure you're going to report on that. And then a couple of other things. All of us had a chance to celebrate Tom DiPietro's retirement and it was a real pleasure to honor him and his many, many years of service. I want to just call out the REC program in that I had opportunities to attend both the Farmer's Market and the Sobu Night Out, which are just remarkable events that really bring together such a wide swath of our community and represent a lot of businesses that we all want to support. And then lastly, as many of my colleagues, we participated in some of the Board of Civil Authority training for the August 11th election and this evening, and look forward to seeing everybody at the polls. Thank you, Tim.

You're welcome. Andrew?

I'm going to ditto. So, yes, groundbreaking for the bridge. Yes, Tom's party. Yes, poll workers. All good. Just maybe two seconds. So I am a Jewish member of the community and certainly abhor any anti-Semitism, any, you know, anything in the community, honestly, which treats people as not equal, is not something that we should tolerate as a community, anti-Semitism or otherwise. And I think we actually do a really good job of that as a community. I'm actually really proud of this community, how tolerant we are and how we talk about things. So, you know, with respect to the particular incident that's being discussed today, I think it's complex. And Megan, we've talked about it. I'm happy to talk to you about that some more at any time. But just, I guess, reiterate that, yeah, certainly condemn any anti-Semitism that may be out there, as well as, you know, any intolerable comments. As a community, we can't stand for that.

Thank you, Andrew.

Lori? I do was at the bridge opening, which was wonderful. And, uh, um, it was poignant saying goodbye to Tom. It was a wonderful gathering and he's been a remarkable member of the team here for a long time. So as was said, right up till the time something's filled this positions for you, if you want it back, Tom, um, I, um, attended the advisory committee meeting with civic soul regarding the master planning process for parks and open space and civic soul did a fabulous job of outlining their process going forward and how they're going to pull together the plan. They talked a lot about gap analysis that they are going to be doing. And there was encouragement from me and others in the committee that there's a chance for some of the committees and also for us as council to really get a preview or an overview once that gap analysis is done so that we see the direction they're going and then can help get buy-in before it gets turned into a draft plan that we see without that preview. So look forward to, I think there's going to be a meeting again at the end of August, and look forward to seeing what they do. I think they're doing great work so far. That's it for me today.

Thanks. I'm going to try to keep this brief. I have a bunch of things to report. I want to start by saying, like, agreeing with what Andrew said. I spent a lot longer as a member of the community than a councillor. And my impression has always been that this city council is extremely apolitical, which I think is important to keep this community together. And also, I've never felt like we lived in a community that wasn't Of course, that's easy for me to say I'm a Caucasian woman, but I just want to respond to, you know, the concerns about growing anti-Semitism. My perception is that there's growing hate talk around. about Muslims, Jews, women, misogyny is on the rise, LGBTQ plus people, black and brown people, especially immigrants. So this is not... isolated to our community. I think our community does a pretty good job. And I just want to call out the recent event that I'm sure most people have already read about in some form, which is that a Muslim woman was assaulted on the street just a few days ago. And our Policeman, Officer Zaleski, I hope I pronounced his name correctly, I think did a stupendous job in responding to that incident as potential hate crime. So I think that that's emblematic of the way our city typically acts. you know, manages these sorts of incidents. And I would also say to any community member who wants to talk to me about issues related to racial violence and hatred and hostility, I'm always available to have that conversation, as I'm sure all the other councillors are as well, and Jesse Baker and anyone else in the city leadership. So I will leave it at that. So my my updates are that I went to a with Bettina. Actually, I attended the Vermont Public Health Association's training on extreme heat a couple of weeks ago, and it was focused on the health effects of extreme heat and how communities can prepare for that. And we got access to some really great resources on preparing for a number of climate related health threats. So that was a really interesting training and I'm thrilled that Bettina was able to attend that as well. There was an Energy Committee meeting. The main topic that we discussed was the Green Community Festival, which is on September 19th. We have about 20 exhibitors. There will be three music acts, a kid zone, and food. So I hope a lot of people can show up. There was also a little discussion about the Balcony Solar Program, because as you all know, technically you can put balcony solar on your house. home your apartment now, but it's more complicated than that, so that's going to be stalled a little bit because the... electrical work requirements are a little more complicated than we thought initially. So we're going to have to hold off on putting this on the website. And I'd be happy to talk more about that at a later, you know, at a later point. And if anyone wants to talk with me personally about it, in the interest of time, I guess I'll move on. I attended conversation with a counselor. There were some questions about Bartlett Bay. And also there was a question about streetlights. that, you know, someone needs on a cul-de-sac. And so that was a learning experience for me in terms of how we, you know, how we determine where and when to install that sort of infrastructure. And then the ribbon cutting at the bridge. Yay, yay, bike bridge, bike pad bridge. And yay, Tom DiPietro, because a great human being and... excellent public works director, and he will be very much missed, even though I barely know him. I already feel that way. And I think that's it. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Beth. I would like to apologize to you for missing the conversation. Thank you for being there. Did they finally open the doors to the school?

No, we sat outside in the shade. It was very hot.

It was hot, but you were okay. So I'm hoping to get all these on my calendar in the future so I don't miss one. I attended a public arts committee meeting. A woman named Katie O'Brien attended and brought some recycled bottle art samples that could be used to be used for a craft table for kids at the Green Festival in September. And the committee was pretty excited by what they saw. So, you know, taking bottles and cutting them up and then restoring it into each other and making flowers out of them, right, or long chains of things. They also voted in a new slate of people for the chair, vice chair, and secretary. And I went to a planning commission meeting where they got down into the dirt about TDRs again. And what are the opportunities? Where can they be used in addition to where they are today? Were there any alternatives? I made a comment about If the objective is to officially conserve that property that's NRP, are there things that the city could do to facilitate that if the person wanted to donate that land instead of having to try and sell the TDR? So there is money involved. There's cost involved in doing the survey and getting the easement, right? So planning is on you. Staff are going to go back and just take a look at this because there may be people that just want to do that and not really want to sell their TDRs because there may not be a market for it. I also went to the ribbon cutting for the bridge construction. Very exciting, very hot, right? And it was great. I really loved being there. And that was the most number of people I've ever seen with shovels at the same time. And including them, the ECI group, they got the shovels next, right? That was great. And I just have a quick statement to make about one of the participants that were giving speeches made some comments about the naming of the bridge. And I just want to point out that at this point, and even tonight, at this time, that the City Council has no distinct naming policy for entities within the city. We are going to talk about that on an agenda item later. Any suggestions that there is a name picked out for that bridge is not true. There is no name for that bridge at this point in time. And when we have approved our naming policy and have gone through that naming policy, that is when eventually that bridge may or may not be named. All right, just want to point that out. I also had the opportunity to go to a wedding in New York, which was my son's wedding. So he married his sweetheart from the last six years in Fayetteville, New York, which is sort of southeast of Syracuse. Beautiful barn. It was a great day. Three days of preparation. I hadn't been to the Finger Lakes region before. Finger Lakes are beautiful. Wasco, Scaniatolus, third one we didn't get to. But yeah, just really wonderful country. And I would like to go back and do some more exploring there someday. So congratulations to Sam and Abby Barrett, as they are now.

Congratulations to you, too.

Thank you. Thank you. I am now a father-in-law. The other side of the family has got a million people because there's so many aunts and uncles. I had a lot of really good conversations about a lot of things while I was there. And finally, I did go to that BCA meeting tonight. So all of the voting machines have been zeroed out. They're ready to go for a week from tomorrow. So please, like Elizabeth said, show up on on August 11th, or make sure that you get your ballot voted at the city clerks before then. And that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. So just while we're on BCA, and members of the council may know more up-to-date information now than I know, but we are collecting absentee ballots if people want absentee absentee ballot the last day to request those is august 6th those can be returned directly to the polls or dropped in the drop box at city hall at that point please don't put them in the mail we are collecting a lot of ballots to date so we've returned we've seen returned as of earlier this afternoon 662 local ballots and 694 primary ballots so a pretty good rate of return that's about half of what's out there But, of course, people return the day of or closer to the date as things are known.

And, Jessie, the ballot box is open until the evening before?

It's open until about 645 on the 11th. And then we put a piece of paper over saying, no more. Come to your polling place. Okay. Just a reminder that that local ballot includes the Bartlett Bay bond vote. Request that folks go to the website. There's a lot of information on our Bartlett Bay webpage about background on the plant, fact sheets, FAQs, videos of the plan and videos of council members and staff talking about that bond vote. Please educate yourself and vote on or before August 11th. Moving on from the election to exciting things. things.

No, I'm sorry. You meant on the 10th, right? So the ballot box is open to 645 on the 10th.

I thought it was open on the 11th.

It's open all day on the election day?

I think they're open, right? They collect them and then rush them to the postal service. If they deliver up until what's reasonable to actually get it to us before we close the polls. Yep.

We collect the mail in the ballot box at the end of the night. Moving on from the election.

Maybe you're thinking about City Hall. You can't go in and vote after. It's closed at noon on Monday?

The clerk's office is closed at noon on Monday before the election. We have three new officers who today, who were hired in July to do their prep, were sworn in last week and officially started at the police academy today. So we're really excited to welcome three new officers into the training. As you know, that's about almost a full year training between the academy and the field training that we offer here in the city. But we're glad to see those folks joining us. Also wanted to share, I think I shared this before, but our police officer, K-9 Hex, has also been fully certified and is now out on patrol with Officer Nick Kandra. And also wanted to share that we are, Chief Rowe has instituted new mandatory foot patrols of city center as we think about having our own downtown and ensuring real unperceived safety in our city center. We have officers patrolling on foot and on bike and in cars in the afternoons. Erica West shared that our annual paving is in full swing. Folks saw Feral Street today, the leaf started today on Feral Street, and Spear and Swift are coming. If you would like to see the list of roads we are paving this summer, it is on our Public Works paving page on the website.

Swift is already scarified.

Yep, it's already scarified. On Saturday, or August 1st, what was that, Saturday evening, here in the auditorium, the library hosted Chris Pajolian in partnership with Barnes & Noble and Penguin Random House. It was a full house, sold-out event, really exciting to see events of that caliber coming to this building, this room, and our city. And then I wanted to let you know that the SB night outs are continuing for two extra nights because of rain delays earlier in the season. Those will now continue through August 13th this year. July fitness, as you likely know, Adam and his crew put on daily fitness activities in parks across the city through the month of July. Ask Colin about it later if you want some fun facts. We had a total of 32 classes offered in July with over 330 people participating, individual people participating, which is great. And then starting tomorrow, our fly-by-5K registration opens. That is the 5K that we do in partnership with the airport where you do a 5K on the runway. And this year we are limiting that to 500 runners. So if you're interested in running that 5K, keep your eyes out for the registration link.

And while I was in the Syracuse area, there was a news item about their airport where they also have a fighter wing, and they were running their 11th 5K on their run. this coming September. So I was like, oh, I thought we were the first, but no, we weren't. And if I could also say thank you to the DPW for filling a ton of potholes on Dorset Street. Really appreciate it. It's nice and smooth now, so that's just great. All right, we're going to move on to item 6, which is the consent agenda. Item 6A, which are our financial warrants, and 6B, which has authorized the use of up to $1,050,000 from the ARPA-inspired fund balance to fund the remaining purchase price of the fire department's 2026 ladder truck upon delivery. The fire department annual capital budget appropriation shall be used to repay the ARPA-inspired fund balance over a period not to exceed seven years. And the city manager is authorized to take all actions necessary to implement this funding transfer and repayment. Can I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?

I would like to pull the use of the ARPA-inspired fund 6B off for further discussion.

You would like to pull them and vote on the first one separately and then discuss 6B? Yes. Okay. So can we modify the motion to be only item 6A?

So modified. Second.

So we have motion and second. All those in favor? Say aye. Aye. Aye. It's unanimous. So now we're talking about 6B, Elizabeth.

Yeah, I had submitted a couple of questions regarding the use of, which is primarily the balance of the ARPA-inspired fund for purchase of the ladder truck. And I personally feel that we should see a couple of different financing options on this one. as well as have a discussion about what other potential uses there might be for the ARPA-inspired fund. This is not a question of we don't need to fund it. This is a question of what the funding mechanism is. I had questions about the, you know, life of the ladder truck and then the financing that was proposed with the use of the funds was seven years. And I guess I'd like to have Council presented with a couple of financing options before we commit to using the full ARPA balance for that. So you would like staff to come back with some choices? Well, I think we should have a discussion, but I would like to see some options of what the choices are, and included in that would be potential uses for the ARPA-inspired fund that otherwise might not be funded if we designate it for this use.

So I know one thing is you said that it uses most of it. If it gets used, there's still $800,000 left. Because it's $1.8 million.

Yeah, and it's a big chunk of it.

So it's a huge chunk. I agree.

Yeah, and one of the questions I asked was really the interest bearing of that account versus the use for financing the purchase or the lease of the ladder truck versus a traditional lease option. And that kind of preserves some flexibility for that fund going forward and also realizes the – the interest on it. And I know Martha got back to us and said the financing rate was more than what the interest was on the account, but that also was limited to a seven-year period, too. So that, you know, we would, the community would be foregoing the interest on that ARPA-inspired balance until we, and also don't know what we might choose to allocate that to going forward. So, go ahead.

Yeah, I appreciate and Steve did reach out to me about this. Then I did see Elizabeth's comment in question. And I guess the numbers are that the interest earned, you know, the interest that we have to pay less interest earned is about $70,000 over seven years. And honestly, reflecting on it, I think that retaining flexibility for that $1 million is worth $70,000. I just don't know if we should give up the flexibility for $70,000. A lot of things we can do with that money. So I don't know. I kind of would like to go a different direction.

Can I ask staff a related question, which is what is the time factor here for this purchase and the ability to write this check?

Steve?

Good evening, everyone. For the record, Stephen Locke, Fire Chief of the City. First, thanks. When I came here four years ago, both your ambulances and both your fire trucks were really at end of life, and you've been able to successfully replace all four of those ambulances. um three of the four paying for them with cash which is uh certainly well over two million dollars but here we are with this so when in 2024 when we bought this truck uh when the council authorized the purchase of this truck we always envisioned that one of two ways we're going to pay for either through fund balance and or leasing so those are really we knew that was we knew that day was going to come um we initially when we bought this truck the this is a national problem We didn't expect this truck to come until the spring or so of 2027. So that truck is slated to arrive in mid-September. So we need to have a decision quickly on which mechanism we're going. And the reality is the reason we brought it on tonight is it takes... uh 30 to 45 days to get the financing in place so i think what we really need is that uh and this is just a policy decision we don't i think i personally doesn't matter which direction we go but if you're going to pay for it through fund balance it's less we could do that very quickly if we're going to go out for a lease option that will take us 30 to 45 days and i think hence the reason why we're here tonight So we would then go out and get the documents together so that was all put in place when the truck arrived and would be needing payment in mid-September.

So the cost of the financing would be $70,000 net after subtracting out the deposit interest on the remaining $1.8 million? Okay. $1.8 million.

Okay, okay.

So 70,000. And it would be repaid at about $120,000 a year, right?

Well, in seven years, it's about $150,000. Seven years?

Oh, seven years. Sorry. Okay. Yep, you're right. So, I mean, we have some money in the reserve fund as well. So the sources of funds could be ARPA, could be reserve, could be a combination of Right.

Right.

Well, it could be fund balance, which is the option that Steve articulated, which I don't think we've considered yet or staff hasn't presented.

I would lean towards wanting to keep the flexibility on the ARPA funds. In what way? What's the flexibility? Not tying it up with using it for buying the truck. If we have other funding mechanisms that we can use, we'll only have a delta of around $70,000 over seven years. maintaining the flexibility for how we use that ARPA funds, I think would be a good value.

Is anybody in favor of taking some fund balance plus ARPA to do this? How much fund balance do we have?

Over the minimum? Over the 16%? I just don't remember the numbers.

So Martha is here. She can look that up on the spot. My recollection is that over the 16% with FY27 operating budget, you have $400,000 to $600,000. The 16% is your policy choice. So you can change that policy choice if you want.

I wouldn't be inclined to change that given how tight the budget is in 2017.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that, Andrew? I couldn't hear you.

I mean, I know it's our policy choice. And in prior years, we've had kind of, you know, incremental fund balance because we have surplus. But I know going forward, we're anticipating that maybe we won't have as much surplus. So I think in that context, that 16% is more to maintain.

Is there resistance to going with the lease option other than the 30 to 45 days it'll take to complete? Steve.

No, no, sir. This is a policy decision on your end. Yeah, no, sir.

So for me, maintaining our fund balances, both the ARPA and our fund balance. I'm concerned about funding going forward. And I think maintaining flexibility with those funds give us a buffer that we are going to be happy to have at some point. So if we have a funding option that is viable and that isn't excessively expensive, I would opt to keep our flexibility

Martha, do you have the number for over 16%?

I do. So at the end of FY26, the fund balance was 17% of the operating FY27 budget. That's 17%. So it depends on the budget. FY28 budget is higher than the FY27. So it was 17% of the FY27, but then not actually it was of the FY27. That number will change or the percentage will change based on the FY28 operating budget.

But what's the number this year in FY27 over the 16%?

So what's that 1% worth?

What dollars do they have to spend if they maintain the 16% balance? Okay.

So while Martha's looking that up, so you're suggesting, Tim, that we use whatever that 1% is, that dollar amount, and split?

We have a combination of things we can do. We can take a hybrid and pay for cash, right, where we can take some and pay cash and finance the rest, right? You know, we have several. I mean, I don't know what the easiest thing to do is just pay with cash, I'm certain, right? Stephen, how does it get financed? Who does it get financed with?

There are several companies that our vendor uses, as well as Martha's reached out to our primary bank, TD Bank. So there are a couple options. And again, I think that if that 1%, depending on what Martha comes up with, I'd say ultimately paying with cash and paying back ourselves, that's how I'd run my own checkbook. If we could pay back the ARPA-inspired funds, and perhaps if you use that 1%, you may be able to pay it back in two years, which would then increase your flexibility and I think be a win-win for everyone. So again, depending on what that 1% number is. Martha, I think you're ready.

Yes. The 1% is about $200,000.

It's $200,000. So that knocks it down to $800,000.

I'd be inclined to take out a lease. I think the fund balance is too tight, and I think we should preserve our flexibility for the opera dollars. Take out a lease or finance the whole thing?

Yeah, what kind of interest rate are we paying? Take out a lease. It's the same thing.

Oh, it's the same thing. Oh, okay. Lease it.

Leasing is one way to finance. Yeah. So it's... It's leasing. Hold on. Hold on. We're confusing lives. Steve or Martha, can you explain...

where they're getting confused sure uh so and colin's in the room too so he can help jump in if i say something inappropriate but uh the state statute allows the governing body to lease things such as such as fire trucks or dump trucks without uh without having to go to the voters and so what it is it does uh put you know but again the leasing company would would be if the appropriation wasn't made in subsequent years, the leasing company would take the fire truck back. So it's a mechanism that allows you to finance certain things without having to go to the voters for approval, like with a bond.

But then after it's paid off, we own it. Correct.

They basically hold the mortgage and then we pay it.

Okay. Yeah. Not the typical car lease where you have to return.

Not the typical car lease. Good.

Correct.

All right.

Is there any, is anybody in favor of taking that $200,000 and applying it to this and leasing the rest? I'd opt for just leasing. You just want to lease the whole thing?

You know, one of the things I had thought about and was sort of asking as well is it sounds like we've replaced three of the four virtually with cash. And from a transparency standpoint, Personally, I think going with the straight lease would be a better option just for the clean explanation to the community. And then we have both the 1% and the ARPA-inspired to be talking about flexible one-time options in the future.

Okay. Okay.

And Craig, if I'm wrong, our SIP allocates money for those lease payments. It's the projections that they're built in.

In your capital improvement plan.

Right?

Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Okay.

Can I make a motion?

I understand. So does that mean we would want to vote on 6B and vote how we want to want it, which would be a nay would be in favor of leasing? Is that how you want to do that?

So I would recommend you... you make a motion to ask us to explore leasing, and then we will need to bring back the leasing documents to you. Okay. Is that right, Martha?

Yeah, that's correct. And I also just want to make it clear that the estimate of the 4.5 is just an estimate as of now. It's not the rate that we'll get. It might be less. It might be higher. Okay.

So I move to ask Jesse Baker and Martha and Steve, I'm staff is appropriate to explore a leasing option for the fourth fire truck and then come back to council for further direction.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. It is unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Going on to item seven, which is introduce the new deputy city manager, Nicholas Storelli-Castro.

So he's already down. He's already here. So really excited to welcome Nicholas Storile-Castro to the team today as our next deputy city manager. He immediately comes to us from the city of Barrie where he served as city manager. So he has done the job for four plus years and we're really excited to welcome him as deputy. Nicholas also has experience with the New York State Department of Education, as well as the New York City Mayor's Office of Management and Budget, as well as a number of other government and private sector related positions, and holds a MPA, Master's of Public Administration, as well. He was, I think I've mentioned before, but to just include it with this message to the community, this was a very long planned transition of leadership. We did a full national search for our next deputy. We got 64 applications for this position, both from within Vermont and outside of Vermont. And I really take that as a testament that this is a really exciting city to work for, that there's a lot of belief in where we're going as a community, the vision for the community, and that this is an exciting opportunity for professionals interested in good governance and municipal government in Vermont. So I was heartened by that. And Nicholas definitely rose to the top of that heap. And he is here with us today. And with that, I will turn it over to Nicholas to say hello.

Thank you, Jesse. And thank you for the warm welcome. It's been really exciting to be here today on my first day in South Burlington. I'm excited to be here as Jesse's deputy. And I know I'm joining a really talented team that's doing a lot of great work, like a pedestrian bridge, like this great city center that we're located in. And it's work that I admired as an official in another municipality. I was admiring it from afar. You know, the work you're doing here in South Burlington is really cutting edge. And that's what was so interesting about joining this team doing this amazing work. And I hope to support now the council, Jesse, and this great team to continue to deliver on these great things that are happening here in South Burlington. Just a little bit about me. My family immigrated to Colorado when I was seven. I grew up in Colorado. My mom still lives there. I moved out east to Albany for graduate school. And I started my career, my professional career in New York and the Capital Region. I met my wife, Allison, there. We found our way to New York City. And then four years ago to Berry, Vermont. As Jesse said, where I was manager until I accepted this position. We have two boys, Maximo and Sonny. They're very, very happy that I'm working really close to one of the two Chipotles in Vermont. They are... Big Chipotle fans, so I'm gonna be making a lot of trips home with the Chipotle And in the you know in the next few weeks and months I really look forward to getting to know each of you But I've had a chance to meet all of you at some site visits and in other events But I look forward to getting to know you this council better Certainly the team here will get to know them better and also your constituents and the residents and businesses of South Burlington I'm really looking forward to to getting to know this incredible place so I can better serve all of you. So thank you for the warm welcome. I'm just really excited to be here and been waiting for this day for a long time. Great.

And we're glad to have you. And disclaimer, no promotional monies were paid by Chipotle for those comments. Great. We're going to move on to item eight, which is hold a public hearing on amendments to the Land Development Regulation LDR 26-02 to LDR 26-08 that support thoughtful and additional infill development and adaptive reuse of existing buildings with Paul Connor, Director of Planning and Zoning. Good evening, Paul. Good evening.

You will see a lot of me tonight.

Do you want the intro or do you want us to go right into it?

I'm happy to give a few words if you want afterwards.

So I move to open the public hearing on draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations LDR 26-02 through LDR-26-08. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. We are now in a public hearing. Is there any public comment on these LDR changes, either within the auditorium or online? There aren't many people online anymore. Going once, going twice. Nobody online? No hands are raised? Well, it's hard to have a public hearing without the public. Well, in lieu of the fact that there are no comments being suggested by the public, I guess I'll move to entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I move to close the public hearing on draft amendments to the Land Development Regulation 26-02 through LDR 26-08.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. It is unanimous. The hearing is closed. And we will move on to item nine, which is consider adopting the draft amendments to the land of regulations that we just talked about. Again, with Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning.

Hi, folks. One quick update for you, or two actually updates. One is sort of more relevant to the next item, but I'm going to share it now anyway, which is that I'm very excited to report that on Friday, the state's Land Use Review Board approved the Chittenden County Regional Plan. So we are now into the process where we are eligible to apply for Tier 1A where the amendments that you're talking about this evening make us further eligible for that and all the other benefits as well. In addition to that, as part of the relevant part to this here is that we received a letter of support from the Agency of Natural Resources Director of Planning and Policy for the work on the threat and endangered species that we had collaborated with them to come up with a model that could be used to meet Tier 1a to comply with all the statutory requirements and represent good policy. As part of it, they identified a couple of very minor changes that they would recommend be included in the next round of amendments. And we've already reviewed those with the Planning Commission in concept, and they were supportive. We don't recommend holding up any of this process for that.

Any discussion by council? So with that, do you have a motion to adopt? Sure.

I move to adopt draft amendments to the Land Development Regulation LDR 26-02 through LDR 26-08 as presented.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. It's unanimous and the LDR changes have been passed. Thank you, Paul. Do you want to stick around? Sure. Okay.

Paul happens to be on every item tonight.

Wow.

Other than Nicholas.

And financing a fire truck. But we support their existence.

So item 10 is another public hearing. This is a second reading of proposed amendments to the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18, Impact Fees. And this time we have Erika Qualen-Toll, who is the interim director of Public Works, and again, Paul Cotter. Good evening, Erika.

Good evening.

So I move to read the ordinance by title and open a public hearing on amendments to the South Burlington Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18, Impact Fees.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. We are now in public hearing on this second reading of proposed amendments. And I see there's one person online that has their hand up. Is it Talia Rizzo? Did I get your name right?

Yes. Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Amazing, okay, so my name is Talia Rizzo and I am a policy intern at a nonprofit specializing in local climate policy run on climate. I'm also a student at the University of Vermont and have been living in Burlington for the past three years. At Run on Climate, my work is focused on policy in South Burlington, and I've recently completed a transportation decarbonization policy audit for South Burlington. I am in support of the proposed amendments for the impact fee ordinance, which would establish a transportation impact fee. The transportation impact fee study is explicit that the fee is meant to do more than just fund roads. It is designed both as an incentive for development to maximize non-vehicular trips and as a mechanism to fund non-car transportation infrastructure. The proposal is also linked to the land development regulations to give credit for biking, walking, and transit trips, which is the right mechanism to make new developments generate fewer vehicle trips. That is in keeping with the Climate Action Plan and the City's plan to reduce vehicle miles traveled 2.5% annually through 2030. Crucially, 6 out of the 11 selected projects are dedicated path projects representing roughly a third of both total project costs and impact fee revenue. Thank you for putting together an ordinance that takes multimodal investment seriously. I now call on you to pass it.

Thank you, Tali, for those comments. Thank you. So I take it you support these changes, right?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay, great. That's what I thought you said, and then what you ended with made me believe it. Okay, good. Thank you. Anybody else in the audience? Come on down. Make sure the green light is on and identify yourself.

Okay, it's on. I'm Cindy Freeman. I just wanted to, I really don't know enough about the impact fees. And so I'm here to learn. And so as a resident of South Burlington, I'd like to know how businesses will be affected by these impact fees. I feel like we're doing such a great job with the Market Street pulling in businesses. And so I wanted to know, like, what businesses will have these impact fees and the what amount are we looking at for these businesses? Because I think we're all excited that there's growth here in South Burlington. And I think that to hinder the growth with putting more burden on the businesses might not be a great thing.

Cindy, if I can. You can, yeah. My understanding is we're not intending to collect new revenue. We're not kind of raising fees. We're kind of adjusting, making sure the projects in scope remain in scope, taking off the old ones. It's kind of like more of a cleanup than a revenue raiser. But Paul and Erica, correct me if I get that wrong. Yeah.

So sure. So the impact fees are collected not by businesses, though of course it is paid by the private sector. They're collected based on the type of use that takes place in the building. Typically, it is paid at the time that a building is constructed for the anticipated number of evening rush hour vehicle trips. anticipated based on a giant book from the Institute of Traffic Engineers that averages out studies from across the country. So it's typically at new development. It can also conceivably happen when something changes dramatically from one type of use to another one. So if something went from a light industrial warehouse to a restaurant, then that would be a representative increase in trips. Councillor Chalmers to your question specifically on the fees themselves on the residential side the net fees are going down for single family homes by a little bit net of about $100 less and then with some additional credits on top of that and on the multifamily it depends on the type of multifamily but a few hundred dollars per dwelling unit on the commercial side it is proposed to go up from about $1,000 a trip to about $2,100 a trip somewhere in that neighborhood. And that's largely because in this set of amendments, in the past, the subject of shared use paths was entirely born on the residential side. In order to recognize its role as transportation, rather than sort of a recreational enjoyment, it's being spread across all types of development. So that raises concerns. that side of it because it was never applied to commercial before. That said, the last time it was updated was in 2007. So those numbers have not changed of $1,000 in 19 years. Construction costs are nearly double what they were there. Consumer price CPI has grown by about 60%. So it is a jump today, but as compared with where we were 19 years ago, it is not that far off from that time frame.

And also, correct me if I'm wrong, I guess what I was recalling is, I think you were mentioning that because of some of the transportation demand opportunities a developer has, they may reduce that fee, we anticipate them, so kind of right-sizing it to something that really matches inflation.

So there's a minimum amount of transportation demand management that has to take place, and you get an automatic credit for those ones. And then there's the opportunity... an invitation through our regulations to go and invest in more things like covered bike racks or a whole bunch of other things that would be calculated to give you a credit against your impact fees. So it tries to incentivize somebody to make this one-time investment in attracting more users rather than paying into a fund property.

So, Cindy, when a new building is constructed, single family, multifamily, commercial, it has an impact on different parts of operation of the city, right, whether it's traffic or whatever. And so these fees haven't been changed in 19 years. So this is an opportunity to update them. with regards to inflation, construction costs, but also balance them more favorably, depending upon what the use is. And those fees are used for capital projects to fix those things that are impacted. So, for example, if it's a traffic impact fee, then that money would be used towards a new signal that has to be planned for a certain intersection. So it has to be for a specific project that is going to be done in the future. It's not just collected as part of general revenue in the city. It's directed toward things that help with those situations.

So the buildings and so on. And so did any of these buildings on Market Street have impact fees?

They all paid impact fees. They all did. Okay. Right. So they all either paid impact fees or built the projects themselves that were eligible for impact fees, like the south section of Garden Street. So the private sector built that themselves, and then they did not, therefore, have to pay the impact fees that would have had to have been paid had we built it.

They get credit for things that they can do to lessen the impact.

Yeah, that makes sense. And what are they paying per peak hour, and how do you figure that out? Do you want to jump on that?

Yeah.

Sure. So, like Paul had said, it was about $1,000 per trip. Now it's just over $2,011.17 is what is in the ordinance and fee schedule. And that's calculated through the Institute of Transportation Engineers looks at hundreds and thousands of businesses or development of a sit-down upscale restaurant and they will collect data on how many vehicle trips are happening during that evening rush hour and then we can say okay on average if it's this size it will create this many trips and so we can then calculate that

So, conceivably, that could be a lot of money. I mean, just, you know, for, like... It varies depending on the use, certainly. Okay, so peak hours for a restaurant. If people were, you're actually counting how many customers they have at the peak hours, and then you're going to charge them how much?

So it's the vehicle trips based on existing studies that have been done, and now there's a national standard. And so a restaurant or a hair salon or a coffee shop, they all generate traffic at different times of day, typically. And so based on those national standards for each different type of land use.

And the number of square feet they have?

Sometimes square feet units, but yes, some unit of the scale of the development.

We've had these impact fees for years and years. They've never been updated. Now they're getting updated for inflation and also for the responsibility of residential versus commercial.

Okay. And moving in the shared use paths.

Yes. And just for an order of magnitude, Councillor Chonlick spoke a few minutes ago about the transportation and van management. One of the other tools that we put in a couple of years ago that we have been getting a lot of feedback was smaller-sized businesses. It's very hard for them to do these analysis studies, and so we put in a singular number for any commercial businesses building of less than 5000 square feet. So just as a frame of reference, I think it's three, it's about three and a half trips per 1000 square feet for those smaller ones. So if you had a 2000 square foot business, that's about seven trips. So that's that's sort of a frame of reference as to what that number would be.

And Paul, just to make sure that this is clear, this is probably already clear, but this is a one-time fee. This is not something that's ongoing.

Yeah, thanks. Yeah, it's just whether or not it hinders businesses from actually, you know, developing. All right, thanks.

Thank you, Cindy. Anybody else in the audience? Nobody else online has their hand up? I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

So I move to close the public hearing on amendments to the South Burlington Code of Ordinances, Chapter 18, Impact Fees.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. It's unanimous and the hearing is closed. We're now at item 11, which is discuss and consider adoption of these amendments.

move to adopt amendments to South Dakota ordinances chapter 18 impact fees as presented and to approve the accompanying impact fee and project schedule resolution second that as well thank you we have a motion and a second is there any discussion briefly kind of consistent with the conversation we just had I know when we first had that just this discussion I did note the doubling to commercial on the impact fee. And I was satisfied by the amount of time that has gone by when those fees haven't been increased. But there is a shift from residential to commercial. I think we always have an opportunity in annual budgeting to sort of realize what revenue has come in from different sources. So we'll have an opportunity to see that. I did reach out after their first discussion, I did reach out to make the Economic Development Committee or at least a couple members aware that we were having this discussion and about the public hearing. And it sounds like there was not any specific feedback that came to either of you folks in terms of a concern. So there was at least a solicited opportunity to provide feedback if there was a concern on the commercial side. Thank you, Elizabeth.

Ready for the vote? All those in favor say aye. Aye. It is unanimous. And so we have passed those ordinance changes.

Thank you.

And moving on to item 12, consider approval to submit an Act 250 Tier 1A pre-application, including the approval of Resolution 2026-10 to this effect. Paul Connery, you're back.

Hi, folks. So as I alluded to a few minutes ago, we are now eligible as of last Friday to submit for Tier 1A status for the city. We talked about this a couple of times this summer and over the past year and a half. This is authority for the city to obtain essentially a long-term Act 250 exemption by demonstrating that we have thoughtful and comprehensive planning processes regulations and capacity in place um as indicated um during the presentation that jessica luizos and and i made a couple of months ago we've done um the planning commissioners look closely at our standards both the minimum required and also just comparing them with what standards do exist today and before you as a proposed resolution to submit the tier 1a pre-application, which is the first required step.

So I move to approve City Council resolution requesting Act 250 Terrain a status for all eligible areas of the City of South Burlington and to authorize the City Manager to submit the requisite pre-application to the Vermont Land Use and Review Board. Second.

So we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?

I'm just curious, Paul, how will we as a city kind of implement the rare, threatened, and endangered reg? Will we hire a consultant, ask the developer? How will we know?

Great question. So this is exactly why we did our collaboration with the Agency of Natural Resources. So the ANR provides technical reviewing for all applications that go to Act 250 today that are in their threshold. This essentially replicates that process. So we already have something very similar in place in our regulations today regarding river corridors and floodplains. Any application that triggers that threshold automatically goes to the agency for review And for 30 days, they have 30 days to comment before we would take any action. In their process and spelled out in our regulations, first they would look to, well, they provide comment to our DRB. Our DRB takes their comment. First and foremost, it is if the state has guidance documents on that specific species, then that is on which it gets based. If there is not a guidance document, then it would point to the professional recommendation of the agency. The DRB still has the authority if they choose to invoke an independent technical review, so a third party reviewer, they have that authority throughout the land development regulations, but it's spelled out again here just to be clear. And if for some reason the agency has chosen not to weigh in, which is their prerogative, that is usually considered a not a concern from their part. But if something comes up in the local review process where the board has say, testimony from somebody else that this is perhaps of importance, then the board has the ability and the agency is aware that we would re-invite them to comment at that time so that they're aware that there's a raised level of concern on the subject.

So is that kind of consistent with how Act 215 works today? In other words, the developer itself is not required in their application to kind of establish that there's no Rear-turn speed is up to the ANR to establish that there are?

So the ANR maintains a map of that which they are aware of. That's the starting point. So that's what gets used at the threshold. Beyond and separate from everything we just talked about, it is also federal law that you cannot disturb... under criminal law, that sub... It used to be. Well, understood. I'm just sharing that there are other components of law in this. So, no, it is not incumbent on the applicant to disprove the negative.

And that's consistent with how Act 250 works? Correct. Okay.

Thank you.

Just a brief question, maybe to get it in the public record. I had asked a question about with the enforcement that is coming to the local municipalities, whether there was any anticipation of funding accompanying that. Maybe you can just speak to that, Paul.

So the state has not allocated additional funding to the two municipalities for administration and enforcement. That said, a lot of what Act 250 currently does and administers is a duplication of what happens at the local level. So the process of what takes place here is that the first application that comes in from a property that is subject to an Act 250 current permit, the City, through its Development Review Board, reviews all of the existing permit conditions from Act 250 and incorporates them into the local decision. There are five different circumstances under which the local Development Review Board can release those permit conditions entirely. It's been built. A separate federal law covers it, state or federal law covers it. We regulate it in a similar but different fashion, so there's a process, and then ultimately it becomes a singular list. From the test examples that we've done, we are not surprised to learn that most of what is the Act 250 conditions are the same ones that we have. And the second half of the answer to your question is prior to obtaining Tier 1A status, we'll be bringing you some options and ideas for adjusting planning zoning fees. so that you can look to see whether there's anything locally we want to do. There is a big savings that will be taking place, both in terms of time and application fees and soft costs of preparing applications that developers will be saved of not having to go through Act 250. So you'll have some options there to look at.

I mean, that was the whole impetus for this, right, was to save the applicants from having to go through a redundant process. So it really is a you know, it depends on where you're looking at the cost savings. I mean, it might ultimately be more administrative burden for you, but it's going to be a lot less burden overall for the applicants, right? And we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

So that was my concern, was that, I mean, planning and zoning has to gear up for this new thing, right? It's going to take a little bit more resource, and so you can offset that cost through some fees.

So you'll have some options to look at with that, yeah. Okay.

And then the second thing is, Will this significantly increase the amount of time that DRB needs to review these applications both at home when they're looking at packets and also when they're actually in session?

I don't, I mean, I think that it will depend on the, on the circumstances. We went through the, the, the subject of permits with the district coordinators for the Essex office and really talked about what we would expect to see very similar to our own processes. There's a lot of boilerplate standard language that's, that's assigned. Many of them are just the same thing written in every single one. And so it's a pretty, once you've, identified how you're going to deal with it once it's the same one for the next 50 after that many of them are numerical things which are the same thing that we have you know after the 25th house is built the following must happen um there will be occasionally there's one-offs um but the state statute lays out a pretty straightforward process for the drb to incorporate it so i don't think other than you know there may be a heightened interest of several properties you know, wanting to test this out early or not. I don't know that the individual incorporation is going to be a heavy lift on the DRB members themselves. Good. Yeah. And we are, we've been paying close attention to this for about eight months at the staff level. So we're, we'll be, we'll be hitting the ground running ready for them.

Are we the first to apply?

two communities, us and Rutland City, are both very proximate to applying in the next week or two. I've heard that the City of Burlington is likely applying late summer, early fall. And then we've been working with a peer group of five other communities who are very intrigued and interested to apply in the next handful of months to eight months, and then another five communities after that. So we may be The short answer. So we have a motion and a second on the table.

I just want to say this is a very exciting change that's happening for our city and it will help simplify permitting and also bring control directly into the city in a really nice way. So I'm very excited that it's happening and impressed with the speed at which you guys have gotten this to where it is. So, kudos.

Ditto to that. Thank you. A lot of work.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. It is animus and it passes. So we're going to apply. Great. Thank you, Paul. I won't go too far. Stick around. Now we're at item 13, which is discuss the Development Review Board's recent denial of a final plat application for 1720 Speer Street and discuss the options with Jesse Baker, the City Manager, City Attorney Colin McNeil, Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning, and Erica Toll, the Interim Director of Public Works.

So, Tim, I think under the policy that the state, the conflict of interest policy that the state required us to adopt about a year and a half ago, I have to recuse myself from this conversation. And that's because a piece of land that I own has a small border which shares the very back border of this property. I don't actually believe that I have a conflict which would prevent me from being able to be objective in this matter, but the policy doesn't allow for that kind of discretion. I know we've talked about this. I hope we'll lobby the state to have a more reasonable policy. There's evidence of it being unreasonable. The legislatures themselves exempt themselves from this policy. So I think it would be useful to have that discussion. But we are where we are. Thank you.

So before we go any further, before you leave the stage, right, I want to ask the question, do we want to go into executive session to discuss whether or not you should recuse yourself or can we decide that here? I mean he's offering to recuse himself.

Oh, I mean, the city attorney and I have discussed this before.

At this point, you do want to recuse?

Yes. Yeah, no, I think the policy on its face is clear. So unless things have changed.

We can certainly talk about it, but we have had conversations in the past, and I think it's up to Councillor Chalneck to decide whether to recuse himself or not. So you don't need to go into executive session to make that decision.

I think under the policies I read, I don't really have a choice, unfortunately. Do you want to wait until we go into executive session to see whether you want to recuse?

You can recuse before we go into executive session or during executive session and leave the meeting.

Well, let me ask Colin. I mean, assuming I have a conflict, do I need to exempt myself from this item 13 or wait?

I think that's a really difficult question right now. I mean, I think there's a lot on the table. We put a lot of options on there. I think, as you and I have talked about, I don't want to disclose any attorney-client privilege communications.

Tim, I'm just going to sit down for this.

We can certainly talk further if at some point there is no longer a conflict.

So, thank you. So this is a very unusual situation. I don't, the council has not faced this question since I've been here at least. I don't know in Paul's experience if they have. So before we go, we later in the meeting provide the opportunity for the council to go into an executive session to talk about strategy. we did want to, as a staff team, talk about what this issue is and what the regulations are and what the legal processes are to set the stage for likely other community conversations to come down the road. So in your packet and linked on the council agenda publicly is both a staff memo explaining where we are today, definition of terms, outline of our policy documents in the city, and then also legal opinion from the city attorney about where we are and what happens next. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Paul and Colin and Erica to intentionally walk us through some of these documents for the public record and for the conversation to come.

So good evening, Colin McNeil, city attorney. I just want to walk through fairly briefly just where we are, how we got here, and kind of what the law is at this point. So the DRB has denied an application that was before it, largely based on a right-of-way that was included in the in the official map of the city. The right-of-way was not accounted for in the application and so per the statute that we cited in the memo that we provided, the application had to be denied. That then starts a clock for you to make a decision. It's a 120-day clock for you to institute a proceeding to either take that to acquire that right-of-way or acquire an interest in the land that is on the official map. And so based on the statute, your options are to institute that proceeding within 120 days, and that requires a significant action on the part of the council. It can't just be an expression of intent to initiate some sort of action. You could Um, do nothing, uh, and then doing nothing would make this revert back to the city counts or to the developed review board. Uh, but if you chose to, uh, under institute some sort of action, uh, it would be similar perhaps to the, uh, what we're familiar with for an eminent domain proceeding for a highway that we've recently gone through. We would initiate that type of action. Um. So you have 120 days. That 120-day clock started when the DRB's decision was issued. It ends on November 7th. So we have a period of time to act, and the clock is operating right now.

And just so I understand, another option that we have besides eminent domain doing nothing is to enter negotiation and give the city manager the option of entering negotiation with the the land trust. Is that right?

So, yeah, I mean, you could enter into negotiations that doesn't necessarily stop the clock. So the only thing that stops the clock is to institute proceedings to acquire the land or rights in the land just by instituting negotiations or beginning negotiations. That likely wouldn't be considered sufficient to stop that 120-day clock.

Okay. There could be other things that would stop the clock, though. Eminent domain is one way, but there could be other formal actions.

There could be, for sure.

Yep.

Other questions from council?

I would recommend we let Paul and Erica walk through the other memo as well.

Sure, sure. So just to back up for a second. So the official map is a tool that accompanies the land development regulations, both that are intended to work to implement city policy. The official map is a tool specifically intended to identify where are there needs for public infrastructure in the future to that need to be accommodated over the course of private development. So in this case, the official map shows a roadway and shared use path that would connect North Jefferson Road to Parkside Road in the South Point neighborhood. And as part of, from a bike ped perspective, the connectivity that the city has been working on between Swift Street all the way down to Allen Road. And so the city made the conscious choice a few years ago not to put sidewalk or shared use path on Speer Street, but instead to have it in this further, this location that's off that main road. And then that is complementary as well to the city's policies around connecting neighbourhoods for water connections, for emergency service provision, for not overloading daily vehicle traffic onto one single output point. And that's sort of the background here from this neighborhood perspective. And then just one additional note that whichever process goes back to the Development Review Board, if the council does initiate proceedings, then that gets incorporated into what the Development Review Board is working on. If the council elects not to proceed, then it goes back to the Development Review Board, they're still subject, they're still responsible for the entirety of the city's subdivision regulations. Just the official map itself is the one component that is no longer part of that review.

In this application itself, the DRE, the only issue they had with that whole application was this official map.

So the only issue that – so the applicant and development review board were aware from early on in this process that the official map component was there. The applicant proceeded with full understanding that pursuant to, as was just described, that it would lead to a denial. But both the board and the applicant worked to resolve all the other subjects. So the remaining subject is the planned right-of-way between those two streets. Right. North Jefferson and Parkside.

Right. Great. Thank you. Any comment before I'm going to ask for a public comment on this, if you don't mind. So at this point, if there's anybody in the audience that would like to comment on this in the back, please, in the dark shirt. Thank you. Raise your hand first, Mr. Dunham.

And make sure that the green light is on and identify yourself. My name is Bo Denim. I'm on the board in South Village. And I'm here representing the board, letting you know that we fully support acquiring the right-of-way, however that may play out. In conversations with residents, families, and particularly with families with young kids, We're all looking forward to being able to access Hubbard Park and probably even more importantly, accessing the Creamy Stand at the Cider Mill, all while staying on bike paths or recreation paths and no longer ever having to be on Superior Street or Dorset Street south of Swiss Street. So I think this acquisition of this would be really beneficial to our community for sure. And on a personal note, I'd also want to thank the city staff and the city council for all your efforts that you've made this year in acquiring rights away and putting these pieces together, like on Dorset Street and hopefully on Jefferson to Park Street, and connecting all these so my grandkids can ride safely. I appreciate it. Thanks.

Thank you. Who's next? Mr. Mittag?

My name is Michael Mittag, resident of South Burlington. I would urge the city to, in short order, enter into negotiations with the landowner to resolve this issue. I'm quite upset that this has delayed the building of 12 affordable houses in the southeast quadrant. which is urgent. And maybe there's another way out and that is to remove the, one of the things is to remove the road in short order because this road shows going through Hubbard Park and the DRB approved the city's application for Hubbard Park despite the fact that there's a road shown on the official map. That may be because there's no development plan, but I'm not sure that that's the reason the DRB let that slide. But I urge the council not to wait 120 days. You've got all the information you need already. And I'd really hate to see this delayed any further. Thank you.

Thank you. Sandy?

Sandy Julie, East Terrace. I think so. Planning staff has in their memo outlined significant functions that this right-of-way between the street and the shared use path support the health and well-being of city residents, including supporting lots of things in the city plan. But things like water that may not be explicitly mentioned in the city plan and how the looping It was a learning process for me. The emergency access was pretty easy to understand, traffic congestion and connectivity. So I just think that, and I agree with Michael, I'm frustrated that this is delaying the building and the housing. Maybe a combination of setting a timetable in which you negotiate, and if the negotiations don't succeed, then you initiate the process. eminent domain process because it would be nice because that's probably time much more time consuming than 120 days that's further delay so i would encourage you to do whatever will move this process forward so that the city can acquire um this right away and move forward and having it developed in the manner that the city map intends so thank you thank you sandy

Anybody else in the audience? Come on down, please. Remember to identify yourself.

Yeah, I'm Jeff Hawkins representing the South Point Homeowners Association. When Hubbard came up, people were excited to get the connectivity and have that bike path open. I think most of the neighbors that we have are excited about a bike path going over and extending the rest of the way. We suffer from low water pressure, so the advantage of having a looped water line go through there would be good for us. So I think everybody overall is supportive of the habitat development and the overall program that NEAT has put together. But the one piece that I hear a lot of people push back is on becoming a full-blown roadway and the additional traffic through the neighborhood. The one thing I've seen is the limited authorized vehicle only access between dorset heights and cider mill road you know if the bike path could go in wide enough for emergency vehicles save the city a little bit of money potentially by not having to develop the full roadway but get the connectivity get people out and active and be able to get creamies and everything that they want as they go through so that would be our preference so we encourage you to move ahead and do what it takes to get everything moving and

but again the preference for a bike path versus a full-blown roadway is to keep the traffic in our neighborhood down a little bit thank you thank you anybody else nobody online ryan doyle um i i like some of the changes from the earlier applications about the development here um I am a little interested in the location of the housing.

Ryan, we're not here to talk about the housing or the type of housing or its location. We're only talking about the easement or the road from South Point to North Jefferson.

Thanks for interrupting me again, Tim. You're welcome. So when we talk about neighborhood layouts and what makes a really effective network for people is that all modes get connected. So it'd be really important that the roads still connect to North Jefferson. that said the road does not have to continue to south point in the location of the line it can continue through the proposed driveway where it would then connect at the west end of south point that would not bring more traffic through the neighborhood as this gentleman mentions but it does do a lot to support connectivity all the way through interestingly also just from the environmental perspective The area just past the homes is where sort of that hotbed of invasive species are on the lot that I would really love to see dealt with and addressed at some point and certainly connecting into an easement there would really help with addressing that. And it is really a prime place for housing to go. Thank you, Ryan.

Anybody else? All right, so at this point, I think we need a motion to go to executive session.

So we had warned the executive session at the end of your meeting to continue other things. But it's your you can choose to go in earlier if you would like.

What's the council's choice? Would you like to wait till the end? I prefer to wait till the end.

Yeah, I would prefer to wait till the end.

We'll wait for that. And there's no other you know, observations you want to make on this item.

Not at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. Thank you. Find another chair to sit.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 14, which is discuss and possibly approve a naming policy for public assets, which is at the council request.

So you previously talked, so having a naming policy has been on your last two policies and strategies. The council reviewed a set of recommendations or a set of examples from across the region at a prior meeting and asked that Councillor Fitzgerald, Councillor Tomlick and I put together a draft based on the Barrie City model. We have met and done that and also received feedback from some requested thinkers, donors, philanthropists, and community developers in our community. And what you have before you is a draft reflecting those comments back. So there are a lot of policy decisions within this draft, but I think that they are policy considerations that the councillors who worked with me support. I think that there are a few key policy questions that I think Further discussion is warranted, which are outlined in the cover sheet, which are do we want to further define associations? Do we want to reconsider the how smaller amenities are named and allocate that authority somewhere else? And do we, the 500 feet radius for subject property owners being notified, do we want to stay to that radius or do we want to do citywide notice as we do with other public hearings? But of course, the full policy is here for your consideration and feedback tonight.

I just want to say thank you to Elizabeth and Andrew for putting all the effort into drafting this document. It's pretty impressive. I mean, I know we had some We have some examples to work with, but you guys did a really phenomenal job on this, so thank you.

In fairness, we stole shamelessly.

I thank you guys for the work also. I think with regard to just local, you know, the 500-foot radius or citywide, I don't know if there could be a threshold for the kind of naming that's happening in that would determine how the name of the bridge that may happen in the future, I think should be citywide announcement. So when is it important for the whole city to be made aware of a name change? Or when is it just something that's happening in a little pocket park in the neighborhood?

I'm not sure about that. Maybe we just leave it to the city manager's discretion. We say 500 feet minimum, subject to more publication at the city manager's discretion.

That would be great, right?

And not be prescriptive about it?

Yeah, I think that would be great. Just somehow making sure that when it's a big deal, we really have the ability to do that.

The weight of the entity is important. However you consider that weight. whether it's the weight of a whole bridge or it's the weight of a library, a mini library, you know, on a vacant lot or something like that.

I do have a couple of quick questions, just for edification. Under Section 4, the last bullet on the page, Section 4, is on it. It says, deed restriction by donor. Would that be if a donor is giving a property they in the deed they're saying this is the name we want it to be? Okay, that's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. And the last one was the city may choose to waive financial obligation in order to honor an exemplary dedicated community member. What would be being waived?

Oh, so there's like a maintenance obligation. Which? There's an obligation to fund maintenance. Oh, okay.

Yeah.

I have one quick question about the first policy question for consideration. Were there any indications in the documents that you both reviewed from other towns on what would be a more strict definition of associations? I mean, is there any precedent that we can look to to determine what's meant by associations to give it a little more specificity?

I mean, I didn't see it. Honestly, reflecting on this, I don't know your perspective, because it's really council discretion, what we name, how we do it. I'd be in favor of deleting this bullet. And if it turns out that there is a real reason to name after some particular civic organization that did something really great or then we'd have discretion to do it. On reflection, I'm not sure that we need this restriction given that the council ultimately is going to use discretion as to whether it's appropriate.

I think that sounds right. I don't know if others agree. I think eliminating that bullet makes sense.

And we can always adjust the policy if we need to, right? in the future, which we'll probably learn that we have to. Is council comfortable with a motion to adopt this?

Two quick things that I think also came up from community feedback is we did discuss whether or not we would exclude city employees from being considered for naming, and I think the upshot of that was that they would go through the normal process if it's a recommendation. And that's kind of how it would be handled by council. Is that fair, Andrew? And then there was an issue about or a question about whether there should be sort of a minimum time of residency in the city and in service to the city or in the city. And we hadn't really discussed that. And I don't know, it might be discussed in a future hearing, but my own feeling is it might be a good idea to think about kind of a 10-year minimum, but I'm... I don't know if that's relevant or not to the policy that's being considered. It could be an adjustment in the future.

My concern about that one, Elizabeth, is if there is somebody in Chittenden County who has been a friend to South Burlington for their life and have made significant contribution to this community, but not a resident, to say... summarily you can't have your name used because you don't live here, I think limits people's commitment to our city. So I would personally leave that to the discretion of the council, but leave it open. And in terms of the employees, I think that it might be useful to have something in there just for guidance to say that only under the circumstance where an employee who has done above and beyond what the call of duty is for their job. That, you know, someone who served the city for 20 years, when is it their compensation, they've been compensated for it, and when is it that it rises above and beyond what an employee might have done to be warranting a name?

And personally, I'd rather be clear on it. So there's not that discussion. But that's my personal preference.

In terms of the resident, yeah, I mean, look, I could imagine naming something after a senator or, you know, someone who's never lived in the city, say. So I don't think we should.

I don't think that kind of restriction would make sense, honestly. If they moved here for one day and donated $20 million to a major project, I think that would be a favorite, possibly. at the city council's discretion at the final vote.

So I think the bulk of what's here is just excellent. And thank you.

So is council favorable to- We did have one comment to add something in section four about recognizing historical contributions, which I think that makes sense. We do list out a lot of things here, and we haven't done that. I could see adding something like that to this section. Do you want to do that now?

Do you have words for it? No.

so can i make a suggestion um because i think there's three you've now talked about three different changes i would recommend let me take another pass at this with um andrew and elizabeth and assuming they are in agreement with that wording we'll bring you back on the next consent agenda that sounds good final policy excellent thank you nice work thank you nice work to the the original copy too from a previous yes yes

All right. Moving on to item 15, which is approved resolution 2020.

Other comment?

Okay. It's going to come back again anyway in another future meeting. Do you have a brief comment? Okay.

very short and sweet I would submit that it would not be a good idea it would be a good idea sorry to exclude staff however well they he she or it did it did the job and however long they did the job they are paid for it that's their job and I don't think we should be naming institutions or buildings or bridges for staff just for doing their job.

While they're employed?

At any time.

So no employee could... Well, we have a couple of examples already.

Yes. Which I didn't agree.

Okay. Got it. Thank you. Sandy?

Is it appropriate for me to weigh in on that point? Because I didn't express an opinion on that. I mean, it is... There is a... possible scenario where a staff person lives in South Burlington and does something exemplary for the community. So I would prefer that they be weighed by the same criteria as any other member, you know, any other member of the community. You know, for example, if there was, you know, some sort of disaster or something and there was a staff person who, as a member of the community, did something exemplary to help people out or, you know, I just think that we shouldn't have like a rigid rule about that because if they're part of the community, they can also, I mean, I just think that we can draw a line between city duties and duties that are outside of their respective.

And Beth, if I can kind of be clear with where some of my thinking is, it isn't that we don't have staff every day that don't do something exemplary, but I think we also have a recognition mechanism that translates also into pensions and so forth, that from a taxpayer standpoint, there is an ongoing commitment to folks that serve. So it makes it tougher. But I don't, I think with the discretion, I think I'm not opposed to that. Generally, I would have liked it to be cleaner, but I'm fine with that. In the Tullio Road

is a road, so it's not included in this. But to me, that would be an example of a community member who is an employee who was recognized for something that was above and beyond just being an employee. So I wouldn't want to close the door to that potential happening at some point.

My only requirement would be that they just not be an employee.

No, I tend to agree with Laurie. I think we can draft something that says an employee who, in connection with the employment, has gone above and beyond normal. And then we, the council, could decide whether or not that's, in fact, the case. Because I agree with Laurie. Dottilio was an appropriate case. So I don't think we should hamstring ourselves.

What? But there have been examples in the past where something was named before the person. So what I'm saying is that I don't think you should name something for somebody who is a current employee. They retire or something happens later and then you consider it.

That's fair. That's all I'm asking. That's fair.

Yeah. It should be a former employee. Right. Yeah. That's fair. Yeah, I think so.

I just wanted to say, I, um,

Sorry, Sandy, go ahead.

I'm more in Michael's camp. I guess he's not here. I'm the employee. I think I would recognize an employee in this manner if the contribution was not related to their job. It would have to be separate from their job duties. Because I think there are ample ways within the human resources system that are intended to recognize and reward people for exceptional service in their job. But if they're, you know, had some bike path or something, or they went out and solicited and got somebody to give us a million dollars for something. And that was my other view about residency. If with the exception of someone who gives money or a building or land, I think people should be residents of the city. We have a case where someone was not, you know, one of our facilities is named for someone who never lived in the city for a day. That troubles me. My only other thing is I think all naming should be put out to the entire city residents. even if it's just an announcement. But I think maybe this is supposed to, it's permanent and it's important. So I think everybody should have the opportunity to weigh in.

Thank you. Anybody online?

Good feedback?

Okay. That's a thumbs up. All right. We look forward to the future of policy. Do we want to break or want to keep going?

Okay.

That's what I wanted to hear. So item 15. Approved resolution 2026-12 codifying the city cemetery on Airport Drive as the Eldridge with an E cemetery.

So moved.

Is there, do we, does anybody want to talk about it or just want to go ahead?

I just want to share a little bit of, I mean, because no, I mean, the sections deserve, I mean, they did this research report that goes off the pages and pages. You know, detailing, it was named after John Eldredge in the 1800s. That's a John Eldredge memorial stone with an E, a death notice, memorial stones, how his children's was named, the maps that they looked, inscription cards. I mean, the amount of research... It's extraordinary what they did to establish that E, the spelling with E is the correct spelling. I just want to acknowledge that because we really have an extraordinary sections committee that does their homework. So this is well, there's a strong foundation for this conclusion, a very strong foundation.

My instant motion was in honor of the work that they have done and went into getting this here.

Before that, can we have a motion to correct everybody that spells my last name B-A-R-E-T-T? Because I'm an I-T-T, right?

I like the I. I don't like the E. I do have to say, I did read the background work and from a historical standpoint, a local history, it was fascinating and impressive, the sources that the team went to to validate the recommendation. So thank you.

Elizabeth, if you like that, I encourage you to go to some Sexton's meetings because it is steeped in history.

So I move to adopt City Council resolution codifying the city cemetery on Hillport Drive as the Eldridge E-L-D-R-E-D-G-E. Cemetery.

Did you just take my motion? Did you make the motion?

I seconded his motion. He didn't specify the motion.

I said, so move.

I'll second. Seconded the motion. And does the sections really dig deep? And they turn things over. Okay, we're going to stop there. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. It is unanimous. Thank you very much. We now have, we're now going to change the spelling on that side. Good. Moving on to item 16, which was a view significant agenda topic for the council's public information hearing at 6 p.m. on August 10th for the Broadway Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility bond vote.

Yep, so just a reminder that your next meeting is next Monday for that public hearing, and it starts at 6 p.m., not 6.30 p.m. And there's a time frame after it that I assume comes off, Jessie. There's a time frame after.

9.20 to 9.20.

Oh, that's when we thought we were going to be talking about this tonight. That time frame is the estimate.

Oh, us today. Oh, gotcha. Okay.

Okay.

And go on to the next one.

Sure. Go on to seven.

So we just separated these out because one is public hearing and one's your next regular council meeting on the 18th. That council meeting's agenda will be fairly up in the air based on a number of actions. So pending a bond vote on the 11th, we'll bring forward to you the documents required for approval of the financing of Bartlett Bay and also the approval of the order of the contract. As you may remember, the contractor is holding the bid price for us, so we need to move quickly following a bond vote if it is approved by the community and the will of the community. We will also, the chief bro will be bringing forward the quality of life ordinances that we probably need a different name for these are the ordinances he or the set of things he talked to you about at your June 1st meeting as we think about decriminalizing negative social behavior in our community but putting in place carrots to connect people with services so there'll be a whole series of this is not the amendments to the bike this doesn't include the bike stuff this does include some bike stuff some of the bike stuff yeah okay And then also, I think you remember coming out of March 11th and our experience with our emergency operations center. We've been going through the after action report process to modernize that center to make sure we're well equipped for the future. So we'll bring forward that report and a fund balance request for you.

Great. Thank you, Jesse.

You're welcome.

Any questions about that at all? No comments?

Item 18, any other business tonight? Just a quick one. Jesse, our meetings with Migrant Justice, there was going to be some after conversation. I'm wondering where the status of that is.

Yes. So I did look back into that. What I found is because we were using a Google document to trade documents, the staffs were using a Google document, it got sent to my Gmail account, which I do. So once we resurrected that, we've been trading a draft back and forth, and Julian will be issuing that shortly.

Okay, thank you.

I believe we have come to agreement on it.

And is that something that will be released publicly as a joint statement, or is it something that will come to Council?

I think it's something that will come to council. And then that's a good question. I think that's something that will come to council. And maybe the Elizabeth and Laurie and I can, the three of us who took part in that can talk about what we would want to do with it next.

Sounds great. I just want to make sure we got the follow up happening. Thank you.

Anything else? Okay. No other business? So now I need a motion to consider going to executive session.

I move that we... Two motions. Okay. I move that council make a specific finding that premature general public knowledge of the council's receipt of confidential attorney-client communications and discussion on the negotiating or securing of real estate purchase or lease options clearly place this public body at a substantial disadvantage. If passed. Motion 2. I now move that the City Council enter into executive. We need a second on the first motion before I can launch. Okay.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

I'm going to abstain.

I move now that the City Council enter into an executive session under 1VSA313A1F and A2 for the purpose of receiving confidential attorney-client communications and discussing the negotiating or securing of real estate purchase or lease options. Inviting Jesse Baker, Nicholas Starellicastro, I hope I got your name right, Paul Connor, Eric Getz, I speak a little Italian, so I sometimes pronounce the vowel. And call on McNeil into session with counsel for the discussion.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Abstain. So, Andrew, abstain for both of those motions, just so you know. All right. And we will not be coming back into session, so we'll be adjourned after that's completed. So thank you very much, everybody, for coming tonight. Are we going to stay here or go? Stay here.